2022-11-22 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 22 November 2022

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

BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 1 12:01 Mr L6B Bradfield FLETCHER (—) (): I seek leave to move the following motion: That this House notes that: (1) The Government introduced the 249 page Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill on 27 October and rushed it through the House forcing its passage on 10 November through the use of a gag motion which greatly curtailed debate; (2) the process was so rushed and chaotic that on 9 November the Government moved a further 34 pages of amendments; (3) the Bill would make radical changes to Australia's industrial relations system including: (a) abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission; (b) introducing compulsory multi-employer bargaining; (c) expanding the supported bargaining stream enabling businesses to be covered without their actual agreement; and (d) giving unions new powers including:          (i) forcing an employer to bargain for a replacement agreement, even if the employer and the majority of its employees do not wish to bargain; and          (ii) vetoing an agreement reached by an employer and a majority of its employees to remove themselves from coverage by an agreement; (4) the measures in the Bill, and the chaotic and rushed process, have been criticised by a wide range of stakeholders, including the Australian Industry Group, Business Council of Australia, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, Minerals Council of Australia, National Farmers Federation, Australian Retailers Association, Civic Contractors Federation, Australian Hotels Association, Housing Industry Association, Master Builders Australia, Franchise Council of Australia, Manufacturing and Clubs Australia; and (5) this Bill puts the narrow sectional interests of union bosses ahead of the interests of all Australians in a prosperous and harmonious society in which businesses of all sizes can grow and prosper, working in alignment with their employees, their suppliers, their shareholders and the broader community; and this House therefore calls on the Government to lay aside this damaging and ill-considered Bill. Leave not granted. The SPEAKER 53517 Manager of Opposition Business, before you speak, I note that it is an extremely long motion. Mr FLETCHER L6B I move: That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the Government introduced the 249 page Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 on 27 October and rushed it through the House forcing its passage on 10 November through the use of a gag motion which greatly curtailed debate; (b) the process was so rushed and chaotic that on 9 November the Government moved a further 34 pages of amendments; (c) the Bill would make radical changes to Australia's industrial relations system including: (i) abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission; (ii) introducing compulsory multi-employer bargaining; (iii) expanding the supported bargaining stream enabling businesses to be covered without their actual agreement; and (iv) giving unions new powers including: (A) forcing an employer to bargain for a replacement agreement, even if the employer and the majority of its employees do not wish to bargain; and (B) vetoing an agreement reached by an employer and a majority of its employees to remove themselves from coverage by an agreement; (d) the measures in the Bill, and the chaotic and rushed process, have been criticised by a wide range of stakeholders; and (e) this Bill puts the narrow sectional interests of union bosses ahead of the interests of all Australians in a prosperous and harmonious society in which businesses of all sizes can grow and prosper, working in alignment with their employees, their suppliers, their shareholders and the broader community; and (2) therefore calls on the Government to lay aside this damaging and ill-considered Bill. Standing orders must be suspended to debate this motion because if this bill is passed as the government proposes it will do real and immediate damage to our economy and in turn employment prospects all around Australia. Standing orders must be suspended so that this parliament can properly debate this important question, given that to date such proper debate and scrutiny has been repeatedly blocked by the government. The government gagged debate on the second reading, voting against the opposition's attempts to allow full and frank debate with support of the crossbench. The government gagged debate on amendments during the consideration-in-detail phase of the bill. The government voted against formation of a select committee inquiry into the bill. And the government rushed the Senate committee inquiry, which had just 22 days to conduct public hearings and report back to the Senate. The government's efforts to ram through this bill without engaging in proper negotiation and consultation with the opposition and other parties and with the business sector are a portent of what is to come for businesses across the country should this bill become law. Only a few short months ago the Prime Minister was trying to suggest to the Australian people that he was all about building consensus between employers and employees, but the government has now abandoned the facade of promoting unity in the workplace and instead has rushed to make extreme changes to the industrial relations framework. Standing orders must be suspended so that the House can debate this motion calling on the government to remove this damaging and ill-considered bill. This bill does nothing to increase productivity. The government has consistently said that the aim of this legislation is to get wages moving. Yet no evidence has been provided as to whether it will achieve that objective in relation to wages. What it will certainly do is drive up the cost of living to increased and industry-wide strike action. It will drive up the cost of construction, a very significant sector in our economy, through abolition of both the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission, handing building sites back into the hands of the militant and extremist CFMMEU. It will impose damaging union-driven imposts on businesses, including compulsory multi-employer bargaining, enabling businesses to be covered through bargaining without their actual agreement. It will give unions new powers, including forcing an employer to bargain for a replacement agreement even if the employer and a majority of its employees do not wish to bargain. It will give unions new powers to veto an agreement reached by an employer and a majority of that employer's employees to remove themselves from coverage by an agreement. This bill invites the big unions into the premises and operations of small businesses all around Australia. This bill is a covert effort to increase trade union membership under the guise of sustainable wage growth. Standing orders must be suspended because the chaotic process around this government's extreme industrial relations bill is making a bad situation worse. The minister has conspicuously failed to make himself available to explain publicly and in detail the very extensive changes he is making. He is not somebody who is normally shy, but he hasn't made himself available for detailed press conferences on this matter. And this bill, at 243 pages, was only introduced on 27 October—less than four weeks ago—and its passage through this House was forced just four sitting days later. Included within that was a further 34 pages of amendments, with the minister making no effort to explain them to the media at the time, let alone to members of this House. This chaotic and rushed process has been criticised not just by the opposition but by virtually every business stakeholder group and employer organisation. Manufacturing Australia said: 'Opportunities for consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of this substantial change to employment law have been entirely insufficient.' The Law Council of Australia said: The limited consultation period has constrained the Law Council's ability to engage at a detailed level with the legislative and explanatory materials. The National Retail Association said: … we hold grave concerns about the Government's attempts to rush these significant industrial relations reforms quickly through parliament without proper opportunity to scrutinise … Disability Intermediaries Australia said: … we are alarmed about the lack of consultation and potential unintended consequences of rushing reforms to Australia's workplace relations framework of this magnitude through … The Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia said: The Government has not developed the policy and associated bill in good faith and has done so largely behind closed doors. And, in a joint statement, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia, the confederation of small business organisations of Australia, the Minerals Council and the National Farmers Federation said: We jointly call on the Government to permit time for a thorough consideration of the content and implications of the Bill. It is urgent that standing orders be suspended to debate this because it is very clear that there is widespread disquiet across the economy about not only the content of this bill but the rushed and chaotic process which this government is adopting to seek to force it through the parliament. Those who have spoken out about aspects of this bill, about the process which has occurred, include the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Business Council of Australia, Manufacturing Australia, the National Retail Association, Master Builders Australia, the confederation of small business organisations of Australia, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Hotels Association, the Minerals Council, the National Farmers Federation, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia, the Master Grocers Association, the Australian Meat Industry Council, Laundry Association Australia, the Franchise Council of Australia, Print And Visual Communication Australia, the National Electrical And Communications Association, the Recruitment, Consulting and Staffing Association and leading businesses, including Qantas and Rio Tinto. There are significant elements of this bill which were not taken to the Australian people before the election. In fact, we see in this bill yet another example of a broken promise from the Labor Party and the Albanese Labor government. In fact, quite to the contrary of what is being done in this bill the government is seeking to ram through both this House and the other place, senior figures in the then opposition reassured Australians that the extreme measures in this bill were not something the Labor Party were contemplating. In November last year the now Treasurer was asked specifically if industry-wide bargaining was on the agenda, and the now Treasurer had this to say: 'It's not part of our policy.' This is a bill which has raised enormous disquiet across the economy all around Australia not just for its substance but for its shambolic and chaotic process. That is why it is urgent that standing orders be suspended. That is why it is urgent that we debate what this motion calls for: that the government should lay aside this damaging bill. The sentiments right across the economy go to the grave concerns that are held with this bill, and the government should abandon this effort. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the seconder, I just want to remind all members of what Practice says on page 297. The motion is in order, but it is close to the wind. Motions are not to be that long. Practice indicates: A motion to suspend standing orders has been ruled out of order on the grounds that it was unnecessarily long and not a concise proposition for determination by the House. I'm not going to detain the House but I want to advise members that there was a lot of argument and a lot of contentious debating points in that motion. Moving forward, I remind all members to remind themselves of page 297 of Practice so that the House will not be unnecessarily detained. Is the motion seconded? 12:14 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I second the motion, and I outline that Australian small and family businesses are simply not aware of the impacts of this bill. Why is that? Well, because this Labor government has not spoken to one small business about its impacts, particularly about industry-wide or patenting bargaining, as it was known during the upheaval of the 1970s and 1980s. It is a throwback for Australian industrial relations laws and it risks our economy to industry-wide strikes and sympathy strikes by other industries. In question time yesterday the Minister for Small Business was asked to name just one small business that this Labor government has spoken to that supports this bill. She wasn't asked about a peak body or a representative group like COSBOA or the ombudsman, but an actual small business that this minister has consulted with. The minister ducked and weaved, did the dance with her one-minute answer and avoided responding to the question. Coming to her aid was not only the minister for industrial relations—who has now existed the chamber—who tried to answer the question for her, but also the Minister for Social Services, who yelled out across the chamber that certain large supermarket chains have been consulted. It's a joke. I have a news flash for those opposite: large supermarket chains are not small businesses. The Minister for Small Business is supposed to be looking out for small business. She is supposed to be their champion, but of course she can't be their champion, because the Australian Labor Party despises small and family business. The Labor Party look out for union bosses who put them there, not small businesses who create jobs for Australians and livelihoods for families. They want to break the small and family business model. Those opposite are ramming through this legislation that will break the small business model. This bill is 243 pages long and has been rushed with a chaotic process, such that on 9 November the government moved a further 34 pages of their own— Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 On a point of order, the motion before the House is on a suspension of standing sessional orders and the member is yet to refer to that fact. The SPEAKER 53517 The member is in order. I give her the call. Ms BELL 282981 [inaudible] orders need to be suspended. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much—I have the call now—to those opposite. There are over 150 amendments—150 amendments to their own bill! It's a laugh. It's a joke. It's pretty obvious that it's deeply, deeply flawed. There's a long list of organisations who don't support this: the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Council of Small Business Organisations, the Minerals Council, the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Retailers Association, the National Retail Association, the Civil Contractors Federation. And I will add my two local chambers of commerce to that, thanks very much. Through this bill the government wants to make radical changes to industrial relations in our country with no mandate. There was no mandate before the election. This was not taken to the election for the Australian people to decide on. The abolishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission simply gets Labor off the leash with no watchdog to rein in their bad behaviour. When Labor last abolished the ABCC two-thirds of working days lost to industrial action were in the construction industry, and the average rate of industrial action was nearly five times the average of every other industry. It caused the rate of disputes in the construction sector to be increased by 46 per cent, compared with a 31 per cent decline across all other industries. Australians might remember that schools and hospitals cost taxpayers up to 30 per cent more, because of the huge amount of working days lost due to industrial action on building sites. Further, the role of the Registered Organisations Commission is also crucial to ensure that their organisations and their officers are accountable to their members. We've had more than 30 years of prosperity and stability under enterprise bargaining in this country and Labor want to upend all of that into chaos with the reintroduction of compulsory multi-employer bargaining. The Productivity Commission's recent interim report warned that a hit to productivity and wages and conditions is set for a group of firms in one-size-fits-all approach to business practices. It's just not good enough. This bill is bad for the economy, it's bad for employers, it's bad for Australian families and it's bad for small Australian businesses. We call on the Labor government to withdraw this bill. 12:19 Mr BURKE DYW Watson First of all, we're obviously opposed to suspending standing orders and we're surprised they've done this immediately before a ministerial statement on Northern Australia. I'm surprised that they have actually decided that the Northern Australia debate isn't the one they want to have. I am also quite astonished, just in terms of the tactics of those opposite, that they've waited until the bill is no longer before the House before they come in here to suspend standing orders to prevent the House from dealing with the bill. The bill's not here. It's gone. There's a red room on the other side of the water feature in the middle there, and that's where the bill has gone to. Had this suspension been moved while the bill was here—we still would have opposed it, but procedurally I would have somehow understood what they were trying to do. But now we're being asked, as a house, to lay aside a piece of legislation that ain't here. It's not here. It's just not here. In the same way as when I was accused of being outside the room and I was here, the members opposite are saying that we need to 'do something about the bill that's in the House' except it isn't. It simply isn't here. That's not the only detail that they're getting wrong, but I just want to start with this point: they went through all the things where they said, 'It's bad for this, it's bad for that,' but they never once said it was bad for people needing a pay rise. Even within their own rhetoric they know, deep down, that this legislation will get wages moving. And it's the fact that they know that that they oppose it so vehemently. You only had to look at Senator Birmingham's interview on Insiders on the weekend. He was asked by David Speers, 'What do you need to do to get wages moving?' He said you needed to do all the things that they were doing as the previous government. Well that was when wages were stagnant. What they have asked for is for exactly that approach to continue. We've seen that wages won't move unless we change the law. It is a simple fact. And it's not surprising that whenever you try to get wages moving you will have a good number of industry groups, who are paid to represent their members, argue, 'We'd rather do this more slowly.' I get it. This legislation does mean that wages budgets will be higher, it does mean that, but it's off the back of wages hardly moving for a decade—in fact, to the point where, right now, workers are worse off than they were 10 years ago in real terms. Now, those opposite—I've seen the MPI for later today; they're wanting to talk about the cost of living. How do you deal with the cost of living if wages are going backwards? How do you deal with the cost of living if wages are not moving for people—in fact, if real wages are going backwards? This is why those opposite have no credibility when it comes to arguing anything about cost of living when their determination is to prevent wages from moving. I'm also amused with their whole argument about somehow all this is rushed. I know what it looks like when legislation is rushed. I remember ministers from the previous government coming in here with legislation and it going through that day. They would even come in without a copy for every member of the parliament to be able to read the legislation, and it would go through the House that day. If anyone opposite wants to indicate that they were denied a chance to speak in the debate on the bill, I'd really like them to indicate. I was up here, right up until the final moment, and no-one else rose to speak. That's when I gave the right-of-reply. No-one was denied a chance to speak in the House, no-one. Not one person was denied a chance to speak in the House. Not one. Mr Fletcher L6B For five minutes. Mr BURKE DYW The Manager of Opposition Business says, 'Well it wasn't long enough.' When the bills used to be introduced here to go through that day, no-one other than the minister made a speech. It's not a situation where you're members of parliament in the seventies and eighties and standing up and speaking. And in terms of the Senate committee process that has been continuing today, there has not been an industrial relations or workplace relations law in the last 10 years which has had more days of Senate hearings than this one—not one. So they're wanting to claim that the process is outrageous, and they're wanting to claim that things are somehow rushed. But, in terms of the debate here, not one member has been denied the chance to speak. In terms of the processes that are going on in the Senate, there have been more committee hearing days than for any other bill in this portfolio for the last decade. In terms of consultation with stakeholders, there have been meetings with the BCA, with ACCI, with the Ai Group, with COSBOA, on multiple occasions—yes, as well as with the ACTU. The vast majority of meetings have been with business organisations, including single-interest business groups: Clubs Australia, Master Builders, National Farmers Federation, ARIA, the Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association, HVAC—the manufacturing installation association. They're the business group, by the way, that install, in large buildings, the air-conditioning and ventilation services. They're one of the businesses that have been crying out for multi-employer bargaining to occur. Why? Because they're against the race to the bottom in wages. They're against the race to the bottom, which is exactly what those opposite are so eager to defend. You don't get wages moving if, every time an employer comes forward doing the right thing and paying a higher rate, they get undercut and lose their business. I'll tell you: I am all for competition in the market, but I want that competition to be on better quality, I want that competition to be on better trained staff, and I want that competition to be on the different brands and different ways that people market themselves. I don't want the competition in Australia to be on the race to the bottom on wages. If you refuse to have systems that work for multi-employer bargaining—and at the moment multi-employer bargaining is already in the act, but it doesn't work. It's a complete failure, for the simple reason that it's been so complex, so difficult to get into, that businesses have not been able to effectively use it. Those opposite, if it's about environmental protection or about consumer protection, will talk about red tape. They'll talk about all the difficulties with complexity. But, when it comes to a system about getting wages moving, they love red tape. They want as much red tape as they can possibly have. They want to make sure that every barrier is put in the way of people getting their wages moving. When inflation is looking at reaching eight per cent and wages have moved a bit but are still at 3.1, people are going backwards every day. When the pressure starts to come off inflation, you want that crossover point for wages to start getting in front so that people can start getting in front again in a way that was denied to them for a decade. Be in no doubt about what this motion calls for. (1) What it calls for is a bit impossible, because the bill's not here, but let's just humour those opposite for a minute and just pretend that this is possible to do. It says that 10 years of keeping wages low wasn't long enough. That's their view. They had 10 years of holding back wages and it just wasn't long enough for them. And what they're saying now is, 'Can't we just have a few more months?' What do you reckon they'll say in February? It will be 'a few months more'; it will be 'a little bit longer'. They'll say, 'These business groups oppose it.' Well, I tell you what, I say to those opposite: can you name the worker who doesn't need for their pay to go up? Name the workers who are not affected by inflation. Name the workers who are not affected by what's happening to their mortgage or by what's happening to their rent. Name the workers who are not affected by these price increases. We need to get wages moving, and we're opposed to the motion. The SPEAKER 53517 The time for this debate has concluded. The question is that the motion be disagreed to. In accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. The debate on this item is therefore adjourned until that time. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 6 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Northern Australia 6 12:29 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand by leave—I have one or two opinions on what has just happened this afternoon in the chamber, but, in the interests of the communities and people of northern Australia, I won't make any further comment on it. Opening remarks I rise today to make the annual statement on northern Australia. Acknowledgements I want to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land we are on today and pay my respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, their elders past and present. I extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here today as well as all traditional owners across northern Australia. I also reaffirm the government's commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and our commitment to deliver on its recommendations in full. I acknowledge the member for Maranoa and the Leader of the Nationals as the former Minister for Northern Australia and also Senator Susan McDonald as the shadow minister for northern Australia. Bipartisan support for the north's development is vital for enduring success. I also want to recognise those members of this place that represent the electorates across northern Australia: in Western Australia, the member for Durack, on the northern edge of the member for O'Connor's seat; in the Northern Territory, the member for Solomon and the member for Lingiari; and in Queensland, the Members for Leichhardt, Kennedy, Herbert, Dawson, Capricornia and Flynn. These members, as well as all the Senators from across three states, represent the people of Northern Australia. Most of these seats cover vast distances and encounter many challenges, and I want to thank each of these representatives for their commitment to their communities and to recognise the ambition we all hold for the great vast north of this nation. Finally, I would like to acknowledge key partners in developing Northern Australia. Some of them are in the Speaker's Gallery today, and I'm sorry for the delay. These include members of the Northern Australia Indigenous Reference Group led by Chair Colin Saltmere, along with Jerome Cubillo, Troy Fraser, Tara Craigie and Gillian Mailman. Cara Peek and Peter Jefferies, sadly, could not make it today. I want to thank all IRG members for their commitment. I also acknowledge the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Chair Tracey Hayes and Chief Executive Officer Craig Doyle and officials from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, as well as Chief Executive Officer of the Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia, Anne Stünzner, Chief Scientist Allan Dale, and General Manager Carla Keith. In this, the seventh annual statement, and my first as minister, I would like to reaffirm this government's commitment to the north. This is a commitment to the people of northern Australia and a commitment to delivering sustainable and resilient growth across the north for decades to come. This government intends to deliver a collaborative agenda for liveable, safe, sustainable and healthy communities. It will empower First Nations Australians to be partners and advisors in the development of some of the most significant resource and renewable energy projects Australia has ever seen. The northern Australia agenda presents us with one of the most significant opportunities to increase our national productivity and living standards in decades. It will drive our decarbonised future. It will position Australia as a renewable energy superpower—at the same time as delivering transformative prosperity and opportunity for communities in the north. This is about a just economy where fairness and prosperity go hand in hand. We have a responsibility to improve the lives of those living in our northern communities and to support them to take advantage of tremendous opportunities for nationally significant growth. The people of northern Australia are as remarkable and as resilient as the landscape and environment in which they live. It is a region that also presents significant challenges for policymakers. Among them are vast distances, a dispersed population, thin markets and economies of scale that don't always lend themselves to traditional modelling. Significant and sometimes unique challenges require policy responses that are thoughtful and fit for purpose. Responses that might work well in other regions of Australia will not necessarily be the best fit for the north. While the north might be challenging, it also presents unique opportunities. The north offers a young, diverse and multicultural population, a rich First Nations culture, truly unique world-class visitor experiences, suitable climates for forestry, aquaculture and agriculture, as well as globally significant critical mineral reserves and renewable energy sources to drive the development of Australia's future net-zero economy. Working together: First Nations people and the ministerial forum Close collaboration between stakeholders and decision-makers sits at the heart of our government's approach. Northern Australia's First Nations people are key partners in our vision for the north. Their knowledge, built on tens of thousands of years of traditional custodianship, is informing our policies across a range of portfolios. From cultural conservation, land and ecological management, biosecurity surveillance, culturally appropriate health and housing, to community and justice solutions. In July, I joined an official meeting of the Northern Australia Indigenous Reference Group in Mackay, on Yuwibara country. The passion and dedication of its members, and the expertise and experience they bring to contemporary policymaking is deeply impressive and I thank each one of them for their commitment and service. The Northern Australia Indigenous Reference Group ensures our First Nations have a strong voice in the northern Australia policy. And the group is already making a significant contribution. The Indigenous reference group has worked to identify how localised business support, individualised workforce development and connectivity are vital for First Nations businesses and communities to prosper in northern Australia. I look forward to continuing to work with the IRG, and collaborating with my colleague the Minister for Indigenous Australians to ensure First Australians benefit from ongoing development across northern Australia. This government is committed to the north, its people and its prosperity. That is why one of my first actions as Minister for Northern Australia was to re-establish the Northern Australia Ministerial Forum. The ministerial forum met for the first time since 2019 at the end of October in Darwin, on Larrakia country. The forum brought together my state colleagues—Queensland minister for regional development Glenn Butcher, Western Australian Minister for Regional Development Alannah MacTiernan, and Northern Territory Minister for Northern Australia and Trade Nicole Manison. During the meeting, my colleagues and I agreed to a range of priorities to diversify and strengthen the north's economy and support our people. These priorities are grouped around the important themes of human capital, enabling infrastructure, and economic development and diversification. It was the first collective meeting of portfolio ministers representing northern jurisdictions since 2019 and I want to thank its members for their positive and collaborative approach. Development of sustainable industries In May, Australians voted for a change of government. A government that is taking real action on climate change. Australia now has legislated targets of 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050, and northern Australia will play a key role in getting there. Critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, rare earths, platinum and silicon are the foundation for most, if not all, clean energy technologies such as electric vehicles, batteries and solar panels. Northern Australia's substantial deposits of these critical minerals combined with the incredible global demand for them provides an exceptional opportunity for northern Australia. Those resources will play a crucial role in helping both Australia and the world achieve our net zero commitments. An example of how this government is assisting in developing the new resources economy in the north is in my home state of Western Australia. Our government is investing $250 million into the expansion of the existing Pilgan Plant, at which Pilbara Minerals produces spodumene concentrate—a key raw material for lithium-ion batteries. This support consists of a $125 million loan from each of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) and Export Finance Australia. This project is aligned with the government's resolve to develop northern Australia, grow our world-class critical minerals sector, diversify global supply chains, and meet growing demand for batteries, electric vehicles and clean energy technology. Housing and skills development Our nation needs people, skills, and opportunities for people to have rewarding careers. We know that the attraction and retention of skilled workers remains a challenge in the north, as does employing seasonal workforces, particularly for the agricultural, hospitality and tourism sectors. Digital connectivity enables our existing and emerging industries to thrive, and builds resilience to future natural, economic and social disruptions. Our investments into modern, high-quality digital connectivity are addressing the challenges of geography such as remoteness and low-density population. Regions with extractive industries are also highly reliant on fly-in fly-out workforces, and there is a flow-on effect for community livability and access to amenities. Through our new Growing Regions; Precincts and Partnerships; and Priority Community Infrastructure programs our government is working with states and local councils to invest in place based projects that transform regional centres across Australia. These are matters that this government is tackling head-on. Our government's Jobs and Skills Summit in September explored ways to address these workforce issues on a national level. One of the most pressing issues raised in the jobs and skills roundtables I hosted was access to suitable and affordable housing. In response, our first budget in October made a substantial investment in northern Australia to help build livability and tackle housing issues. Among the investments was $100 million to Northern Territory homelands and remote housing. In addition to addressing the issue of housing, we will also place particular importance on social infrastructure that can benefit communities directly. It is all too common that social infrastructure taken for granted in our metropolitan areas and larger regional centres is not available in communities in the north. This is simply not fair. Government support for the north should not be limited to resources and agriculture based proposals, but must look further afield to smaller projects that create social infrastructure for the benefit of the wider community. Ideas for these social infrastructure projects should come from communities in the north themselves and not be imposed on them from Canberra. The NAIF The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility plays a significant role in supporting the government's regional and northern Australia agendas, including our ambitions on climate, investing in manufacturing and renewables to create more local jobs, and achieving better outcomes for First Nations peoples. The NAIF is financing infrastructure development, with $3.9 billion in loans approved for projects to date, $2.6 billion of which is now contractually committed. These investments are forecast to generate around $29 billion in economic benefit and support more than 14,800 jobs. I am pleased that in our first budget last month this government confirmed an additional $2 billion investment into the NAIF. This will ensure we can continue to grow the pipeline of investment into northern economies and boost local employment opportunities. Budget This government's first budget in October saw many new investments benefiting northern Australia including: In Western Australia: Over $430 million to the Tanami Road Freight Highway Upgrade Program in WA; $565 million for common-user port facilities in the Pilbara in WA; Up to $70 million for the Pilbara Hydrogen Hub. In Queensland: $150 million for the Cairns Marine Precinct and $50 million for the Central Queensland University Cairns campus in Queensland; $79.1 million for the Townsville Hydrogen Hub; $188 million for the Great Barrier Reef; $400 million for Queensland beef corridors which will upgrade road infrastructure on the Dawson, Burnett and Leichhardt Highways. In the Northern Territory: $1.5 billionin planned equity for the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct in the NT; $80 million for the National Aboriginal Art Gallery in Alice Springs to establish a world-leading facility displaying Australia's most significant First Nations artists; and $19 million to First Nations health infrastructure in Central Australia. This is just a snapshot of what will be happening in the north. A recurring issue that is raised everywhere I travel in northern Australia is connectivity. There is a significant digital divide in this country and Northern Australia is on the wrong side of it. Inadequate NBN and community wireless services are holding back innovation and community connection in the north. To address this, this government has committed $656 million through the Better Connectivity Plan for Regional and Rural Australia package to help make sure people in the north get the same access to digital services as those enjoyed by the big cities in the south. CRCNA I would also like to acknowledge the work of the Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia. Their core business is with industry-led research and development projects which resolve industry challenges and enable the sustainable economic development of northern Australia. In the five years since the CRCNA was established it has invested in 75 projects and I thank them for the important work they have done and continue to do. In summary Since being sworn in as minister, I have visited and met stakeholders right across the north, and I've been honoured to meet outstanding northern Australians committed to their communities. And to demonstrate its commitment to northern Australia, this government held its first cabinet meeting outside of Canberra in the north, at Gladstone in Queensland in June. As the Minister for Northern Australia, it is my ambition that northern Australians should be able to enjoy opportunities, services and a quality of life as good as, or even better than, anywhere in Australia. Most people in Northern Australia would not swap their lifestyle for the world. But many rightly worry that their communities are being left behind, as much of the prosperity generated in the north is seen to provide a much greater benefit to the big cities and towns in the south. It is our responsibility to ensure that policies are developed and implemented to deliver the north the opportunities and prosperity it deserves, and to support the great ambitions of those pioneers of northern Australia that have long recognised the economic potential of this vast region. Strengthening our north strengthens Australia as a whole. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Minister, did you want to present a copy of your ministerial statement? Ms 102376 I present a copy of the statement. 12:44 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I firstly acknowledge the minister and congratulate her on her first ministerial statement on northern Australia. Northern Australia is a remarkable, resilient and dynamic part of our nation. One thing that really stands out is its sheer size. Going along that dividing line between Carnarvon in WA, across the Northern Territory, and extending to Gladstone in Central Queensland, Northern Australia is 53 per cent of our landmass yet is home to only five per cent of our people. Despite a small population, the north has always punched well above its weight. In agriculture alone, the numbers speak for themselves. With 12.5 million beef cattle, this region makes up 64 per cent of the national beef herd and 90 per cent of our live cattle exports. It also produces more than 95 per cent of our sugar, 94 per cent of our bananas and 93 per cent of our mangoes. This is a region that deserves investment. It deserves its fair share of infrastructure and deserves every opportunity to grow into the future. Every dollar of funding that goes into northern Australia goes towards building our entire nation. When we reflect on the achievements of the federal coalition government during our time in office, what we did for northern Australia was among the most significant of those. With the change of government, it's worth reflecting on what was achieved, and so, on behalf of the coalition, I want to recognise and express our sincere thanks to the former ministers Keith Pitt, Barnaby Joyce, Senator Matt Canavan and Josh Frydenberg, as well as the former assistant minister Michelle Landry and former special envoy Senator Susan McDonald, who all served with distinction and have left a huge legacy in this part of Australia that they should be very proud of. I also want to recognise our partners in this portfolio who contributed so much: the Indigenous Reference Group, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and the Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia. Thank you for all of your knowledge and your guidance. In government, the federal coalition made growing northern Australia its priority. We were able to deliver a nation-building future for this vast region that was underpinned by more jobs, new economic opportunities and better essential services. The north was an essential part of our record 10-year $120 billion infrastructure pipeline. The north was at the heart of our national plan to create 450,000 jobs in regional Australia over the next five years. By securing enormous amounts of federal investment, we were capitalising on the north's competitive advantages to grow agriculture, resources, critical minerals, energy, defence, manufacturing and tourism. It's as simple as this: the coalition's plan, vision and track record of delivering for northern Australia were rock-solid, and it was making a real difference. Our government cut taxes for workers and small businesses, making it easier for them to operate. We funded almost $3.5 billion worth of major projects through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. We invested in major road upgrades to the Outback Way, Central Arnhem Road, Bruce Highway, beef roads and Great Northern Highway. We established the Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia, which is headquartered in Townsville and will plan future investments in the north. We also invested in more accessible rural and remote health services, upgraded defence facilities and created an Indigenous procurement policy, through which $5.3 billion flowed to more than 2,100 Indigenous businesses. During our time in office, the coalition was delivering on our plan to turbocharge the north by unlocking the incredible potential that it offers. This plan for a stronger northern Australia was built on the white paper we released in 2015, with major investments including delivering $2.6 billion to develop the Northern Territory into an industrial energy powerhouse, which included major upgrades at Middle Arm and Tanami Road. Our government had committed $9.3 million to develop master plans to accelerate regions of growth to strengthen the northern Australian economy. These master plans will deliver a 20-year blueprint for economic development, with the first three master plans focusing on: the Beetaloo basin to Katherine to Darwin; Mt Isa to Townsville; and Broome to Kununurra to Darwin. Building on this strategic framework, the next priority region growth corridor was Cairns to Gladstone. We were growing Australia's food bowl, with $1.7 billion locked-in to expand irrigated agriculture in Central and northern Australia, providing food security not just for Australia but also for our export markets. There was $1.5 billion to transform the Pilbara into a major energy hub. We made commitments of $678 million to seal a further thousand kilometres of the Outback Way, linking Winton in Queensland with Laverton in Western Australia. We were rolling out the Our North, Our Future initiative, which included $111.9 million for the Northern Australia Development Program to support business grants. Northern Australia is crucial to the health of our biosecurity, and this was always a priority of our government. We had made more than $1 billion available for biosecurity and export programs in the 2023 budget, and during the election we committed more than $61 million to boost our northern biosecurity frontline. Under the Modern Manufacturing Strategy our government was partnering with 19 manufacturers in the north by providing over $160 million in grants to projects valued at $900 million, which was expected to create thousands of jobs. In terms of boosting regional communications, the coalition had committed $157 million to improve mobile and broadband connectivity in northern Australia, which is in addition to the $380 million delivered under the Mobile Black Spot Program that funded more than 1,200 mobile base stations in regional, rural and remote locations around the nation. The north is rich in resources, and as a coalition we'll always support this sector to reach its potential. We invested over $2.5 billion to support the development of our critical minerals sector through targeted loans, research and development and regional grants to accelerate projects across Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland. We committed to the Beetaloo basin, with over $224 million of investments to secure development of this strategic gas basin in the heart of northern Australia. This project will create jobs, wealth and investment in local communities in the Northern Territory, further supporting our regions. Further to this we continue to develop our offshore gas potential, supporting investments like the Scarborough and Barossa projects, which provide hundreds of secure, long-term jobs for Western Australia, and the Barossa-Darwin LNG extension, securing production in Darwin for the next 20 years. We know that securing private investment is essential to securing the future of northern Australia. That's why the coalition established the groundbreaking Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, or NAIF. By the time we left office the NAIF had supported more than 32 investments, worth almost $3.5 billion, which are expected to generate an economic benefit of $25 billion and create over 13,000 jobs. In January this year our government was pleased to announce an extra $2 billion for the NAIF in response to the strong demand for its investment, taking it to $7 billion. The transformative projects which the NAIF is supporting include: $150 million for the expansion upgrades to Darwin, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs airports; $300 million to expand Darwin Harbour, including a new ship lift facility; and $175 million to Pembroke Resources to develop the Olive Downs Coking Coal Complex, a large steelmaking coalmine in the Bowen basin. There was $50 million to redevelop the Townsville Airport terminal. For regional universities, there was: $142 million for James Cook University to establish a technology innovation complex and student accommodation; more than $150 million for the new Charles Darwin University city campus and upgrades for the Casuarina campus; and $76 million for northern campus upgrades to Central Queensland University. It's clear why the NAIF has been an integral part of the coalition's vision for building northern Australia. While we welcome the fact that the government will be keeping the NAIF operating, their introduction of legislation to require the NAIF to take into consideration projects' contributions to meeting Australia's emissions reduction targets is deeply concerning and has the capacity to hold up crucial nation-building projects in the north. In office the coalition was getting on with the job of building the dams and water infrastructure that Australia needs for its future. Indeed, many of these essential projects are located in the north. However, in line with their entire approach to regional Australia, this government has chosen to decimate crucial water infrastructure in the bush by ripping them out of the budget entirely, or just kicking them down the road. Our commitment to the National Water Grid Fund was $8.9 billion because we understand the importance of this resource. That's why the coalition was proud to commit $5.4 billion to Hells Gate Dam in Queensland. This would have generated economic growth across the whole region, opened up new agricultural export opportunities and locked in long-term water security. Instead, the government will scrap it. The coalition was proud to commit $483 million for the Urannah Dam. This too will be scrapped by the government. It's a devastating blow to these communities in Central Queensland. Not content with ripping out dam projects for the north, the government has also decided to tear up the dedicated agriculture visa. Australia is 172,000 workers short from paddock to plate. The ag visa was a reform that the coalition secured not only to give our farmers access to a sustainable workforce; it would also have brought in the next generation of migrant workers to help build regional Australia, particularly in the north. When it comes to a workforce for farmers, the government needs to understand that the PALM scheme, by itself, isn't going to do the job. In addition to these appalling actions, the government needs to explain to the beef cattle farmers of northern Australia how more they'll pay for Labor's decision to break their election promise and sign up to the Global Methane Pledge. In fact, their budget includes $80.7 million to support voluntary action by farmers to lower methane emissions. This plan doesn't stack up. This plan will force farmers to buy more-expensive food for their cattle, making farming more expensive. The result will be an increase in meat prices, which will push up food bills for families around Australia. Actions like these are neither what the people of northern Australia want nor deserve. The previous coalition government fought hard to deliver the tremendous amount of federal funding into building critical infrastructure in the north. One such initiative was the Building Better Regions Fund, which delivered $256 million into community projects in northern Australia, including $10 million for the Rockhampton Art Gallery, $9.7 million for the redevelopment of the Royal Flying Doctor Service base in Mount Isa, $6 million to upgrade the Cable Beach foreshore in Broome, and $3.6 million for the Tiwi Islands Welcome Centre. In handing down its October budget, the government scrapped the BBRF. The government's cuts and delays to infrastructure in regional Australia amount to billions of dollars, and northern Australia will feel the impacts of this. The $7.2 billion Energy Security and Regional Development Plan has been gutted. The coalition committed $800 million to build the Rockhampton Ring Road. Now this Labor government has thrown it into delay and uncertainty. Those opposite need to recognise how important this project is to Central Queensland. Each day, 2,600 trucks pass through Rockhampton during peak traffic times. Local industry leaders have already invested heavily in both equipment and staff in preparation for the project to start early next year. They are outraged by this decision. This approach is in stark contrast to our track record. In the north, it was a coalition government who delivered $1.9 billion for the Roads of Strategic Importance Initiative, committed an extra $678 million for Outback Way and secured $300 million under the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program. It was our government who invested over $10 billion for the Bruce Highway upgrade program, including $397.9 million for the Mackay Ring Road and $184 million for the Townsville Ring Road stage 5. To conclude my statement, I want to reaffirm just how proud we as a coalition are on this side of the House about what we achieved in northern Australia during our time in government. All the funding, all the infrastructure, all the projects, all the investment, all the hard work—we put northern Australia front and centre of our efforts to build our nation and secure Australia's future. The 1.3 million Australians who live in this part of the country can be assured that we will hold this government to account for their cuts, their delays and the real consequences that these decisions will have across the north. BUSINESS 11 BUSINESS Rearrangement 11 12:57 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I move: That consideration of government business notice No. 1, relating to the suspension of standing and sessional orders, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 12 BILLS National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022 12

National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022

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

Second Reading 12 12:58 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra The coalition supports the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It was a coalition government that introduced Australia's first anticorruption commission, over 30 years ago in New South Wales. At the last two elections, the coalition went to the election promising an anticorruption commission. The coalition developed a model for a Commonwealth integrity commission which was subject to a lengthy process of public consultation. Let me be clear. Corruption is wrong. It's corrosive of public trust. It undermines the very public confidence on which all our institutions depend. The public should know that those who break the law should face the consequences and that standards in public office should be high. The passage of bills to establish this commission means that every jurisdiction in Australia will have an anticorruption commission. In participating in this debate, the coalition has sought to draw on the over 30 years of Australian experience of corruption commissions to make sure that this commission is effective and has appropriate safeguards built in. Anticorruption commissions have extraordinary powers to deal with corruption, a civil wrong—more powers than the police have in investigating crimes of murder or terrorism. While we have zero tolerance for corruption, we must also recognise that, such is the opprobrium of being associated with corruption, even being a witness for an anticorruption commission can ruin reputations which have taken a lifetime to build. At the state level, commissions have overstepped their powers. They've had findings overturned on appeal. In some cases they've been long on shaming and short on successful prosecutions. The context in which this commission is being established is different to the context under which the ICAC in New South Wales—the first corruption commission—was established. In introducing the ICAC in New South Wales, Premier Nick Greiner noted the events that had led to the establishment of that commission: In recent years, in New South Wales we have seen: a Minister of the Crown gaoled for bribery; an inquiry into a second, and indeed a third, former Minister for alleged corruption; the former Chief Stipendiary Magistrate gaoled for perverting the course of justice; a former Commissioner of Police in the courts on a criminal charge; the former Deputy Commissioner of Police charged with bribery; a series of investigations and court cases involving judicial figures including a High Court Judge; and a disturbing number of dismissals, retirements and convictions of senior police officers for offences involving corrupt conduct. Even on the most malevolent view, the situation at the Commonwealth level today is very different to New South Wales in 1988 or the situation which preceded the Fitzgerald inquiry, which led to the establishment of a commission in Queensland. What is similar is a decline in public confidence in our institutions. The OECD's latest trust survey in government found that only 51.9 per cent of Australians answered yes to the question, 'In this country, do you have confidence in the national government?' Australia is by no means alone in grappling with this decline in trust. Other nations have fared worse: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Spain, Italy and Korea. While declining trust in institutions, particularly governments, is a global phenomenon, it's one we can't ignore here in Australia. The 2019 Australian election study found that only 59 per cent of Australians are satisfied with how democracy is working. Professor Ian McAllister said: 'In one of the most worrying findings from our study, a little over one in 10 Australians, or 12 per cent, believe the government is run for all the people. In contrast, more than half, 56 per cent, say government is run for a few big interests.' Public institutions only work because of trust. As Disraeli said: All power is a trust; that we are accountable for its exercise; that from the people and for the people all springs, and all must exist. Anticorruption commissions are not a cure-all for the decline in public confidence in our institutions, but they are seen by the public as a necessary mechanism to hold governments and public officials to account. Australia is one of the six oldest continuous democracies in the world. The parliament is full of people on all sides with conviction, a willingness to serve and a commitment to the common good—people who disagree in debate but are seeking the best outcomes for our nation. The adversarial nature of this place enables us to hold one other to account in meaningful and important ways, and the processes of the parliament help us improve our lawmaking; question time, Senate estimates and the level of media scrutiny applied to this place are all an important part of that. But we cannot deny that for many in the public there is genuine concern that the mechanisms for accountability built into the procedures and processes of parliament are not enough. The bipartisan support for this bill is a statement to the Australian people and a response to their desire to see another mechanism in place to hold public officials to account. There has never been a dispute from the side of the House about the importance of integrity. The Labor Party have tried to paint their support for this bill as evidence that they are white knights on integrity, but their actions show this is not the case. In the same week the parliament is debating this bill, it is also debating bills to abolish integrity institutions in the workplace—the Registered Organisations Commission and the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Since coming to government Labor has sought to wind back transparency measures for its three big donors—big unions, big super and big class-action litigation funders. It's extraordinary to me that the CFMMEU and the ACTU have complained about the same powers in relation to the Australian Building and Construction Commission that the ACTU and the CPSU have supported in relation to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Even the process for this bill indicates Labor is no white knight. For nine years we've heard the Labor Party lecturing the coalition about the need for proper parliamentary processes and scrutiny in dealing with important bills. So it's been extraordinary that for this bill, one which deals with integrity, the government is more concerned with meeting an artificial deadline than giving the bill the scrutiny it deserves. Unlike the Commonwealth Integrity Commission, this bill was never subject to an exposure draft process. People making submissions to the committee examining the bill had little more than a week to produce their submissions, and the committee held only four days of public hearings. This was an extraordinarily truncated time line, given the wide-ranging powers given to the commission and the fact that this is such a significant and new institution. It's been extraordinary to see the cheer squad for this bill both in the parliament and beyond, with organisations one usually associates with more scrutiny and safeguards going along with and supporting rushed processes, less scrutiny and fewer safeguards. The bloodlust among some who should know better has been disappointing. By contrast, I want to note the very thoughtful submissions and contributions by a range of bodies, particularly: the Law Council of Australia; the Queensland Law Society; the South Australian Bar Association; the Australian Human Rights Commission; the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties; the Victorian inspector; the former National Security Legislation Monitor; Bruce McClintock, who's been inspector in New South Wales and is now inspector in the Northern Territory; and the Australian Psychological Society. These bodies have analysed the experience of these commissions at the state level and provided helpful and detailed analysis of the bill, despite the absurd time lines the government gave them. The coalition and organisations arguing for more safeguards do not seek to hamper the work of the NACC but to make it more robust and accountable and to ensure that it's a body that is beyond reproach. In considering our position on the bill, I've met not only former commissioners and advocates for this bill but also people whose lives and careers have been ruined by their appearances at one of the state commissions. I've also met people who've been bereaved by suicide because of the action of the state commissions. As someone who has been bereaved by suicide myself, I never want to see another Australian family go through that experience, and that's also influenced my approach to the commission. I want to thank all those people for their work, which has influenced our thinking about the amendments we seek to bring forward. Let me reiterate: the coalition supports the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The government has the balance right on several matters, but there's further work to do. We believe that the government's bill would be improved by adopting the bipartisan recommendations of the joint select committee and by some additional measures that are needed. We intend to bring forward amendments in the consideration-in-detail phase to deal with these measures. Our amendments are designed to implement safeguards to ensure that the bill gets the balance right. The National Anti-Corruption Commission has a very broad scope. It applies to parliamentarians and their staff and to every Canberra public servant. It also applies to our Defence Force, the Australian Federal Police, our diplomats in embassies around the world and every cook, cleaner, gardener, Comcar driver, contractor or subcontractor the Commonwealth engages with. It applies to almost every person exercising power under a law of the Commonwealth: pharmacists, NDIS workers, aged-care workers and Indigenous rangers. One of my colleagues estimated that probably around a million Australians are brought within the reach of this commission. But there's one group of people who are specifically carved out of the application of the commission, and that is union officials exercising a power under a law of the Commonwealth. The carve out for union officials exercising a power under a law of the Commonwealth in sections 12 and 14 undermines the character of the commission as an integrity commission, and we seek to have that carve out removed. The government has been cagey about the carve out. There's no explanation for it in the explanatory memorandum. When questioned, the Attorney-General's Department could not give a satisfactory answer on the reasons for the exemptions. When asked on Insiders about the carve out, the Attorney-General initially denied it and then justified it on misleading grounds. Yet Labor has made this provision broad enough to examine anyone who exercises a power under a law of the Commonwealth except unions. When asked in question time about why the carve out exists for union officials, the Prime Minister first claimed that union officials don't need to be covered by the anticorruption commission, because they're covered by the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Fair Work Commission, and this legislation is about plugging gaps, not duplication. But when the shadow minister for defence pointed out that the ADF is also covered by other bodies—namely the ADF Military Code of Conduct and the Inspector-General—and then asked, 'Why is the ADF included in the National Anti-Corruption Commission but senior union leaders are not?' Labor completely failed to answer. When asked the following day about the union carve outs, the Prime Minister changed his line and tried again to deny that they exist. If Labor wants the conduct of Indigenous rangers included as they are in this bill then union officials who abuse their power as granted by a Commonwealth rule should be answerable to this commission. Why can a union official exercise a power under the Work, Health and Safety Act or the Fair Work Act to shut down a worksite for safety reasons and not have to answer for this to this commission, while an NDIS worker may have to answer questions about how they've managed their resources and conducted their work? How can Labor claim to have integrity and sweep these sorts of provisions in? How can they ask the Parliament House cleaners to answer to this commission and not the unions? I'm calling on Labor, the Greens and the crossbench to support our amendments to remove this carve out. An integrity commission with special carve outs for the owner and operator of the Labor Party is no real integrity commission. We'll be moving amendments to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to enhance the way the commission operates and to ensure that the rights of individuals are maintained. The commission will have extraordinary powers. With those extraordinary powers should come greater accountability. While it's important that serious corruption be identified and dealt with, a terrorism suspect prosecuted in a criminal court has more rights than a person brought before the commission. The words of the South Australian Bar Association are particularly worth noting: Corruption is wrong, but in our zeal to see corrupt public officials dealt with appropriately, we must not discard the protections of the rights and liberties that are central to our legal system. I want to turn to the issue of public versus private hearings, which has consumed much of the debate about this commission. The default of private hearings is one important aspect of ensuring that the commission's focus is where it ought to be. The government has struck a good balance with section 73(2), which allows for a hearing to be held in public 'if exceptional circumstances justify holding the hearing, or the part of the hearing, in public; and it is in the public interest to do so'. This balances the important investigative power of the commission while also protecting the rights of individuals and ensuring that any future prosecutions that may follow from an investigation are not unduly prejudiced. As the Queensland Law Society has said: In our view, in order to preserve prosecutions, in order to maintain that prosecutorial authority with those bodies, as opposed to investigative bodies, and not unfairly damage reputations of people coming before the NACC, it's imperative that the default position be that private hearings are held, and obviously with the test of exceptional circumstances being employed. This aspect of the bill is based on the Victorian provision and strikes a reasonable balance. We would like to see the test further strengthened. While the legislation presently lists a number of factors in section 73(3) that the commissioner, 'in deciding whether to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in public, the Commissioner may have regard to', the word 'may' is insufficient. We believe the commissioner must have regard to those factors, which include the extent of corruption, the benefits of exposing corrupt conduct to the public and also, importantly, 'any unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing that would be likely to be caused if the hearing, or part of the hearing, were to be held in public'. The need for section 73(3) to be strengthened in this way was endorsed by various submissions to the joint committee, including from the Australian Human Rights Commission, which pointed out: The factors outlined in 73(3) are all are discretionary. This means that the Commissioner would not be required to take into consideration the impact a public hearing may have on a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing. The Commission considers that this should be a mandatory consideration for the Commissioner when deciding whether to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in public. As an additional safeguard, the decision regarding the commencement of a public hearing should not be made by the commissioner alone. I've argued elsewhere that public confidence in the commission would be enhanced by having an independent judicial officer exercising powers persona designata to make a determination about whether exceptional circumstances exist and weighing the relevant public interest considerations to hold a public hearing. The joint committee received evidence that another way of enhancing public confidence in the decision to hold a public hearing would be to have the commissioner determine exceptional circumstances and weigh those public interest factors in conjunction with a deputy commissioner. Dr James Renwick, the former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, suggested such an amendment would remove: … not only the risk of, but also the perception of the risk of, personal idiosyncrasy, it shares the heavy burden to be placed on the Commissioner and thereby protects the NACC when such an important decision is made, and it does not detract in any sense from the Commission's independence. This measure would align the NACC with the New South Wales ICAC, and we'll be moving an amendment accordingly. I want to turn to the definition of corruption. We believe that the definition of corruption needs greater clarity and certainty than the bill currently provides. Sections 8(1)(a) to 8(1)(d) provide a comprehensive list of corrupt conduct, covering breaches of trust, abuse of office, misusing information and conduct that adversely affects the honest and impartial exercise of power and performance of duties. However, section 8(1)(e) then adds that corrupt conduct includes 'any conduct of a public official in that capacity that constitutes, involves or is engaged in for the purpose of corruption of any other kind'. This clause has drawn significant criticism from a wide range of quarters, including the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The Law Council of Australia has said that the phrase: … 'corruption of any other kind', as included in the NACC Bill, is undefined and circular … paragraph 8(1)(e) currently has the potential to extend the NACC's jurisdiction into areas that are not contemplated in the Bill and unknown to Parliament. The Australian Human Rights Commission has also argued: Clause 8(1)(e) should be amended or removed, as 'corruption of any kind' provides the Commissioner with significant discretion to expand its jurisdiction without parliamentary approval. The government's justification for this phrase is the desire to capture what has not been thought of. But this gives the commission the power to determine its own jurisdiction, which is properly a matter for parliament. As Chris Merritt, of the Rule of Law Institute, told the joint committee at a public hearing: If parliament has difficulty in forming a concise description of what 'corruption' is, it should not give unlimited power to the commission to make its own rules. We will also move amendments to 8(1)(a) to remove the vague and superfluous phrase 'or that could adversely affect', consistent with the Law Council's submission that such a phrase is unnecessary given that conspiracy is included in section 8(10). The phrase 'or that could adversely affect' introduces uncertainty to the definition of corrupt conduct. We are also concerned that section 9(1)(c) does not just define a corruption issue as something that someone has done, or is doing, but as something that a person will engage in in future. This would see the commission investigate possible future conduct that has not actually been carried out. The provision should be removed. A person cannot be investigated and punished for actions they have not taken. We will move amendments to delete section 9(1)(c). Again, this view is consistent with the views of the Queensland Law Society and the Law Council. Another issue in the public debate about the powers of the commission has been whether it should be able to retrospectively investigate conduct—conduct that has occurred in the past. The basic principle is that people should be able to know what the law is before they act, so they can comply with it. Section 8(4) is also unacceptable, as this gives the legislation completely unbounded retrospective reach. This clause enables the commissioner to investigate conduct that occurred prior to the establishment of the NACC, with no time limit on how far back that action may have occurred. Theoretically, the commission could investigate matters that go right back to Federation. We believe that an additional public interest test is needed if the commission decides to investigate conduct that occurred before the commencement of the National Anti-Corruption Commission act. The Law Council suggested including an additional threshold that will allow the NACC to conduct investigations into past conduct only where there's an identifiable public interest in doing so. This would bring the NACC into line with similar provisions under the Victorian IBAC Act. There is a risk that the NACC will be misused as a way of causing harm to an individual through vexatious complaints. This risk is particularly heightened if referrals are publicised, as the simple act of being referred to the NACC could damage the reputation of the person about whom the complaint is made. Dr William Stoltz, policy director at the ANU National Security College, has identified the risk of vexatious complaints being made by foreign actors. As he said to the committee: … the NACC potentially provides an avenue for malicious actors to mobilise false allegations against our nation's most senior leaders and elected officials—generally in an attempt to discredit the integrity of our national institutions and to stoke apathy and disillusionment amongst some Australians toward our government. Greater protections are needed to ensure that vexatious complaints are disincentivised, and that the act of referral to the NACC is not itself a punishment where no misconduct has been established. In order to achieve this, we propose that penalties be applied to making vexatious complaints and also that the publicising of referrals to the NACC be prohibited. Our amendments are based on provisions from the Commonwealth Integrity Commission Bill which the coalition prepared in government. The Prime Minister has said that this legislation is not designed to duplicate existing processes but, instead, to fill gaps. Under section 45, the commission has the power to reinvestigate matters which have previously been investigated by another integrity agency. Section 45(3) lists matters the commissioner may have regard to when deciding to commence an investigation into a matter previously investigated by a Commonwealth integrity agency. As with the decision to have public hearings, we believe that, in exercising this power, the commissioner and a deputy commissioner should be required to jointly sign off on decisions to reinvestigate matters that have already been considered by another integrity body. Under this bill, the commission is not required to notify a person who has been the subject of an investigation that that investigation is complete if no finding of corrupt conduct is made against them. This means that a person who has been referred for investigation but has done no wrong could live with the uncertainty and stress of knowing they're under investigation, but with no closure or end to that stress even when the case has been closed by the commission. Ensuring that people have closure at the end of an investigation is very important for preventing unnecessary psychological distress. Section 159(2) should be amended to mandate the commission to advise a person whether a finding has been made at the conclusion of their investigations. I now turn to the application of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act to this bill. This bill has limited the application of AD(JR) Act to a small number of matters. We believe that judicial review under the AD(JR) Act should be available to all decisions under this bill, and we'll move amendments to that effect. The streamlined processes under the AD(JR) Act provide an important safeguard for a commission which has such extraordinary powers. Again, this is consistent with recommendations made by the Law Council. The application of gag orders for people under investigation by the commission can present a real threat to a person's mental health. Not being able to talk to a mental health professional or a family member can mean that, at a very stressful time, the usual supports a person might rely are not available. As the Australian Psychological Society told the committee: Individuals involved in corruption commission inquiries are likely to be appearing in a professional capacity … For many people, their professional persona is core to their self-identity and any damage or threat to it is therefore amplified. Gag orders therefore need to be balanced to ensure that people can access appropriate support. The committee recommended carve-out gag orders for medical professionals and psychologists. Given the shortage of psychologists in Australia, this carve-out should be broader and should also include counsellors. It should also include family members unless they are also the subject of investigation. These additional safeguards are needed due to the stress inherently involved in participating in an Anti-Corruption Commission investigation. I want to turn briefly to the telecommunications interception surveillance powers. These matters are still being considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. While not wanting to pre-empt the PJCIS, we believe that, where warrants are issued under these powers for the purpose of investigating corruption, as opposed to investigating national security or counterterrorism matters, they should be issued by a superior court judge. I now come to the important issue of privileges. Rule-of-law principles exist for important reasons. They ensure robust systems of justice are balanced with concern for individual rights. This bill abrogates a number of privileges that would exist in a criminal process, like the privilege against self-incrimination and legal professional privilege. Regarding the privilege against self-incrimination, I quote the Law Council, who stated in their submission to the committee: This principle is enshrined in a statutory context in relation to Court proceedings, however, it is also a fundamental common law right in relation to persons subject to questioning in judicial and other civil proceedings. They went on to say: The Law Council has consistently outlined its view that witnesses appearing before any anti-corruption commission should be able to refuse to answer a question or provide information to a Commissioner on the grounds that such information may incriminate the person. To do otherwise would undermine some of the fundamental principles of the criminal justice system … Because the rights of a person under investigation are waived, it's very important that material that is elicited by the corruption commission in a scenario under which a person doesn't have the rights they would usually have in a criminal process must then not be used either directly or derivatively in a criminal process. The bill also abrogates legal professional privilege, but there are good public policy reasons why a person should be able to consult with their lawyer in confidence. The Law Council has recommended that clause 114 be redrafted to remove the abrogation of legal professional privilege. They also recommend that clause 115 be removed from the bill. We will move amendments in accordance with those recommendations, and we will clarify that the bill does not affect the law relating to legal professional privilege. A body with the extraordinary powers of this commission must itself be held to account. At present, the inspector's powers are insufficient. As the bill stands, the inspector is due to be the NACC of the NACC. We believe that the inspector's role should be broader, and we will move amendments to strengthen the role of the inspector. We also believe that there should be time limits on investigations, so that the commission is required to conclude investigations within a definite period. I note that one of the foremost advocates for the National Anti-Corruption Commission, Geoffrey Watson SC, has argued for time limits on investigations. Time limits could be extended by application to a court, but we need to see investigations not remaining open indefinitely, and our amendments will seek to do this. Finally, in relation to amendments, we believe the appointments of the commissioner and inspector must be completely above politics, and, to that end, the appointment of these role should be subject to a supermajority of nine out of 12 members of the joint standing committee. This ensures that those who fulfil these significant roles have bipartisan support, and we will be moving amendments to this effect. There are several other matters that we believe should be further considered by government. We believe that all those who come before the commission should have their reasonable legal costs met. People are often brought before the commission just to be a witness. The commission may hold investigations with no adverse findings, and a person may have had considerable expense along with the stress of going through that process. Many of the people involved will not be extremely wealthy, and nor will they be likely to qualify for legal aid. For those who are subject to a full investigation, the legal costs could be crippling. We believe that the provision of legal assistance, as outlined in section 282, is too limited, and we believe the government should consider applying a presumption in favour of granting legal assistance to meet the reasonable legal costs of any witness or party, as well as a requirement that hearings do not commence until legal assistance has been approved. We also believe there is merit in the Attorney developing some model regulator guidelines, along the lines of the model litigant guidelines. These model regulator guidelines could be applied to the NACC to hold it and other Commonwealth regulators to an appropriately high standard of conduct in their engagement with witnesses and persons of interest. I want to say something about procedural fairness. The commission must always operate with procedural fairness, and in this bill there is an important safeguard, which is that if a finding is made against a person they will have the opportunity to put their case to the commission before the final determination is made. However, there are other measures that are important in providing for fairness for people appearing before the commission. Firstly, people should have an adequate length of time to be able to respond to the findings the commission might plan to make against them. Second, the commission should give people reasonable time to consider documents in advance of hearings. They have been examples in New South Wales of the commission dumping thousands of pages of documents on the morning of a hearing. This is just not acceptable. The government should develop regulations to ensure people have adequate time to participate fairly in the hearings. People should also be able to receive transcripts of evidence they provide and consideration should be given to whether the rules of evidence should apply in public hearings as an additional safeguard. Finally, if the purpose of the National Anti-Corruption Commission is to change the culture of public administration, one of the most significant things that the commission needs to do, which has been largely neglected, is educate people so that they know what is and what is not corrupt conduct prior to the commission commencing operations. This is very important so that people can identify corruption and prevent it from occurring. Education also gives people an opportunity to pause and reflect on their own conduct and the conduct that they see around them. Cultural change won't come from hearings or from media stories; it will come from educational seminars, pointing out to people the nature of corrupt conduct and how to limit it. This isn't about 'gotcha' moments; this is about people understanding and behaving according to the standards that the public expects. We will move some amendments in relation to those matters. In conclusion, while we believe there are numerous measures that would strengthen this body and provide safeguards for individuals, I want to reiterate our support for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The support for this body across the parliament is a clear message to the Australian people that corruption is wrong and the parliament is dealing with corruption seriously. 13:25 Dr REID 300126 Robertson From Umina, Woy Woy and Adelong over to Terrigal, Copacabana and Avoca, and from Hardys Bay and Wagstaffe across to Kincumber, Bensville and Empire Bay, and all the way out to Mangrove Mountain, every person that I interact with and every conversation that I have had during the election and after has always returned to a central theme and a central topic. That theme has been missing from federal politics and the federal government for quite some time, and that theme is accountability. Errol from Niagara Park said that a federal anticorruption commission is long overdue and must be a priority. Shelley and David from Kincumber want a federal independent anticorruption commission legislated. Warren and Sally from the Central Coast say that integrity should be the prime aim for people seeking public office. The Copacabana Community Association were delighted that during the election we expressed a commitment to establish an independent anticorruption commission. Peter from the Central Coast says that it will go a long way to restoring public confidence in politics. Tony from Umina voted for an ICAC that could investigate independently, and Clark from the Central Coast said, 'We need to futureproof Australia's National Anti-Corruption Commission against any risk of it being watered down by future governments, by ensuring that it will be independent.' This legislation, the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, delivers on the commitment made by our government, the Albanese Labor government, during the course of the 2022 federal election campaign. It delivers on our commitment to legislate a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. What this bill does at the local level is that it allows me to look my constituents in the eye and say that our government is returning honesty, integrity and accountability to federal politics. This bill is the cornerstone of the Albanese government's agenda to restore public trust and strengthen the standards of integrity. Importantly, this legislation gives full effect to the design principles that our government took to the federal election—principles that were developed with eminent legal and integrity experts. It draws on the best aspects of state and territory anticorruption commissions and laws. To the constituents of Robertson and to all those, not just on the Central Coast but right across Australia, who have lost faith in the accountability and integrity of government, this legislation is a path out of the shadows. It is a path out of that darkness. This legislation will ensure that our elected representatives and our senior government officials are held to account, because the decisions that we make here in this place will at some point impact you in your place. Over the course of the election campaign, we made a promise to the Australian people and I made a promise to the people of Robertson. That promise was to deliver an independent National Anti-Corruption Commission, and today we begin the process to fulfil that promise, because that is what we do. That is what Labor governments do: we deliver. We are forward-thinking, we provide the foundations— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time being 1.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member's speech was interrupted, so he will be granted leave to continue when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 18 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Longman Electorate: Year 12 Students 18 13:30 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I rise today to acknowledge all the year 12 students in my electorate of Longman who graduated last week and all the year 12s around the country, for that matter. You have completed the first major step in life's journey, and I know that some of you will be excited for what the future holds, whereas, for others, this will be a time of uncertainty and even anxiousness. I encourage you all to embrace that great Aussie spirit of 'Have a go'. Having travelled to other parts of the world, I can say that we truly live in one of the greatest countries on earth, if not the greatest. The US may have coined the term 'the land of opportunity', but I believe we are the country where dreams come true. Whatever your dream is, go for it. For I always say, 'It is better to live with failure then die with regret.' I don't know what your individual dreams are, but one thing life has taught me is there is more than one road to a destination. You may not achieve the ATAR score you want, but don't let this deter you. There are always other pathways. It's not the setbacks in life that define you; it's the way you deal with those setbacks that will define you. So get up, dust yourself off and go again. Thank you to the schools that afforded me the honour of attending their awards nights in the past few weeks, including Morayfield, Dakabin, Woodford and Bribie Island state high schools, as well as Carmichael College and St Columban's, just to name a few. I was truly inspired by what this generation will bring to our great nation. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 19 13:31 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I rise today to give voice to the Raise Our Voice campaign. Emilia has written the following submission: My name is Emilia, I am 15 years old and I live in the South Australian electorate of Spence. I'm concerned about my future. I'm concerned about the bushfires that engulfed my local community when I was 12 and the smoke that we could smell for weeks after. With our communities starting to wither from natural disasters, I am concerned about my future, I'm concerned about the raging impacts of climate change and most importantly, I'm concerned about how our decision makers are doing nothing about. Nothing to reduce our emissions, nothing to protect our ecosystem and communities, nothing for our future. Young people are most at risk for climate change and we can't vote, and I can't vote. So in this democracy, the only thing I can do, is shout. This new government needs to reduce our national emissions. This new government needs to act on the impending threat of climate change. This new government needs to support our future. Thank you. Well, Emilia, after nine long years of the environment and climate being an afterthought, I'm proud to stand here today as your representative for Spence and as part of an Albanese Labor government that is getting on with delivering real action on climate change and the environment so that your generation and generations to come can continue to live on this planet. We will ensure a better future for all. Bass Electorate: Chin Community 19 13:33 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass Recently I published a story in my community newspaper, the Bass Bulletin, sharing the story of the local Chin community and the struggles that so many of their relatives still face back home in Myanmar. After reading this story, a local man, Stewart Bain, sent an email to the local Chin community group to share a personal story of his father's time in Burma during World War II. Stewart and his parents arrived in Tasmania in 1959 from Scotland. His parents both served in World War II, and his father served as a British soldier with the Black Watch Chindits in Burma, spending 5½ months fighting the Japanese. Stewart said: As a little boy my father always told me what wonderful people the Chin … people of Burma were. They were brave, kind, resourceful and helped them immensely and had provided him with the best meal he ever had in his life. Stewart's father was badly injured in a small village called Labu, where he walked through the jungle for two days and almost bled to death with maggots in his wounds. Eventually, he was repatriated to hospital in India by Sunderland flying boat. Stewart said: My father was recovering from his wounds when they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and that stopped the war. He never had the opportunity to thank his many Chin friends. I would like to take the opportunity to thank your Chin Community in person on his behalf 78 years later. I'm pleased to report that Stewart has since personally met with leaders of the local Chin community, with Rolance from the community describing the meeting as a 'reunion between long-lost families'. Petition: Child Care 19 13:34 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise to present the petition 'Fund better wages and conditions for early childhood educators'. The petition read as follows— Access to affordable, quality early childhood education and care supports children's development in the crucial years before school as well as supporting their parents to participate in the workforce. A professional, qualified workforce is essential to deliver quality early childhood education. The workforce is in crisis with vacancies running at twice pre-pandemic levels. A key reason that educators ae leaving is because of low wages and conditions, well below what educators and teachers are paid in the public schools system. We therefore ask the House to act to fund an immediate wage increase for early childhood educators and teachers so that wages can rise without the need to parents to pay increased fees. from 3,923 citizens (Petition No. PN0547) Ms CHESTERS 249710 The petition has been considered by the Petitions Committee and ruled in order. This petition asks the House to consider the following. Access to affordable early childhood education and care supports the development of children in the crucial years before school as well as supporting their parents to participate in the workforce. A professional, qualified workforce is essential to deliver early childhood education, but the workforce is in crisis with vacancies running at twice pre-pandemic levels. A key reason that educators are leaving the sector is because of low wages and conditions. This petition therefore asks that this House consider an immediate wage increase for early childhood educators and teachers so that wages can rise without the need of increasing fees for parents. I say to the 3,721 parents and educators: we have heard your message. The government is listening and this House is listening. We know that 96 per cent of the early childhood education workforce are women. That's the highest percentage of any major award sector, yet the sector has endured two failed pay equity cases in the last decade. Labor wants to change that, and that is why our Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill provides a pathway to address this. I encourage them to keep talking because we'll keep listening. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 20 13:36 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar Today I rise to read a question from a young constituent from my electorate who won the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. He writes: My name is Edward Sethaphanich. I currently reside in the electorate of Mackellar. As the new parliament begins with the intention of promoting grassroot democracy, world peace and stability, members of parliament and senators should have the common interest of addressing the current state of this nation, as Australians face financial vulnerabilities and societal fears which stemmed from the effects of natural phenomenons which were once considered "once in a lifetime" events. In the 47th parliament, members and senators alike should aim to achieve legislation that would radically improve our healthcare system as the system currently does not have the capacity to facilitate high quality health services on an affordable level. It is also through this that members and senators in the 47th parliament should aim to implement large-scale monetary and fiscal corrections to ensure the stability of the Australian economy while alleviating the insecurities posed by rising inflation and global events. However, an outcome which Australians together desire from this parliament is the genuine consideration of our ever changing climate and measures which could avoid the extinction of our society and the world. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 20 13:38 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Today I rise to speak as a part of the Youth Voice in Parliament campaign run by Raise Our Voice Australia. This is a fantastic initiative which brings young Australian voices into the nation's parliament. This is a speech by Joel from the Hunter electorate: My hope for the new Parliament is for it to achieve great progress and reform by working together towards the common goal of improving the lives and future of Australians. I have a firm belief that Australia is the greatest country in the world, however, I am also aware of its downsides and where we are falling behind. A country may be great, but it can always improve. I believe this new Parliament must ensure that it works together and makes great strides towards combatting the impacts of climate change and setting Australia up to be a role model in the creation and use of renewable energy. My electorate of the Hunter especially must see great change, for our local economy and the lives of the local people. Parliament must also help these new energy sectors grow but it is equally responsible to ensure that workers are not left behind. A successful country must not leave anyone behind. Thank you, Joel. Thank you for sending this through to us. We really appreciate it. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 20 13:39 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I'm proud to deliver this speech written by Poppy Kidd, aged 17, as part of Raise Our Voice Australia. Poppy says, 'As a young person, I think about how what parliament achieves today will influence what we accomplish in the future. There are always going to be new problems arising and we need sustainable solutions. So why are our youth, one of our most important assets to ensuring Australia's future, failing to meet current standards? Research shows Australian students are increasingly underprepared for their futures, with less participation in STEM subjects and languages other than English. Australia's youth will be the next people in this room. We will be nurses that care for you, entrepreneurs that grow our economy and scientists creating vaccines. However, PISA tests show that many Australian students are lacking in basic literacy and numeracy skills. This parliament needs to grow Australia's public education system by addressing the teacher shortage and creating equal access to quality education. We need to improve our curriculum so students have the knowledge to face the challenges of a rapidly changing world. It's impossible for this parliament to solve all of the issues, but it can change what we accomplish in the future by investing in our youth.' Thanks, Poppy. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 20 13:41 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I rise to speak to the Youth Voice in Parliament campaign. I have received a number of excellent speeches. I received one today from Ethan Greenfield, who is 11 years old. Ethan says, 'I have lived with type 1 diabetes for seven years, and I am a proud JDRF advocate. It is tricky to live with type 1 diabetes but I have to deal with it. When my blood sugar levels are really high or really low I find it hard to think or act normal. It is also hard for me to find new places to inject insulin because the skin on my body gets so sore from so many needles. Management of diabetes is always there and is hard for me but having a continuous glucose monitor, CGM, makes it a whole lot easier. I want to thank the government and everyone who has helped get CGM access for all. I feel very lucky to live in a country where this important technology is available to all those with type 1 diabetes. I look forward to the new parliament's support to turn type 1 into type none, so that no-one has to live with diabetes anymore. Please continue clinical research networks to find a cure for type 1 diabetes so that we don't have to keep dealing with it. I know that research holds the key and that scientists can find a cure someday. Thank you for your time today.' I would also like to congratulate his mother Kylie Greenfield, who is the JDRF national volunteer of the year. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 21 13:42 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff 'Mental health. Sitting in the corner not knowing what is going to come next. Will it be my fear or my concerns? Why is it never my dreams, my happy place? Does it always have to be worried and bad times? Something good would be nice for a change. Treacherous thoughts running through my head, mad am I, all alone, mindless of my surroundings. I want to dissolve into the atmosphere one part of my body at time until I'm as thin as air and go swish in the wind. Mum's always worrying if I'm okay. She thinks I am hurt. Checking in on me every day. Fighting fears, fighting concerns. It feels like I am trapped in a dark, empty room trying to get out. Waves of emotion. Every day I swim through gloomy waters. I can never see the shore. Hope and luck, things I don't have at the end of the day. I hate my body in every single way. Depression is a silent film. Underwater where nobody can help I am drowning because I won't talk about it. I cannot get out of my bed. Anxiety is always holding me hostage inside my hurting head. When people ask me, "Where am I?" they should just ask, "Where have I gone?" I don't have hope. I am dwelling in my darkness. What is hope? I have forgotten how it feels to smile and laugh. But I know joy will find me and let me run free. And I know that I am perfectly imperfect. I cannot go through these things alone. And hopefully out of the darkness help will come.' This is from Georgia Scantlebury, Trinity Lutheran College, Gold Coast Youth Voice in Parliament Week 21 13:44 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I rise to let the voice of one of my younger constituents be heard: Malcolm—not that Malcolm! He says: My name is Malcolm. I am 14, and I live in the Bean electorate. I go to a local high school, where I am in year 8. Australia is the best country in the world, and we can make it miles ahead of the rest, if the parliament just put their head down and made some changes. On the 21st of May, Australians voted for change. Changing our childcare and aged care system to be more friendly to kids, residents and families. Changing our constitution to recognize the people that have inhabited our wide brown land for 60,000 years, and changing our head of state to be elected by the people, for the people and be of the people. My ideal Australia is one where people are valued by their government. Valued with high speed rail to connect our eastern centres. Valued with government services that are valued themselves, not cut constantly. Valued with highly skilled jobs, for fair wages. Valued with a measured, but effective policy on our climate. Valued with progressive, but pragmatic social policies, so Australians can live to their full potential. Valued with a government that works as hard as they do, so Australia can be a shining beacon of opportunity. Malcolm, we will not let you or the other constituents of Bean down. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 21 13:45 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls As part of the Raise Our Voice Australia initiative, I have pleasure in amplifying the voice of 17-year-old Campbell Frost in my electorate. Campbell wrote: When looking at the prompt for this year's voices to parliament, "What should Australia's new parliament accomplish?" my initial thought was action, whether that be on climate change, income inequality or a plethora of other issues. But as I sat there, I realised that what the 47th parliament of Australia should accomplish is simple. Unity. Whether Left, Right, Regional or Metropolitan, the electorates that each and every individual sitting in parliament today represents, is a universal trust in the democratic process. That the very people in both chambers will speak for the general population with integrity and candour. So on behalf of the Australian People, I ask, find common ground. Do not let Australia become a victim of the war on bi-partisanship we've seen sweep many western democracies. Your colleagues across the aisle are not your enemy, they're there to represent their electorate, as you do yours, don't give up an opportunity to further our nation just because you believe your job is to simply disagree with another party. Listen, Reflect, and, Act, on what fellow members and senators have to say, with a little bit of empathy and willingness to navigate and find solutions. Make this nation what we know it all can be, one of compassion and strength, with the same virtues represented in every Australian. In closing, unity in this country is about more than just saying you're Australian, it's about acknowledging our differences, and working together to build something better. Thank you so much for that Campbell. As I look at some of my friends across the aisle—the members for Spence and Cunningham particularly—I think we can find that common ground Prime Minister's Prizes for Science 22 13:47 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Today I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Dirk Treasure from my electorate of Adelaide, who last night was one of the recipients of the Prime Minister's Prize for Innovation as part of the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science. What a deserving recipient and what an amazing story—a journey of innovation and success. Dirk, together with his colleagues Dr Nick Cutmore and Dr James Tickner, has developed cutting-edge technology called PhotonAssay. Until recently, goldminers had been forced to rely on difficult and dangerous processes to measure the amount of gold in a sample. It was done with dangerous chemicals, causing danger to the health of those working on that particular process. This process was dangerous to both people and the environment. With this new technology, high-energy X-rays are able to count individual atoms safely and accurately. This technology has been very successfully commercialised, and it's being exported over to Canada, to African countries and to many other countries. The result is a corporation called Chrysos, proudly based in South Australia. The company today employs 75 people and continues to grow. It's estimated that it will grow to about 150 next year, and it was recently listed on the stock exchange. What an amazing story of research, innovation and successful commercialisation. Congratulations to Dirk, Nick and James on receiving this award. They are an inspiration to many. Agricultural Shows Development Grants Program 22 13:48 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn Labor has confirmed it is scrapping funding for the Agricultural Shows Development Grants Program. In estimates week, agricultural minister Murray Watt said $14 million in agricultural funding for shows was being reprioritised. Estimates has sadly proved Labor is taking even more money out of regional and rural Australia, with infrastructure funding for ag shows now gone, including in my electorate of Flynn. We already know Labor has taken billions away from regions, scrapping water and major infrastructure commitments, but now they are cruelly taking away the Agricultural Shows Development Grants Program funding. This money was to improve infrastructure for ag shows in Flynn. It is another kick in the guts for Flynn show societies, of which many are already struggling. The funding was on top of $20 million previously provided for 120 shows to build new pavilions and exhibition areas; install seating, shade and weather protection; upgrade accessibility; improve public safety and animal welfare; and upgrade power and energy efficiency. Ag shows generate a huge $1 billion annually in economic benefits, promoting new technologies and high-quality produce. For some communities and charities, agricultural shows give the financial boost they need to get them through the year. Labor needs to explain why it doesn't prioritise regional and rural Australia. It has abandoned our regional communities and taken away much-needed infrastructure. Youth Voice In Parliament Week 22 13:50 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham Like my friends the member for Nicholls and the member for Hunter, I am also participating in the Youth Voice in Parliament campaign, championed by Ash and the team at Raise Our Voice. My submission today is from Ella Rose Webber, an 18-year-old constituent from Wollongong, and a good friend of mine. These are Ella's words: I don't think it'd be a stretch to say that we all know a young person who can give this passionate appeal on climate change or queer rights, but who will then struggle to say which level of government is best suited for such an important task. This isn't their fault, because there is no mandatory civics unit in Australian schools. Young people are simply thrust into a voting booth at 18 with some general platitudes they've seen in ads and headlines. They don't know how to cast a valid vote, or even that they need to vote to avoid a fine. Unfamiliarity breeds apathy, so it really is no wonder that young people are turning off from politics: because they see all of these problems, but don't see how things change in Australia. In the development of a federal syllabus in a democratic country, a mandatory civics unit within HSIE is surely a common-sense addition. Teaching the structure of government, the civil rights that Australians are entitled to, and the relevance of government to everyday lives is a highly effective way to reignite youth interest in Australian democracy. Thank you so much, Ella, for your contribution, and to Ash and the team for their work to ensure young people have a voice here in our parliament. Castle, Mr John 23 13:51 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash John Castle was a friend and a great Liberal. Jana Group and Auscivil founder John Castle died on Saturday 12 November. … well known Warragul businessman, know as John, Jack or JC—a tribute to his life was captured in the recently released book The Wateva Project celebrating 60 years in business. John wanted the book to record his adventures in life shared with wife Gloria. More than 100 contributors participated in piecing together the life, family, business and leisure pursuits of John and Gloria and their children Craig, Melissa and Trish. The 60-year history began in 1962 when at midday on November 28, Jack finished his form four Asian history exam at Warragul High School. "Unable to withstand any more chalk and blackboard stuff, at the front concrete memorial gate posts, he shredded the textbook and went home for lunch," the book states. The book quotes John: "that afternoon I rode my bike to a farm 10 kilometres from home and carted hay, earning one pound and eight shillings an hour. I got 15 out of 100 for that exam. I did not return to school. I was in business." This man was a loving grandfather, father, husband. It was such a sad death. We had a wake while he was alive, we had a funeral after his death and we had a burial last Saturday. Vale John Castle. Youth Voice In Parliament Week 23 13:53 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore This speech was written by Heather Coulston, aged 10, from my electorate of Gilmore thanks to Raise Our Voice Australia. Constant terror; lots of death; crackling fire, trees ablaze; churning rivers meet our feet; inky black clouds, lives blown away; this is what our future brings because of the mess we've made. This future terrifies me. If we continue what we are doing our future will be devoted to drought, fire, flood and storms. I am asking the Australian Government to put in place legislation that will help slow down climate change. Stop any plans for new oil, gas or coal mining projects and shut down the old ones we have in Australia. Instead transition to renewable energy sources and support jobs and support for renewables. By 2030 I want to have change, not just some change, but change as in we plant more trees, put solar panels on every house and we take down the mines. I refuse to accept living in constant terror of fire, storms, drought and flood. I don't want to die in an extreme weather event. And as adults of the future we're going to be the leaders, we can continue the change but it MUST start now. All of you have the power to make the right decision and change lives. For me and all the kids of Australia I ask for one thing—change our future, save our future. Well done Heather, and thank you for your contribution. Floods 23 13:54 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright As the parliament comes to its last two weeks of sitting, I stand to offer my thoughts and prayers to those communities and individuals whose homes are inundated by floodwater as we speak, as the parliament goes about its deliberations—those communities who are isolated from their families and friends, those communities and individuals that are waking up in evacuation centres, displaced, knowing the work with the clean-up is in front of them. I was first elected to this place in 2010. In 2010-11 the floods of the Lockyer Valley in Grantham hit my electorate. It was an enormously difficult time. Thirty-five lives were lost in my electorate. To this day some of those bodies have never been retrieved. So I speak from firsthand experience. I want to acknowledge our first responders—the SES, our rural fire brigade and our Defence Force personnel who will be assisting in the clean-up. It is a harrowing experience for any family to go through, but as Australians they will be on the receiving end of some very generous Australian spirit. This parliament will stand next to them. We will help with the clean-up. We will provide assets to make sure they can rebuild their lives, and we will do it together. FIFA World Cup: Socceroos 23 13:56 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong As you can tell by my scarf, I'm going to use this speech to send our collective well-wishes to the mighty Socceroos. Tomorrow morning, at 6 am local time, they begin their journey at the 2022 FIFA World Cup. This World Cup appearance will be special for several reasons but mainly because of the absolute determination of this team and coach Graham Arnold to get there. Much like Paul Keating's win in 1993 and the member for Cook's in 2019, no-one gave the Socceroos a chance. Advancing against Peru—well, you could say it was a win for the true believers. How good is Andrew Redmayne? What I love about this squad and the beautiful game is that the Australian national team is a true reflection of what modern Australia looks like and what modern Australians aspire to. The history of this national team is a history of the successes of Australian migration and Australian multiculturalism. The squad features players from Bosnian, Croatian, Turkish Cypriot, South African and South Sudanese backgrounds. The team is a melting pot of cultures and they all run out there united, giving their all for Australia. The Socceroos represent modern Australia. They are a global advertisement for our way of life, and no matter the result tomorrow morning against the French or, in a few days, against Tunisia or Denmark, we are all incredibly proud of them and what they have achieved. Go well, Socceroos. The nation is right behind you. Small Business 24 13:57 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Labor's radical industrial relations bill attacks the very heart of our economy—our small businesses. These extreme changes will be complicated and expensive for small business. These changes are designed to invite unions into small-business premises and operations across Australia. These changes will bring about compulsory sector-wide or industry bargaining, including compulsory multi-employer bargaining. They will make strike actions more likely. They will discourage small businesses from employing more workers. Small-business representatives have asked for more time to consult on and to debate this bill, but Labor have refused to listen because they are determined to ram these changes through as quickly as possible. Small business wants the definition of 'small business' in the bill to be increased well above the 15-employee threshold that Labor has set, but Labor voted against coalition amendments designed to do just that. Small business does not support the provisions allowing unions to apply and nominate businesses to participate in multi-employer bargaining. Again, Labor has refused to listen to the reasonable arguments from the side of the House. Small business opposes the changes that would mean employment terms in one small business could be directly impacted by actions within another business. This is the Albanese Labor government governing not in the interests of all Australians but for its paymasters, big unions and thuggish union officials. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTRY 24 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 24 13:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister will be absent from question time for the remainder of this week, attending the AUSMIN meetings. Questions relating to the Defence and Foreign Affairs portfolios will be answered by the member for Gorton. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 24 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Workplace Relations 24 13:59 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Small Business. How much will small businesses have to pay to participate in multi-employer bargaining according to the specific modelling contained in the government's own regulatory impact statement? 14:00 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for her question. I assume that she's referring to the regulatory impact statement that has been prepared for the bill. As she would know, small businesses already incur costs when they try and enter the bargaining system. She would also know, of course, that many small businesses are actually represented by an employer organisation— Mr Dutton 00AKI How much is the figure? Ms COLLINS HWM and that reduces their costs. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Ms COLLINS HWM What we know is that small businesses will be supported by the Fair Work Commission through the bargaining process. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will resume her seat. There is far too much noise. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence, and the minister will be heard in silence. I give the call to the deputy leader on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN A point of order on relevance. My question asked: how much, under the government's own regulatory impact statement, extra would small businesses have to pay? The SPEAKER 53517 You may resume your seat. I will hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, two points, one on the direct-relevance point of order that was just taken: the question that was just stated was a different phrasing to the question that was asked. Secondly, the immediate shouting while the minister is here, from the Leader of the Opposition, is just off the charts at the moment. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise. I appreciate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is entitled to make a point of order. You're not entitled to then add extra things into the question. The minister should be heard in silence. This is the first question. I'm asking the House to come to order. The minister is in order. She was referring directly to what she was asked about, and she's concluded her answer. I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B I seek leave to table page 53 of the regulatory impact statement, which says that the cost to small businesses is $14,638 if they are dragged into this compulsory process. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Nationals is not helping. I give the call to the Leader of the House. Is leave granted? Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, he might not realise it's already a public document, so therefore it doesn't need to be tabled. Leave's not granted. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager will resume his seat. The Leader will resume his seat. The House will come to order so I can hear from the member for Macquarie. Australia: Floods 25 14:02 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the government supporting communities, small businesses and not-for-profits affected by flooding? 14:03 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler This morning I was in Eugowra with the Premier of New South Wales, Dominic Perrottet; the member for Calare; and the New South Wales member for Orange; as well as being escorted around by the mayor, Kevin Beatty, looking at the devastation which Eugowra has faced. This repeated, relentless flooding that is occurring is just so hard for these communities. Forbes, which I visited with Premier Perrottet a couple of weeks ago, has been hit again. Today we flew into Parkes and then flew over the communities that had been impacted. In Eugowra's case, 159 people, or one in every three residents, had to be rescued by either a helicopter or a boat. I pay tribute to the emergency services, to the Australian Defence Force personnel who were on ground the very next day, to the SES, but also to the average people from New South Wales who have driven to Eugowra just to help people clean up and get their lives back. Today, we announced a $50,000 recovery grant, with up to $25,000 to be automatic and the next $25,000 to be on the basis of receipts being produced, for small businesses and not-for-profits in these communities, as well as now extending the $1 million local government recovery grant to 46 councils that have been disaster declared in New South Wales. We met with Brenda Mansbridge and David Herbert, who run the local Eugowra post office—which is not just the post office; it's the bank, it's the full bit. They have got it all up and running within days—an amazing achievement by them. This community is an inspirational one. It has been able to fight its way back. This government has their back, as does the New South Wales government and as of course does local government. We'll continue to work with state and territory governments, as we have in New South Wales, in Tasmania, in Victoria and now in South Australia, which is also facing a really difficult period going ahead. That's what people expect, that's what they deserve and that's what they'll get from my government. I'm thankful for the fact that the Acting Prime Minister, Richard Marles, visited the community, as well as the Minister for Emergency Services, Murray Watt, who's done such an extraordinary job since he was appointed to that position. I say to all those who've been impacted by this that the whole of Australia feels for you. We realise that you are doing it really, really tough, and we will stand by you in these difficult times. The SPEAKER 53517 On indulgence, the Leader of the Nationals. 14:06 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I want to associate not only the Nationals but the coalition with not only the Prime Minister's fine words but also his efforts to get there this morning. The member for Calare and I spoke just before question time, and he appreciated the fact that you engaged openly and honestly, not just with him but with the community. It's important that this parliament continues to work together to make sure that, on this long journey—day by day, step by step—we support those communities that have been impacted. So, thank you, Prime Minister. Workplace Relations 26 14:06 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Minister for Small Business. I refer to the minister's previous answer. Can the minister now confirm that the government's regulatory impact statement predicts that the cost for small businesses to negotiate in the new multi-enterprise industrial relations system is between $14,000 and $75,000? 14:07 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for his question. As the member opposite would be aware, more than two million businesses are actually exempt from the single-interest stream bargaining system—90 per cent of all Australian businesses, that is. He would also know, as I said earlier, that many businesses already incur costs and that many businesses are already covered by their employer peak organisation. He would also be aware that our expectation is that most small businesses would be in the cooperative stream, where they can use off-the-shelf agreements. Science 26 14:08 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. Can the minister tell us about the Prime Minister's prizes for science and what the Albanese Labor government is doing to prioritise science? 14:08 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I'd like to thank the member, because the member knows, as we all do, that science plays an exceptionally important role in solving complex problems, improving the quality of life and national wellbeing. We are a country that is blessed with an overwhelming number of smart people who are applying their know-how in ways that are making a difference both here and in the global community. Our history is littered with great examples of this—for example, the late Professor Frank Fenner, a biologist whose work contributed to the eradication of smallpox, an Australian who did great things for us here and overseas. It's right and fitting that we find ways to celebrate and encourage others down the same path, which is exactly what we did with the Prime Minister's awards for science here last night. After a two-year break due to COVID, we put together the nation's scientific and research community in the Great Hall. Can I say, it was a great honour for the Prime Minister, for me and for other parliamentarians to witness the achievements recognised through those prizes. We are honoured by the presence of many of those recipients here in the gallery today. Thank you for your great work. The PM's science prize recipient is Professor Trevor McDougall. His study of ocean thermodynamics improves the accuracy of how we model the effects of climate change, and his work is used by oceanographers the world over. As we know, in the fight against climate change, listening to science matters. The prizes also recognise excellence in science teaching. It was overwhelming to see the passion from both George Pantazis, from Marble Bar Primary School in East Pilbara, and Veena Nair, from Viewbank College in Melbourne. Both are building enthusiasm and curiosity for science and ideas in the next generation. We also recognised top new innovators, like Dr Pip Karoly from Melbourne, whose work is improving the tracking and treating of epilepsy, based on her research into seizure forecasting. Her work shows why we need to believe and have faith in our ideas. Our government knows this, and that's why we're looking to attract and retain talent through a diverse STEM workforce pipeline. Our reconstruction fund will help back commercialisation of Australian discoveries, like the types encouraged by Associate Professor Brett Hallam, who's worked to commercialise research that dramatically improved the performance of solar cells by a mighty 10 per cent—not a small feat and well done! He received the PM's Prize for New Innovators. Finally, if I may, can we just also acknowledge and thank Professor Graham Durant for his outstanding 19 years of service to Questacon, also known as 'the shrine to grateful parents across the country'—a distinguished service to the nation and the science community. Well done to Graham. 14:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—As it was the Prime Minister's science awards, I very much associate myself with the comments of the minister. It was a terrific evening last night. You certainly improve substantially the IQ of this building with your presence, I assure you. I speak on behalf of all of us here. That isn't a partisan comment. You are inspirational with your intellectual contribution, and we certainly respect science and we honour your contribution. 14:12 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield on indulgence—I associate the opposition with the comments that have been made about the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science and extend our congratulations to all of the winners—a very impressive and distinguished collection of Australians. I particularly want to mention the two awardees for science teaching, George Pantazis and Veena Nair. The diversity, both in terms of gender and the national backgrounds of those who won awards, was particularly noticeable and speaks volumes for Australia as a nation. Workplace Relations 27 14:12 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Goldstein has 17,000 small businesses, and the government's industrial relations bill captures businesses with a head count of just 15-plus. This would see thousands of small businesses across the country potentially drawn into multi-employer bargaining. Overall, I have supported the bill; however, does the government accept that the numbers should be raised to a higher number of full-time equivalent staff to acknowledge the concerns of our small businesses? Ms Ley 00AMN You're going to clean up Julia's mess? The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting every time a minister starts answering a question. 14:13 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Goldstein for the question. I acknowledge the member, for different parts of this bill—particularly on the gender equity parts of the bill—has been an advocate for those sections long before she became a member in this place, and, since becoming a member, this is the first time in question time that the member has raised it with me. It's been raised both on the floor of the House and privately, and in writing to me as well, so I respect the fierce advocacy of this issue of how the small-business carve-out is done. I'll say a few things in response. First of all, and it goes to some of the issues that have been raised by the opposition today as well, the expectation with respect to small business is overwhelmingly it will be the cooperative stream that's used. With the cooperative stream, it's very much an opt in; there's no industrial action. Effectively, model enterprise agreements are made available that small businesses and their staff can voluntarily opt into. That involves no fees and no consultants, and we expect overwhelmingly that would be the way that small business would engage with these reforms. With respect to the single-interest stream, the small business carve-out that is there at the moment is simply the definition that is already elsewhere in the act for small business—a definition which those opposite did not seek to change in their entire time in office. I respect the argument that the member for Goldstein and other members of the crossbench have made where they've said that, particularly for multi-employer bargaining, they would like to see this go as a broader exclusion. That's been raised not only by the member for Goldstein but by a number of members of the crossbench. This is one of the issues where consultation and negotiation is happening with the Senate crossbench. As I said when we were in the in-detail stage— Mr Dutton 00AKI You haven't even passed the bill. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Member for Wannon! Mr BURKE DYW As I said when we were dealing with the in-detail stage—so this might be new for those who haven't been paying attention but it is not new for those who have—there has always been an expectation that when the bill hit the Senate that definition would probably be something— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for La Trobe and the member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Mr BURKE DYW that would be part of those negotiations. In any broadening of the definition, what I want to be mindful of—and I've said this before—is that occupations such as early childhood educators, who we definitely want to make sure do get the benefit of multi-employer bargaining, may start in the supported stream but, effectively, if you look at businesses like, for example, the Victorian childcare centres or early childhood education centres that have already engaged in this, they're roughly 16 per cent above the award and they would need a pathway to be able to continue to negotiate. They'd only be able to do that single-enterprise stream, and I want to make sure that any expanded definition doesn't carve them out. Small Business 27 14:16 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong My question is to the Minister for Small Business. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering for small business owners and employees? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. The minister will be heard in silence. There is far too much noise on my left. 14:16 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank the member for Bennelong for his question. He, like many in this place, is a strong advocate for small businesses and supports small businesses in his electorate. Indeed, millions of Australian small businesses are at the heart of our communities, as I've said in this place before, and they, of course, have a $430 billion contribution to our economy each and every year. We know that when small businesses are doing well the economy is doing well and Australians are doing well. That's why we have taken action to deliver support for small businesses to remain more resilient and competitive. We've updated the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, which will mean small businesses get a bigger slice of the $70 billion each year that goes into government tenders, with a target of 20 per cent. Indeed, we've passed the unfair contract legislation—something those opposite talked about for nine years but actually couldn't deliver. It is already through the parliament in less than six months. Indeed, as part of the budget, we committed to providing $15.1 million for small-business owners across Australia who are having issues with mental health—it's free mental health—and indeed for the debt hotline. This is targeted support— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Moncrieff will cease interjecting. Ms COLLINS HWM for small businesses that need it— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom will cease interjecting. The minister will continue. Ms COLLINS HWM like that of Claire in my electorate, who I was talking to about the value of these programs. These programs were due to finish at 31 December this year, but we made room in our budget to make sure that these critical programs are continuing. Indeed, we're delivering $62.6 million in energy efficiency grants to eligible small and medium businesses to help them with rising energy costs. This week we're introducing a bill into the House to implement the Skills and Training Boost and the Technology Investment Boost. These incentives will help small and medium businesses with digital technology adaptation and, indeed, to train their workforce to enhance their digital capacity. They're worth more than $1.5 billion. These measures will be backdated to 29 March to make sure that small businesses can receive the benefits of these. The SPEAKER 53517 The manager will cease interjecting. Ms COLLINS HWM I'll be having a meeting with state and territory business ministers in December of this year, something those opposite didn't do for the nine years they were in government—almost a decade. They couldn't meet with the other ministers to talk about the importance of small businesses— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. The member for Moncrieff is warned. Ms COLLINS HWM and how they support small businesses, working with the states and territories. We are making changes to the industrial relations system, a system that the Council of Small Business Organisations said was inaccessible and intimidating for small businesses. We're making changes because we believe in modernising the workplace and getting wages moving. Small businesses are at the heart of all our decisions, and they'll continue to be so. The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B I ask that the minister table the document from which she was reading. The SPEAKER 53517 Was the minister reading from a public document? The SPEAKER 53517 A confidential document. Small Business 28 14:20 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Minister for Small Business. I refer to the minister's previous answer. Can the minister inform the House how many businesses will have to pay between $14,000 and $75,000 under the new industry bargaining system? 14:20 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for his question. As I said here, more than two million businesses are exempt from this bargaining stream that they're talking about. Seriously, it's 90 per cent of all Australian businesses that are exempt. We expect that most small businesses, as the minister has said, will be in the cooperative stream. Most of them, of course, are already members of employer organisations, so they'll have little or no cost for the bargaining if they choose to opt in. That is the point. That is what they're missing over there. More than two million businesses are exempt from the stream. Climate Change 29 14:21 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government progressing action on climate change domestically and internationally, and what will this mean for Australian families and businesses? 14:21 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for his question and recognise his leadership and advocacy on the matter of climate change. The Albanese government is acting domestically, implementing the policies we took to the election. We are implementing Rewiring the Nation to bring on new transmission. We are implementing reforms to drive down emissions because we know, on this side of the House, that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy, and we know that renewable energy is key to driving down our emissions. But we are also engaging internationally. As the House knows, I've just returned from Egypt at the Conference of the Parties. I'm pleased to report that the new government was warmly welcomed at the Conference of the Parties. I'm pleased to report to the House that the leadership provided by the government has been recognised around the world. I'm also pleased to report that we used the opportunity of the Conference of the Parties, which is now the world's largest trade fair, to sell Australia's wares as a renewable energy powerhouse. We know that being a renewable energy powerhouse will create hundreds of thousands of jobs across our country, particularly in the regions, and particularly as we can export that renewable energy to our region. This is something that was the subject of much discussion around the table with my counterparts from the South-East Asia region in particular. The Conference of the Parties, the COP meeting, is also an important opportunity for the world to engage on this most important challenge. Australia played an important role. This conference was difficult. It had its challenges, but Australia, working with our allies and friends, made an impact. I was very pleased that this conference reaffirmed the commitments made at Glasgow to hold the world, as close as possible, to 1.5 degrees, something that Australia was integrally involved in arguing. I'm also pleased that the conference adopted our suggestion that multilateral development banks, particularly the World Bank, should step up on this world challenge, and that the task of driving a faster transition to renewables was reflected in these decisions. This is what leadership is about. This is the leadership the Prime Minister has been providing this week, and since the election, on these most important international challenges, and this is being recognised. We know that good international leadership is good for our region and good for our geopolitical and economic best interests, as well as being the right thing to do. I enjoyed working so closely with Pacific leaders this week, who have responded so warmly to this government's agenda on climate change. I enjoyed working with them on some of the important challenges that this COP provided. We'll continue to do that work because we know that leadership at home and leadership abroad are equally important when it comes to this most important challenge. Climate Change 29 14:25 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell It has been a decade since I asked a question! My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. At a time when Australian families are being hit by Labor's price hikes in electricity and gas, why on earth did this government sign up to a new United Nations fund which will channel Australian taxpayers' money to other countries, including China? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I'm issuing a general warning. There is far too much noise in the chamber. 14:26 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon It's unsurprising, perhaps, to get a question like that from this opposition led by a man who thinks that the impact on the Pacific of climate change is a laughing matter, who thinks it's a great big joke. We don't on this side of the House. We will work with the Pacific because we know that that is in our interests as a country in a very complicated geopolitical environment. Not only does this opposition engage in this sort of cheap dog-whistling politics; they also don't even know what was agreed. I'm surprised to get a question like this from a man who was the minister for the Pacific. That's the best they can do! He was the man in charge of our relations with our region. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will take a break. I will hear on a point of order from the member for Mitchell. Mr Hawke HWO It's on relevance. The minister wasn't listening to the question. I asked why the money was going to China. That was the question—not the Pacific. Th 53517 On the point of order, the minister is being relevant. The question was a very broad question and he is being entirely relevant. Mr BOWEN DZS I guess if you were the minister for the Pacific and you didn't actually go to the Pacific, that's probably the sort of point of order you would take. The other point of order you would take if you asked a question like that is one of relevance. The opposition appears unaware that in fact, as part of these negotiations and discussions, Australia argued successfully that the donor base should be reviewed so that those countries that weren't rich in 1992 but have now become developed and are now wealthy should contribute—not receive but should contribute to the fund. That might have passed you by. That's exactly what we are doing. We were joined by the United States, the European Union, Canada and New Zealand. I understand that the difference between donor and recipient might be a bit confusing to those opposite, but that is exactly what we argued, and that was exactly reflected by the text, which indicates a multiplicity of donors and a revision of the donor base. So if the opposition is going to go down this cheap and nasty road, they want to at least get their facts right. Previous prime ministers have understood that engagement on these issues is important. John Howard knew that. In the aftermath of the tsunami he knew that contributing to Indonesia's recovery was good for Indonesia, good for our region and good for Australia. But John Howard was a leader. He was a leader who understood our national interest. The current Leader of the Opposition does not understand the national interest; he just understands cheap and pathetic politics. Child Care 30 14:29 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to reform the childcare system it inherited, whilst also providing cost-of-living relief for families? 14:29 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank my friend the member for Macarthur for his question. There is some good news: the Senate is on the cusp of voting for our cheaper childcare legislation. They could vote on it as early as tonight. As you know, Mr Speaker, this was one of the biggest and most important commitments that we made at the last election. It is almost a $5 billion investment. To put that in perspective, that is about as much as the former government spent on submarines, and they didn't deliver as much as a periscope! This will deliver something real. This will cut the cost of early education and care for more than one million Australian families. That's real cost-of-living help. For a family on a combined income of 120 grand, it will cut the cost by about $1,700 a year. That will really help. But not just that: this is real economic reform. If you cut the cost of early education and care, it makes it easier for parents to go back to work. In particular, for mothers to go back to more paid work and work more hours or work more days, and that means more skilled workers back in the workforce. And, definitely most importantly of all, it helps our children. More time in early education and care means you are better prepared for school. So it's the trifecta: it's good for children, it's good for parents and it's good for our economy. That's why Australians voted for it, and that's why we are delivering it, even in the face of full-blown opposition over the last two years—continuing to this day—from the Leader of the National Party— Mr CLARE HWL who we can hear interjecting here today. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals is on a warning. Mr CLARE HWL Over the course of the debate in the House and the Senate, not one person opposite said one thing positive about this legislation—except for my old friend, the member for New England, who, unfortunately, seems to have disappeared. But the member for New England, the former leader of the National Party, said this was 'manifestly good'. I don't agree with Barnaby on everything, but he is right there. This is manifestly good. And this is just the start. Next there is the ACCC inquiry into the cost of early education and care. That will kick off in January, with an interim report to us in June. Next year will also kick off a big and broad review of early education and care done by the Productivity Commission. This is important work to set us up for the future. Just as universal Medicare gives Australians the health care they need and deserve, just as universal super helps to make sure that we cannot retire with the security that Australians deserve, this will help us to build a universal early education system that will give every Australian child the opportunity that they deserve. Taxation 31 14:32 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Prime Minister. In Lismore on 28 October when asked whether the flood disaster grants would be taxed, the Prime Minister said there has been no suggestion that they would be taxed. Does the Prime Minister stand by this statement? 14:33 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Page for his question. I am surprised that he has asked it in that way, given that he travelled with me to Lismore with the Premier of New South Wales and also with the member for Richmond, who joined us on that occasion. Effectively, what occurs in this system is that payments are made and once that is expended it becomes a tax deduction. So, in effect, it doesn't attract real tax. That is the situation. If you made it tax free upfront, then potentially people could gain money from it. So the grant is paid—some of it without receipts, as you would be aware—and then, once it is expended, it becomes a deduction, just like the grants that we've made today. This is the same way that it has always operated. Workplace Relations 31 14:34 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the minister for employment— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Page will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Page will cease interjecting. Honourable members interjecting— The 53517 The member for Page will cease interjecting, and the House will come to order. The SPEAKER 53517 The Attorney-General will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The Attorney-General is warned. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina is warned. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina is on a warning. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The House will come to order so I can hear the member for Hasluck. Ms LAWRENCE 299150 My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Can the minister explain how some commentary about the secure jobs, better pay bill is just plain wrong? What will the actual impacts of the legislation be? 14:36 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Hasluck. There have been few questions I've welcomed as much as I welcome being asked, 'Is there anything that's been said on this bill that's just plain wrong?', because even as I've sat here in question time a new one happened. I wasn't prepared that I was going to get up and talk about the shadow Treasurer, but the shadow Treasurer in his question referred to small business and a figure of $75,000. So I went straight to the advisers box and got them to check with the department, 'Is there anywhere in that document where that figure is referred to for small business?', and it's nowhere—no reference to small business, this $75,000 figure he makes. I've now got them googling, because he may have uploaded something to the internet somewhere, where there's a different document involving that figure. But even in question time the misrepresentation has continued, because the day began with misrepresentation. Right on cue the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has gone to the advisers box too, because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition gave a great comment this morning. As part of their anger and frustration about the concept of workers getting wages moving she said: These businesses will be forced to the table under multi-employer bargaining. These are businesses that for example, may pay above the award, may be on enterprise agreements— If you're on an enterprise agreement, you are ineligible for multi-employer bargaining. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr BURKE DYW First rule of holes: stop digging. Already this morning, start of the day, early comments in the media conference, these are the comments that are prepared, just like the shadow Treasurer's question today—prepared with information that is wrong on the face of documents tabled in this parliament, wrong on the face of documents that are publicly available. They're not the only scare campaigns. We were in the debate for a suspension only this morning again being told that we needed to bring the bill back in because they were opposed to sector-wide and industry-wide bargaining. The bill doesn't have sector-wide and industry-wide bargaining. It has multi-employer bargaining where either the employers or their workforce have chosen and voted that they want to be a part of it. But we also had in the debate—this is one of my favourites, because I think someone is in competition with Senator Cash—the Nationals MP for Mallee: The Albanese government is willing to risk burning down the Australian economy with this industry-wide bargaining, and after that— This hits my arts portfolio part— the unions will rule over the ashes. No melodrama over there! no exaggeration! Deal with the facts. We need to get wages moving. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 32 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS New Zealand Parliament Governance and Administration Committee 32 14:39 The SPEAKER 53517 I would like to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation from the New Zealand parliament's Governance and Administration Committee. On behalf of the House, I extend a warm welcome to you all, and I hope you're enjoying your visit to parliament. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 32 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Climate Change 32 14:39 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Australia has refused to sign a pledge to end new public subsidies for fossil fuels. These subsidies are bad for our planet, and they're a bad use of public money. When will the government put an end to fossil fuel subsidies? 14:40 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question, and I recognise her very keen engagement on these issues and her engagement with the government on these issues. The approach the government is taking is to implement the policies we took to the election. In addition, we are engaging internationally on a range of pledges, of agreements and of alliances which I signed last week. The opposition has criticised us for that, but we continue in that international engagement with things like the Global Offshore Wind Alliance, the Net Zero Government Initiative and the Global Methane Pledge, which the opposition have got themselves hyperventilating about—but, nevertheless, we will continue to engage. In relation to the honourable member's question, we continue to target government expenditure very carefully. We have made changes in the budget. For example, we cut around half a billion dollars out of CCUS funding and reprioritised it. We cut the former member's UNGI program, which delivered not one watt of energy, and we reprioritised that for energy storage. That is what a good government does. What we won't do is—to be very frank with the honourable member—do things like cut the diesel fuel rebate to farmers. We won't be doing that. We understand the pressures and the different views, but these are arrangements that have been in place for a very long time, and we do not intend to change them. Wages 32 14:41 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Treasurer. Why is it important to get wages moving again, and what actions are the government taking to get wages moving again after a decade of deliberately low wages? 14:41 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the outstanding member for Paterson for her question. With that one question, she has asked almost as many questions as the shadow Treasurer since the budget was handed down a month ago. It was a month ago, and we've had two questions from this bloke opposite. Every single member of this side of the House understands that wages in this country have been stagnant for too long, and we need to do what we can to get wages moving again in this country. We all have a common interest in making sure that wages grow strongly and sustainably, and that goes hand in hand with a more productive economy as well. We want strong wages, strong profits and for Australian workers to get a fairer share of our national economic success so that, when people work hard, they can get ahead and they can provide for their loved ones. That's what motivates every single member of this side of the House. That's why we want to get wages moving again in this country. In the course of the last couple of years, a number of the peak business organisations have made a similar point about the need to get wages moving in this country. One of the defining failures of those opposite's decade in office is the fact that wages have been too stagnant for too long. We need to change that. How we go about that is obviously a matter for the government to determine and for the Senate to determine. The specific detail about how we go about this will always be contentious in one way or another, but, when we've had a decade of wage stagnation despite low unemployment and despite skills shortages, we do need to take a broad approach to getting wages moving again. That's why, in the budget, we're funding training of people for higher-wage opportunities. That's why we're making it easier for parents to work more and earn more, as the education minister was talking about a moment ago. That's why we're investing in industries with strong, secure, well-paid jobs into the future. And that's why we are fixing a broken bargaining system: because Australians need a pay rise—working Australians deserve a pay rise—and because good wages, growing strongly and sustainably, are good for the economy as well. Nobody would be happier than those opposite if we had another decade of wage stagnation like the one we have just seen in this country. The shadow Treasurer even admitted on Sky News that his opposition to our proposals would be because it would see wages rise in our economy. We take a different approach to this economic challenge. This is one of the defining economic challenges that we confront together as a country. We want strong and sustainable wages growth because that's good for the country and it's good for the economy, and that's what motivates us every single day. Energy 33 14:44 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman My question is to the Prime Minister. On 4 April this year in Queensland, you looked down the barrel of TV cameras and promised your plan on emission reduction would 'result in energy prices coming down by $275 per household'. Prime Minister, will you look down the barrel of the camera now and admit to the people of Queensland that, instead of your promised $275, your budget locks in an electricity price increase of 56 per cent and a gas price increase of 44 per cent? 14:45 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I think I'll leave looking down the barrel to 'the lightweight on the hill' over there! I thank the member for his question. I do note the comments of Phil Lowe, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, someone who has a bit of a role in the economy and someone who has a look at energy policy and the impact. This is what he had to say to the Standing Committee on Economics on 16 September: … the fact that Australia committed to net zero by 2050 was incredibly important. …The fact that we had not signed up had people saying: 'Are you really serious about this? We want this. Do we want to invest in Australia?' … the fact that we committed to it was important. Australia has great potential here with clean energy. … When we were on a different path, people were saying, 'Are they really serious?' It was damaging us. And indeed it was, because four gigawatts left the system, and only one gigawatt came in. If you have an impact on that, it has an impact on price. But we are already acting on our policy, which has been passed through both houses of parliament, and, as a result, we're already seeing the investment. You see, price is a product of investment. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will take a break. Mr Bowen DZS They're taking a point of order: too much relevance! The SPEAKER 53517 Minister for Climate Change and Energy, I'm trying to take a point of order from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, it's on relevance. The question was very clear. There was a $275 cut in power prices promised. We've actually seen, you're now saying, a 56 per cent— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The question was a long question regarding prices of energy. The Prime Minister is directly relevant. He is referring in his answer to the cost of energy, and I give him the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm precisely talking about the price of energy, which is very much related to whether there is investment in new energy or not. I know that might be too complex for those opposite, but here's what the chief executive of Neoen, the French group, had to say just this week about the investment in new energy, which will have an impact up to 2030. This is what he had to say about 2025: We are the largest renewable player in the country and we want to quadruple in size before the end of the decade. We are going to double between now and 2025 and we are going to double again before the end of the decade. … there will be hundreds of jobs coming from these new investments. …   …   … … the good thing is that renewable energy is part of the solution. …   …   … We have a cost of production that is much lower than other energy sources. So what we're seeing as a direct result of the policy that we have is more investment, which is, as the chief executive of Neoen said, much lower than other energy sources—something that those opposite don't seem to understand. National Anti-Corruption Commission 34 14:49 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins My question is to the Attorney-General. Why is a National Anti-Corruption Commission so long overdue? 14:49 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Higgins for her question. The Commonwealth is the last jurisdiction in Australia to implement an anticorruption commission. Due to the inaction of the former Liberal-National government, we've been left behind while the states and territories have moved ahead. I'd like to remind the House that the people of Australia were promised a national anticorruption commission in December 2018. Who might've made that promise? I think it might have been the former Prime Minister and the former Attorney-General. This is what they said: A new Commonwealth Integrity Commission will take the lead on detecting and stamping out any corrupt and criminal behaviour by Commonwealth employees. But, as we all know, the former government didn't establish any such national anticorruption commission. By the time of the election in May 2022, they hadn't even bothered to introduce a bill to this parliament. It's been left to the Albanese Labor government to answer the clear message from the Australian people and deliver the anticorruption commission that the Australian people have asked for. This week, we are getting on with that job. The bills which are being debated in the House today have benefited from the experience of the existing state and territory commissions over the last three decades. Our national model draws on the best elements of those bodies and learns from any shortcomings. Our National Anti-Corruption Commission has also benefited from the scrutiny of parliamentary committees. Today, I circulated government amendments that draw on recommendations from two of those committees to further strengthen our bills. Among other things, these amendments will strengthen protections for journalists in relation to search warrants and protection of sources. We've listened to concerns from the media sector and their advocates and we have acted, because that is what good government does. We want the new Anti-Corruption Commission, when it is established, to have the best chance of success with as broad a base of support as possible. Part of securing that support is acting cooperatively, listening to feedback and taking it on board. I'm proud that the bills being debated today and the government amendments reflect that cooperation and our willingness to work with all sides of the parliament and stakeholders to make the National Anti-Corruption Commission the best it can be. Climate Change 34 14:52 Ms WA 300127 Ryan TSON-BROWN () (): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Minister, last week in Egypt you said: … if we're not trying to keep to 1.5C, then what are we here for? Because the difference between 1.5C and 1.7C in terms of the impact on the planet is enormous. Why then has your government adopted policies that are not compatible with keeping warming to 1.5 degrees, such as the more than $40 billion in the budget for fossil fuel subsidies, including the gas and petrochemical hub in Darwin Harbour and a new gas project in Victoria? 14:52 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question. Yes, the difference between 1.5 per cent and 1.7 per cent is enormous in terms of the impact on the world and the impact on Australia. That's why we're fighting so hard. Australia is the developed country with the most to lose from climate change. We are the country most exposed in the developed world to natural disasters. If climate change is unchecked, the Black Summer bushfires which we so devastatingly experienced in 2019 will be the average by 2040. That's what is at stake here. The floods that so many Australians are experiencing right now will become, as they already are, more and more common. That's why we fought so hard last week to maintain the commitment to 1.5 degrees, and that's why we are working so hard to implement, in just 85 months, our 2030 target. For a task of this size, 85 months is not long. It would have been better if we'd started 10 or 12 years ago, but we're starting in 2022 to meet this 2030 target, so that's why this is important. The honourable member asked about certain projects. The Greens yesterday moved a disallowance of one of those projects in the other place, and we opposed that. I'll tell you why we opposed it, because this is a point of difference with the Greens party: because contracts have been signed on that project. This was a decision taken by the previous government, not a decision I would have taken—not a grant we would have made—but contracts have been signed, and one thing this side of politics won't do is rip up contracts that have been signed by governments. We will respect that and we won't create sovereign risk. That is a genuine difference from the Greens party. So yes, we will oppose disallowances like that when they bring into question sovereign risk, because we want Australia to be a renewable energy export powerhouse, and to do that you need to be a reliable partner. You need to have credibility in the export markets. People need to know that if your government signs the contract it will be honoured. The other thing we need, if we are going to be a renewable energy powerhouse, is the capacity to export green hydrogen and ammonia. To do that you need to invest in our ports and in our gas facilities in our ports, to export that green hydrogen when the technology allows. We need to make those investments now or we won't be a renewable energy superpower. We say we have a hydrogen strategy in Australia, and we do, but so do 20 other countries. So we need to be constantly investing to increase our capacity not only to generate green hydrogen but to export it. That's exactly what we will continue to do. So there are some points of differences with the Greens on this. We will not rip up contracts. We will protect sovereign risks. Even if they are decisions we would not have made an office, as this one is, we will continue to ensure that that important matter of sovereign risk is protected. Murray-Darling Basin Plan 35 14:56 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. On the 10th anniversary of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan becoming law, how is the Albanese Labor government delivering on the plan and working to protect our precious river systems? What problems have arisen since the plan was signed into law? 14:56 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank the member for Makin for that question. Ten years ago the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was signed into law. It was the most important piece of water policy that this country has ever made, and it still leads the world in terms of water policy. It may seem like a very strange time to be talking about water scarcity and drought, when we see the devastation that the Prime Minister was describing earlier in question time. Of course our thoughts are with those individuals and communities who have been affected by these massive floods, with lives lost and property destroyed. But one thing we know about Australia is that as sure as night follows day there will be another drought and we need to be ready for that when it happens. The plan was constructed at a different time during the brutal millennium drought that made it necessary. It was the good work of the member for Watson that made that plan possible. A decade on I'm pleased to say that we have made real and meaningful progress when it comes to the Murray-Darling system. In the most recent drought, environmental water kept rivers flowing. It flooded wetlands and it gave hope to communities that saw dry river beds otherwise. In the south, the environmental flows helped flush 3.3 million tonnes of salt out through the mouth of the Murray and into the ocean. Without the plan we wouldn't have seen these results and that 2017 to 2019 drought would have been so much worse. But we have to acknowledge that this has been because of the genuine sacrifice of Murray-Darling Basin communities, and our thanks and acknowledgements have to go to those communities. We still have a challenge. We need to deliver this plan in full. Those opposite have veered from sabotage to scare campaigns. That has been their only response to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. With 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water promised, two gigalitres were delivered by those opposite. 100 dams were promised by those opposite; two dams were delivered by those opposite. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance, in question time you have previously directed a minister to be relevant to the question where the minister has strayed and begun talking about the record of the former government. I ask you to direct the minister to being directly relevant. The SPEAKER 53517 The question did include what problems have been encountered. The minister is addressing that part of the question. I ask her to return to her answer, but I will listen carefully as she concludes her answer. M 83M Thank you, it's ironic, isn't it, that those having achieved a little over the last nine years are prepared to sit here and heckle. We know that full delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is necessary. It's only one side of this Parliament that is fully committed to working with the states and territories to deliver in full on the Basin Plain. It's good for communities, it's good for farmers, it's good for irrigators, and its good for the environment. We know that only full delivery of the Basin Plain will save our river systems and the communities that depend on them. Energy 35 14:59 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How many private properties will be impacted by the construction of transmission lines affecting the power grid in central and southern Queensland under the Labor's energy policy? 15:00 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The honourable member asked me how many properties will be impacted by transmission projects in Queensland .We haven't announced any. We haven't done any deals with Queensland under Rewiring the Nation. The deals we've announced are with Tasmania and Victoria. So, the answer to the honourable member's question in that regard is, 'None'. We will have discussions with the Queensland government, of course, because we understand that transmission is important. We understand that transmission is necessary to get renewable energy to where it's used. I know that I'm not the only person who thinks that. The former minister for energy brought down an instrument—he was very good at that, signing instruments; he ran a nice line in signing instruments; he did it very often! But this was actually a good one that he signed. This one wasn't hiding energy price rises. This one was facilitating transmission lines. And in that regulation he said, 'These projects'—that is, transmission projects throughout Australia—'will be critical to deliver low-cost, reliable and secure energy to consumers.' That's what he said in the regulation. And he didn't stop there. He gave a big speech, a keynote speech. It wasn't any old speech, this one. It wasn't that long ago: 18 March 2022. He said: The development of interconnectors and transmission is critical to bringing new generation capacity into the energy system, while shoring up reliability and affordability across state borders. He went on to say—this is the best bit: Thousands of kilometres of new transmission is likely to be needed to connect new generation, and deliver reliable and affordable energy across the national market. I mean, what's changed between March and November? He's sitting on the other side of the chamber, is the only thing that's changed. If hypocrisy generated energy, the grid would be fine, thanks to the member for Hume. We need to get the transmission built to get energy to the grid. For Snowy 2.0, their signature policy, they forgot to connect to the grid. It's not plugged in. I don't know how they think the energy is going to get to the grid—carrier pigeons, maybe, taking the electrons to the national energy market. We will fix their mess by building the transmission. We'll get on with the job of Rewiring the Nation. We've done more in six months than they did in 10 years, already delivering the Marinus Link funding deal, already delivering a deal with Victoria. And we will engage with other governments to deliver Rewiring the Nation, because that's what the nation needs. Budget 36 15:03 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. How does the Albanese Labor government's budget address years of waste and years of rorts and provide increased infrastructure funding for regional Australia that can actually be delivered? 15:03 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Robertson both for the question and for hosting me on the Central Coast last week. The Albanese government's budget delivers for our regions. We're doing the hard work of delivering a responsible pipeline of investment, cleaning up the mess left by those opposite in the infrastructure investment pipeline whilst increasing funding for regional projects through that pipeline. In the October budget this investment has increased by around $4 million compared with what was promised and planned by those opposite. And in the recent Senate estimates hearings it was confirmed that in the infrastructure investment pipeline over a 10-year period more than 51.9 per cent of projects are being delivered in our regions—again, more than what was planned by those opposite. In terms of the forward estimates and the dollar amounts, projects in regional Australia received 34.2 per cent of funding in the infrastructure investment pipeline. That compares with 33.6 per cent under those opposite. So we're doing more. Over a 10-year period, in fact, the difference is even greater. In the member for Robertson's own electorate, not only are we delivering $40 million to upgrade and improve local roads around the Central Coast; we have also allocated some $30 million to upgrade Avoca Drive, and we'll be funding much-needed upgrades to facilities at Frost Reserve in Kinkumba, which I visited. Through the budget, in stark contrast to the way in which the previous government operated, we have also committed to topping up the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure fund, specifically for regional and rural roads, because we acknowledge and understand just how much pressure our regional roads are under. That takes the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, in this round, to almost three-quarters of a billion dollars, and particularly that top-up for regional road communities. During my visit to Robertson I also visited play spaces at Ross Park, Avoca Beach and Jirramba Reserve in Saratoga, all projects that are funded under that program. I also had the pleasure of visiting The Entrance ocean baths with the member for Dobell, where we're funding improvements, including improving the baths and a waterfront plaza play space. I also visited the Hunter region; we're investing substantially there. There is $269 million for the Muswellbrook bypass, $38.6 million for the much-needed Coulsons Creek Road upgrade and $10.5 million for the Muswellbrook town centre—an incredibly important precinct that was partly funded under previous government, and we're now making sure that those connections are made to improve the community, an incredibly important community, as it transitions. Improvements to the Muswellbrook bypass alone will improve safety. Again, this is about delivering in a much more transparent way, delivering better, delivering for our regions, and that's what the Albanese government will continue to do. Victoria: Infrastructure 37 15:06 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure. Can the minister explain why Labor are providing $2.2 billion for the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop before the Victorian state election, which ignores their own policy by proceeding without an Infrastructure Australia assessment and, at the same time, they are cancelling the $110 million Wellington Road duplication project in south-east Melbourne, which they promised in 2019? 15:07 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member very much for his question. I will take a minute to talk a little bit about Wellington Road, but first let me talk about the importance of the Suburban Rail Loop. This is a once-in-a-generation infrastructure investment in Victoria. This is not just about the suburbs, but also, for the member for Gippsland, it will substantially improve the capacity of people who live in Gippsland to go to things like Monash University, to attend the Monash Children's Hospital and actually make sure they can get to those important appointments. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR We know the Suburban Rail Loop will transform our suburbs and that regional Victorians will benefit from that as well. The detailed business and investment case for the Suburban Rail Loop, released by Victoria last year, demonstrated a benefit-cost ratio of 1.7, meaning that $1.70 would be returned for every dollar invested. The member seems to not understand that, under the National Land Transport Act, the project is also subject to rigorous assessment processes between the Commonwealth and Victoria. That is what is required when we have those national partnership agreements. The member asked me about projects being funded without infrastructure investment. I know the member wasn't here at the time, but I do remind the member of the $5 billion that was committed to the Melbourne Airport rail loop without the previous government actually speaking to the Victorian Premier first, and the $1.6 billion commitment for the Brisbane to Sunshine Coast rail that the Queensland government described as 'a bit of a surprise', saying the money appeared 'plucked from the sky'. Again, the member's question provides me with the opportunity to remind the House just what an absolute mess the previous government made of the infrastructure investment pipeline, which we are having to clean up. In relation to the Wellington Road project that the member referred to, the previous government said they would fund 100 per cent of it. They said they would fund the duplication of Wellington Road 100 per cent. The only problem was they only put $110 million into what is an approximately $620 million project. That is the problem. It says everything about the previous government that the member does not understand what it actually takes to invest in and deliver a project. As I've said previously, you can't drive on a press release. Indonesia: Earthquake, Solomon Islands: Earthquake 37 15:09 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the consequences of the earthquakes in Honiara and Java? 15:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Solomon for this question and his long-standing interest particularly in Indonesia but also in the Pacific. This morning there was a 5.6 magnitude earthquake in Java. Media have reported that at least 162 people have lost their lives. More than 700 have been injured. It is estimated that some 13,000 people have been displaced with more than 2,000 homes damaged. I have conveyed, through to my friend President Widodo, Australia's condolences at this tragic loss of life. We will stand ready to provide our friends in Indonesia with support, as Australia always does. In Honiara this morning there was a 7.3 magnitude earthquake at 10 kilometre depth. There are reports of aftershocks. All staff of the Australian high commission are safe. There are no known injuries but the roof of the high commission annex has collapsed, which would point to likely damage throughout the city. Staff have been moved to higher ground because there was a tsunami warning that was issued. Our high commission is seeking to confirm the safety of all Australian in the Solomons. There are difficulties because phone lines have gone down, so there are communication difficulties there. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has stood up a consular emergency task force to lead consular response and support. Solomon Islands police are out doing damage assessment. We have placed someone in the national disaster response centre to assist with the initial response. We have contacted Prime Minister Sogavare to once again indicate that Australia stands ready to assist. We have, of course, historically played an important role in the Solomon Islands. Anyone with concerns for Australians in the Solomons can contact the consular emergency centre on, if they're in Australia, 1300555135, or if they're outside Australia +61262613305. We await further news. Senator Wong will be giving a statement to the Senate around about now as well. I hope that not just all Australians are safe. I think I can speak on behalf the House to say that we hope that the impact of this devastating earthquake is minimised and we stand ready to provide support. 15:13 Mr D 00AKI Dickson UTTON (—) (): I thank the Prime Minister for the update in relation to the situation. We extend our condolences in particular to the families in Java who have lost loved ones and those in the Solomon Islands that will be panicking with about where their loved ones are in some circumstances right now. It was a harrowing experience in 2018 in Lombok where there was an earthquake there. To see the devastation to the local people, to the infrastructure—which, of course, in many cases is just not built to the standards that we would see here in Australia—the loss of life; the loss of livelihood for many of those people in villages and in the cities was quite devastating. We don't know the extent of the damage yet, but it will require assistance from Australia no doubt. As the Prime Minister rightly points out, our country will always stand with our near neighbours, with people in our region, in particular those from the Solomon Islands, from Indonesia and from elsewhere. We will always provide them with support in their hour of need. We have many staff, of course, in Solomon Islands at the moment, so we wish them safe passage, and I'm sure that they will be part of the response and recovery, and support to those within the community. We will lend any support to the government to make sure that we can respond in an appropriate way—as I say, as we have done in the past and as we will always do. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 38 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE FIFA World Cup 38 15:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Briefly, on a much more pleasant note, I rise to wish the Socceroos all the best. The World Cup campaign for the world game begins in Qatar for Australia tomorrow at 6 am, with the match against the reigning world champions, France. We wish all of the Socceroos all the best for tomorrow, and many of us of course will be up watching. It is a sport for which we will be hosting the Women's World Cup in 2023, along with New Zealand. That will be an important event. It will actually be one of the largest sporting events ever hosted here in Australia. On behalf of the government, but I think the parliament as well, we wish our Socceroos all the best. 15:16 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Thank you to the Prime Minister for advising a few moments ago that he was intending to make those comments. Obviously, we wish the Socceroos all the very best in what will be a tough match. Nonetheless, they've got a great fighting spirit, and we wish them every success tomorrow morning and in the course of the tournament as well. I also take the opportunity to acknowledge, in the other world cup that has just taken place, in Rugby League, the work of the Kangaroos and the Jillaroos, both successful. In the case of the Jillaroos, it's the third successive year that they have won. Of course, I'll mention Ali Brigginshaw, who is a Broncos player, who was player of the match. A special mention also goes to Mal Meninga, James Tedesco and others, who have done a fantastic job in our country's name. I wish all of those who are still celebrating every success; they'll return home at some stage, when it's appropriate for them do so! STATEMENTS 38 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 38 15:17 Mr LITT 265585 Maranoa LEPROUD (—) (): Mr Speaker, I was misrepresented in question time. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 I do— The SPEAKER 53517 Please proceed. Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 by the Minister for Education. In his answer, he made an assertion that I did not support the childcare bill that went through here. In fact, the substantive bill was supported by the side. Personal Explanation 39 15:17 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to be misrepresented? Mr HAWKE HWO I do. I was quite badly misrepresented. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr HAWKE HWO In question time, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy suggested that I as Minister for International Development and the Pacific had not visited the Pacific. From my appointment, after the November 2019 election, on day one—shortly after, with Prime Minister Morrison, I visited the Solomon Islands. I visited PNG multiple times, Tuvalu for a week for the Pacific Islands Forum, Fiji, Micronesia, Tonga and New Zealand several times in my first nine months. In late January of 2020, I was the last Australian government minister or MP out of the Pacific just before the Australian government closed the border. From then on, I had several dozen Zoom meetings instead of visits to the Pacific. I would say to the minister for climate change: I have visited more countries and spent more time in Pacific island countries than he has, and I'm prepared for him to correct the record if that is incorrect. DOCUMENTS 39 DOCUMENTS Presentation 39 15:18 Mr BURKE DYW Watson There's only one. The document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 39 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Youth Steering Committee 39 15:19 The SPEAKER 53517 I just want to acknowledge, before they leave, the members of the government's Youth Steering Committee, who are here in the chamber as well. A very warm welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear! MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 39 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 39 15:19 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hume proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's six months of failure to address Australia's cost of living crisis. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:19 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume In March, the Prime Minister said the following: 'Labor has a real plan to get incomes rising and costs under control.' Then in May, a couple of months later, he said, 'The cost of living is rising now. If we don't act, these problems will just get bigger.' At the same time, he made commitments to the Australian people. He committed to cheaper mortgages, he committed to a $275-a-year reduction in electricity bills, and he committed that the Labor Party would deliver improvements in real wages. Well, what have we seen since then? On the other side of this chamber, we have seen Labor consistently refuse to recommit to the $275 reduction in electricity prices, time and time and time again. All we hear is waffle from the Prime Minister, waffle after waffle after waffle—no $275. He has steadfastly refused to commit to it. Cheaper mortgages—absolutely gone. Time after time after time, the Reserve Bank has raised interest rates, and there's nothing from the government. Meanwhile, the Treasurer, in his updated forecast, has put up the white flag on real wages. The news to the Australian people in the last budget is that, in this term of parliament, there will be no increases in real wages—none, zero, zip, gone. Those opposite have given up; they have absolutely put up the white flag. Indeed, the Treasurer's budget, handed down only a short time ago, weeks ago, sank to the bottom of the ocean within days. It was gone. It was absolutely gone. This was Labor's biggest missed opportunity. They had a chance to lay out a plan to the Australian people for doing exactly what they said they were going to do before the election, and they gave up on it within months. We have said time and time again that a sensible plan to deal with rising inflation and rising interest rates is one that needs to go to the source, not just the symptom, and that means a responsible budget. That means responsible fiscal policy. That means managing spending. That means making sure that you lay out a budget where the budget is improving, year after year. What did we see from this government? One hundred and fifteen billion dollars of additional spending since the March budget. Mr Wallace 265967 How much? Mr TAYLOR 231027 One hundred and fifteen billion dollars of additional spending since the last budget. It's there in the budget papers. When you compare the spending over the four years of the forwards in this budget versus March, there's an extra $115 billion of spending. Even Stephen Koukoulas, economic adviser to Julia Gillard, has said, 'This is not good enough.' In fact, the Kouk said, very clearly, 'This has left the Reserve Bank carrying the can.' Do you know what the Reserve Bank do when they carry the can? They raise interest rates—not once, not twice; indeed, we've seen Goldman Sachs say in recent days that they expect the cash rate to go up to over four per cent—four per cent and still no plan from those opposite. There was just a glimmer of hope that maybe the budget wasn't where the plan was going to come up, that it was going to be in MYEFO. But even to that, in last 48 hours or so, they've said, 'No, that's not happening either.' So we hope for next May. Australians will keep hoping, because they're paying too much for their mortgage, they're paying more every day at the check-out, they're paying more for their furniture, and they're paying more for their renovations, and Labor has no answer, no plan, to deal with it. A typical Australian who's just entered into a new mortgage of $750,000—which these days in suburban Sydney and Melbourne is a very typical mortgage—they're now paying over $1,200 a month more compared to May this year. That $1,200 a month is on top of all of the other cost-of-living increases they are seeing. So make no mistake, especially with a mortgage, more than three million Australians are going to have to make tough decisions this Christmas, knowing that this government doesn't have their back, and there will be tough conversations around dinner tables about what's going to go. I want to talk about a few examples from my own electorate. Kyle, from Thirlmere in the north of my electorate, said he and his wife are watching what they spend every day, and his wife has had to return to full-time work, giving up on other things she was doing, to continue to make ends meet. Lesley, from The Oaks, told me she is at the point where she can barely afford to put food on the table or pay her bills. These are Australians struggling right now. They can't wait around for this government to come up with a plan. The test for this budget was very simple: it was to deliver a comprehensive plan to consolidate the strong position that's been inherited. From when the New South Wales and Victorian economies opened up in October— A governmen t member interjecting— Mr TAYLOR 231027 The member opposite should actually have a listen to this. When the New South Wales and Victorian economies opened up in October, from November through to 30 June, the budget was in balance. They are the facts! Meanwhile, the economy was running at a pace that was the envy of the world. In fact, the Reserve Bank governor has said, as he talks to central bank governors all around the world, that other governors look at his position with great envy because of the strength of the economy that we have seen over the last six months. The key for Labor was to consolidate that position, to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates without raising taxes and to relieve the supply-side pressures in the economy, like getting more pensioners into work—not a half-baked attempt to do it, but a real attempt to get those pensioners into work—and there are so many who want to do it. Meanwhile, the final test was to deliver on those key promises: cheaper mortgages, lower electricity prices and improvements in real wages. It failed every test. On top of that, in this budget Labor added $142 billion of extra tax. Those opposite, having taken $142 billion of extra tax from the Australian people, now want more taxes. They're talking about franking credits. In fact, we know in the budget there was $500 million of extra franking credit taxation. That wasn't in their election plans! We also see the Treasurer, day by day, floating another tax increase he wants to talk about, whether it's a windfall tax on our resources companies, whether it's getting rid of the stage 3 tax cuts—we know they're doing the work—or whether it's superannuation. I'm sure that's what we'll see in the next budget—not relief for Australians from inflationary and interest rate pressures. In fact, what we will see is additional taxation. If that isn't bad enough, Labor's IR bill isn't going to help the Australian economy through a tough time. It's only going to harm it. The businesses that will be hurt most are small- to medium-sized enterprises. We've seen today in the RIS exactly what sorts of costs are going to be imposed on them, because they don't have HR departments, for the most part. They will have to deal with something they've never had to deal with before, which are virulent union officials wanting to reunionise or unionise their workforce. In fact—the member opposite talked about pay rises—when you look at the latest WPI data, which has come out just in the last week or so, the strongest growth in wages is where there are individual agreements in the private sector. That's where we are seeing the real strength. Businesses have come out very clearly against this bill. Andrew McKellar, the chief executive of ACCI, has made it very clear they are deeply unhappy with this. Jennifer Westacott, from the Business Council, said: We want wages to go up but that won't be achieved by creating more complexity, more strikes and higher unemployment. Innes Willox, from AiG, has said: The proposed changes to Australia's workplaces introduced to federal parliament … risk taking the country down a path of more strikes, fewer jobs, centralised decision-making and less trust within our enterprises. That is what those opposite want, because they are paying the paymasters. 15:29 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam Well. That was the worst minister in the worst government since Federation doing his unimpressive best to try to blame a government that has been in power for six months for the efforts that we are putting in to clean up the mess that they left this country in after nine terrible years of appalling government. They whinge about budget management! They left us with a trillion dollars of debt and tell us the books were in good condition! I'd hate to see what the books would look like if they were in bad condition, when we've got a trillion dollars of debt. The bloke whose single contribution to public policy, his most memorable contribution to public life over the last 11 years, has been to doctor an annual report of the Lord Mayor of Sydney, is now trying to doctor history by telling us that the budget was balanced. If you can balance a budget by going out and purchasing cheap giveaway coffee mugs saying 'back in black', then they had the job nailed. But, unfortunately, it was never true. They cannot cope with the truth. They have handed this government a structural budget deficit. They thought they could deal with the structural budget deficit by turning up year in, year out and just pretending to the Australian people, 'We will just sprinkle magic growth dust.' It's magical thinking: sprinkle magic growth dust over the budget numbers and sometime down the track the budget is going to come back into surplus! It won't be in three years or four years over the forward estimates, it won't even be in 10 years over the medium term, but, sometime down the track, if they just hold their breath and hope and sprinkle a little of that magic growth dust, the budget is going to come back into surplus. Well, here's a hard truth: it won't, and you can't keep saying it and make it true. The grown-ups are now in charge. The grown-ups are now running the country. And, yes, we are going to have an honest conversation with the Australian people. Labor wants to make sure people can continue to have excellent health care, can go to their GP and local hospital and can ensure they have access to the medicines they need. We are making them cheaper, by the way. Labor wants to ensure that we can continue to provide excellent health care. We also want to ensure that we can continue to look after people who are relying on the National Disability Insurance Scheme for some dignity and assistance—whether for them or for their carers. But those opposite have left the system in a mess, and it falls to us to clean it up. In aged care there is a legacy of neglect. It is going to cost billions of dollars to fix the mess that they have left the system in. We are having the honest conversation with the Australian people. We cannot provide dignity to our oldest Australians, our most precious Australians, unless we inject more money into the system and ensure that the system is well funded, and, yes, that the people who work in the system are well paid. We support it, and we will fund it. They talk about national defence, but this is more of the magical thinking. We will ensure that our Defence Force and our military have the equipment that they need, and that we are properly funding our defence forces. What we ask in return from our defence establishment is to ensure that every single dollar is well spent. We want to spend more money on national defence, but we want to ensure that every single dollar is well spent. The difference between the Albanese Labor government and the magical, infant thinking of those who now occupy the opposition benches is that we are honest with the Australian people. We cannot continue to improve Medicare, to pay for medicines, to ensure we can have world-class early childhood education and child care, we cannot ensure we have the best and most well-equipped Defence Force, we cannot ensure we are going to be able to provide the sorts of care to Australians in their hours of needs that we want our elderly Australians to be able to have—we cannot continue to do this with the structural budget deficit that they have left us. So, yes, we need to have a conversation about revenue, and we're having a conversation about revenue. I was delighted to hear the member for Hume raise the issue of off-market share buybacks; I was delighted to hear the member for Hume talk about that and the not illegal but improper use of franking dividends to fund off-market share buybacks. Labor created the system of dividend imputation; we set it up. It was Labor who ensured ordinary mum-and-dad investors weren't going to be double taxed when they invested on the Australian share market. We set up the system of dividend imputation and the franking credits system which is the accounting mechanism to ensure those tax credits are allocated to shareholders. When we did that, we wanted to encourage people to invest in the share market. It was never the purpose of franking credits to allow large companies—and I'm talking about the biggest companies on the Australian Stock Exchange—to use excess franking credits they cannot distribute, to go to certain institutional investors and say, 'I will give you a cut-price share buyback and hand you over some of these excess franking credits in exchange.' This means the Australian taxpayer is subsidising share buybacks for Australia's largest companies. It is costing the budget on average $200 million a year. What companies am I talking about? In 2022 Westpac purchased $3.5 billion of its own shares but used $1.6 billion worth of franking credits to subsidise the purchase of those shares. That means the Australian taxpayer subsidised that share buy, to the tune of $1.6 billion. For JB Hi-Fi: $250 million worth of share buybacks, $93.9 million worth of franking credits. For Commonwealth Bank: $6 billion of buybacks paid for in part by $1.98 billion worth of franking credits. This is the Australian taxpayer subsidising the share buybacks. But it's not only the Australian taxpayer who is suffering; it's all the other mum-and-dad investors. The opposition say they stick up for mum-and-dad investors but, I can tell you, there wasn't a CEO or company secretary going to mum-and-dad investors and saying, 'Would you like to have some of these cut-price shares that I want to buy back off you?' No—they weren't available to mum-and-dad retail investors; they were only available to the big institutional investors. If you want to hear a complaint about mum-and-dad investors, how about the way they are treated in the companies they have shareholdings in? They do not get treated in the same way as the big institutional investors. These guys opposite want to defend the status quo. We're sticking up for mum-and-dad investors, and we will ensure we treat off-market share buybacks in exactly the same way as on-market share buybacks. We are going to ensure we legislate this, and the Australian budget will be $200 million a year stronger because of it. I dare those opposite to stand there and say, 'If Labor legislates it, we will reverse it.' We know they won't, because they've got a question to answer: 'Is that $200 million a year better off helping to do budget repair, better off investing in some community infrastructure, better off assisting to pay for an aged-care worker who is already struggling under wages that don't enable them to pay the rent? Is that a better use of that $200 million a year, or are we going to provide a $200 million-a-year subsidy to some of the biggest companies and the biggest institutional investors at the expense of mum-and-dad investors and Australian taxpayers?' It's not a hard question for us to answer. We don't believe in magical thinking. We don't believe in magic growth dust. We know we have to have an honest conversation with the Australian people, and, yes, that means sometimes making tough decisions. We will always make the tough decisions that are in the interests of ordinary Australians, backing mums and dads, backing ordinary Australians. If it means taking on the big institutional investors or the big companies, we will do it. We will repair the budget, we will make our nation stronger, we will make our nation fairer and we will resist every step of the way the small-minded, dishonest politics we have just seen demonstrated by the member for Hume. 15:39 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina We've just had 10 minutes of dares, diversion, distractions; everything but him, the Assistant Treasurer, coming to the dispatch box and saying 'Yes, we've had six months and one day in office and we could have done more; we should have done more; we've let the Australian people down.' He talked about honesty in his closing remarks. If he were honest with the Australian people he would admit that they haven't fulfilled the promises they made prior to the May 21 election in the first six months. I appreciate that six months is not long, but he did mention that there is another budget next May. We'll give those opposite until next May to get things right. But the Australian public won't. They expect a reduction in power prices before Christmas. They were told 97 times they were going to get power bills that were less than the previous bills they had to pay. Power bills actually came down when we were in government. Now they are just going up and up and up. I get many small businesses in my regional community who complain to me, as do households, about the fact they cannot afford power prices. We heard from the Assistant Treasurer about aged care and how people in the aged care system should be paid more. None of us would deny the aged care workers, those wonderful people, a pay increase. But when you have a Labor government promising unfairly that they're going to put in this 24-hour nursing in aged care centres—of course we need the proper care and attention, but that will send some of those regional and particularly remote aged care centres to the wall if they have to provide a level of care that is just beyond the levels of staffing that they could possibly do. And yes, of course we want to have trained, qualified people on call 24 hours a day, but the expectation Labor has given to the sector and to those people who want their loved ones to have the best in their twilight years is beyond the actual capability of some of those aged care centres, especially in remote Australia, to be able to deliver. We heard from him about properly funding our defence force. We all remember the last time Labor were in power and defence spending dropped below two per cent of GDP for the first time since 1938. And we all know what happened in 1939. So they talk a big game and they talk up all of the things they are going to do. We heard just prior to the election, on 17 May in fact, the present Treasurer, the member for Rankin, saying we want to show up every day and take responsibility not just for the good things but difficult things as well. The same present Treasurer during the height of COVID said this government—when we were in government—will be tested and this will be the rank on which they will be scored by whether they keep jobs going, the unemployment rate. Well, with JobKeeper we saved 700,000 jobs. In fact 1.1 million employment opportunities were created since the pandemic hit. I remember being in those meetings when Professor Brendan Murphy, the Chief Medical Officer, advised those running the government that we could potentially lose tens of thousands of people in a few weeks. They were dire times. Yet we hear those opposite talking about a trillion dollars worth of debt. It's not a trillion dollars; it's nowhere near a trillion dollars. They say 'What do we get for the debt that we are now in?' I'll tell you what we got for the debt that we are now in: we got Australians saved. We had their lives and livelihoods protected. That's what we did. We ensured that potentially 50,000 to 55,000 Australians are alive today who otherwise would not be but for the policies that we put in place. We kept the doors of business open. We kept the wheels of the economy turning, because that's what a responsible government does. For those who come in now saying 'What do we get for a trillion dollars worth of debt?' the answer is A. It's not a trillion dollars; and B. we kept Australians alive. Isn't that the first task of government: to protect Australians' lives? That's what we did. I'm proud that we did and I'm proud of the legacy that we managed. 15:44 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I'm pleased to join the discussion of this matter of public importance today. Before the member for Riverina leaves, I'd like to congratulate him on his daughter's wedding on the weekend. I hope the family had a wonderful time. But it doesn't change the fact, Member for Riverina, that the structural deficit was there before the pandemic—just on your final note. We've got a matter of public importance before us today that says that we've failed in our first six months of government. Well, those opposite could wish to fail as we've been failing lately. Hubris is not my friend, but I am absolutely thrilled to be part of the Albanese government and to have delivered what we have delivered in our first six months. It's been extraordinary. We went to an election, those opposite claimed, as a small target. I would suggest we went to an election with some key, real ideas that were going to make a difference to Australians' lives, and we have delivered them. In six months, we've seen a 15 per cent pay rise to aged-care workers. We said we'd get wages moving. Wages are getting moving. We've got a five per cent pay rise for people on the minimum wage. We said we'd get wages moving. We're getting wages moving. The Secure Work, Better Pay legislation went through the House in the last sitting week and this week is moving over to the Senate to get wages moving. That's what this government's about. This government's about delivering on its commitments. Today we come back in. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy returns from COP to tell us the good news today in question time about the way this new Australian government was received at that incredibly important forum. The Prime Minister is back from forums across the last week where Australia was warmly welcomed back to the table as a positive influencer in global decisions that are being made. That's what this government is delivering. This government is delivering an Australia that is back at the table, warmly welcomed by our allies and influencing things internationally to make a difference not just for Australians but for people around our globe. We have legislated a target to reduce emissions and move to 82 per cent renewables in eight years. That's where we're going to be. We are at 30 per cent now. In six months, we've taken the steps to get that plan moving. What else have we done in six months? How else have we failed the Australian people in six months, as those opposite would like to frame it? We've reinstated the Women's Budget Statement—hear, hear! What a great thing that is. We've put women's working lives and women's families' lives back at the heart of government. While we sat in question time, we heard that our early education and childcare legislation has gone through the Senate. What a difference that's going to make to 1.2 million Australian families, including more than 10,000 families in my electorate. That is going to make a critical difference. Not only is it good for cost of living but it creates a structural change that, it's estimated, could bring back 37,000 effective full-time workers to reduce the impacts we've got from staff shortages around the country. This government, in six months, has delivered on our key commitments. Back to the women: we've legislated domestic violence leave. This is an enormous change, and it is delivering cultural change on the floor of every Australian workplace, because we're going to measure what matters. We're going to measure, through this leave, the economic impact that domestic violence is having on Australian businesses. How can that be a bad thing? It can only be a good thing, because it means that women can take the time that they need, at possibly the worst time in their lives, and we'll encourage them to make the change in their lives that they desire to make. They'll be supported by their workplace, and we'll be measuring the economic impact of domestic violence. That'll get the country behind changing domestic violence as nothing else can. This government has delivered, in six months, more than the previous government delivered in nine long, long years. 15:50 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson Every day Australians are hurting. The No. 1 priority of this government should be addressing the increases in the cost of living that is burdening Australian households right now. Grocery bills are becoming more shocking by the week. Energy bills are rapidly increasing. The cost of fuel is still on the rise. But the No. 1 priority of this government isn't the cost of living. It isn't the Australians doing it tough with the household budget at the moment. It's with trying to ensure a nice little Christmas present for their friends, the unions. I've said before: government is not a spectator sport. The Labor government need to realise they are running the show. Rather than fixating on commentary, rhetoric and spin, they need to provide us with a plan that will ease the hip-pocket pain right now across Australia. On budget night, the Labor government walked away from a commitment to reduce every household's energy bill by $275—a promise that was repeated 97 times. Not a slip of the tongue. Instead, Labor have unapologetically served up a 56 per cent increase on power bills. In May last year, the now Prime Minister said, 'Look, it's the job of the Prime Minister to deal with challenges that Australia faces and not to consistently just blame everyone else.' Either he's got a short memory or he's changed his mind on what the job of a Prime Minister is. All we have seen in the six months of this government is the constant blame game and the denying of responsibility. What we haven't seen is a plan to get the nation out of this cost-of-living crisis. In the then opposition leader's speech to convince the Australian people to elect him, he said: 'As your Prime Minister, I won't run from responsibility. I won't treat every crisis as a chance to blame someone else. I will show up, I will step up and I will bring people together.' Well, Mr Prime Minister, where are you now when my people in Dawson have their electricity bills skyrocketing? Where were you when they were all having access to their power jeopardised and small businesses threatened by the unions? At a time of an inflation crisis, energy woes that are going to leave our country extremely vulnerable and significant cost-of-living pressures this government is deciding to experiment with the Australian economy, household budgets and the hardworking businesses of this nation. Then we had the budget. It was Labor's opportunity to assure Australians that a reprieve was on the way, and the government had their back. But that's not what happened. There were zero physical strategy and economic solutions. Even Julia Gillard's former economist has said the budget did not put pressure on downward inflation. The government is hoping the Reserve Bank will do the heavy lifting for them. In the election they said, time and time again, 'You'll be better off under Labor,' but a Newspoll conducted in the wake of this first budget, a crucial budget, revealed that almost half of the voters believe they will be worse off over the next 12 months. The Australian people have the right to feel let down and to feel misled. They are the ones who have been on the receiving end of the broken promises and the shirking of responsibility. Now the Australian people are the ones who have to bear the burden for increased costs of their day-to-day bills without any leadership from this government. This government are pussyfooting around, playing politics and ideology, fixating on looking after their union mates rather than showing leadership and taking responsibility for the crisis that is unfolding across our nation. Step up, Labor: you're at the helm now. You're not in opposition any more. Australians need you right now to drive the ship. This situation is going to get much worse if the Labor government continue to get the priorities wrong. The No. 1 priority in this country must be addressing the cost of living, not lining your union mates' pockets. Labor, get your act together and take responsibility. Please start to look after Australia and look after all Australians. Do your job, not your union mates'. 15:55 Ms SWA 264170 Paterson NSON () (): So this opposition has the temerity to suggest that the Albanese government has failed to address Australia's cost of living in its first six months? It's akin, really, to the arsonist blaming the fire brigade for not putting out the fire fast enough, after lighting the fire, pouring fuel on it, fanning the flames, cutting the hoses—let alone holding them—and cutting off the water as well. Come on! Fair crack! Seriously. I haven't been in this place all that long—seven years. I haven't been in it as long as some, and I've been here longer than others. But I do remember Joe Hockey's first budget. So let's have some real comparison over a 10-year period. There was a thing called the Medicare co-payment. Ha! That didn't last too long. It was dumped as quick as sticks. I tell you now that people in my electorate and in Deputy Speaker Claydon's electorate, in the Hunter, have got a better chance of being able to see a doctor thanks to the Labor government instituting and re-funding GP Access After Hours, after the previous government slashed their funding. Let's think about that one. Remember Joe Hockey's 'lifters and leaners'? It seemed as though there was a lot more leaning done by that government over the last 10 years than lifting Australia up. That's an absolute certainty. What about paid parental leave? I seem to remember that 10 years ago that was Tony Abbott's signature policy. It was going to happen under Abbott. Ha! Well, it didn't happen. Let me tell you: we've done it in six months, mate. So that's a big tick to the Albanese government. Gee, this is refreshing, to be able to compare our first six months to your last 10 years, because, let me say, it stacks up reasonably well—without getting too far ahead of ourselves. There was a thing that Joe Hockey brought in—it was quite interesting—called the Automotive Transformation Scheme. It was supposed to help component manufacturers because they were going to be in big strife as the last of the automotive industry was happening. Well, that certainly keeled over, and of course Holden and Toyota left the country, after being goaded out by Joe Hockey. It is lucky that, in our first six months, we've managed to do it quite well, look to the future and encourage electric vehicles. We have been lauded for that by every group under the sun. They're saying, 'Bring it on.' Mr McCormack 219646 Where is the power going to come from? Ms SWANSON 264170 The power will actually come, in part, from my electorate, Mic-Mac. You know that, mate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You should use the member's correct title. Ms SWANSON 264170 Sorry; I mean the member for Riverina, of course, who is a good friend, and, look, he's not a bad fellow. He can't help it that he has carried his fair share of the burden over the last 10 years of the Australian people being duped. I seem to remember there was a freeze on child care under the last government, in their first budget. That happened. That was truly an unmitigated disaster. We're not saying that, in our first six months, we've fixed child care, but, gee, I tell you what: we've certainly made some very important changes. I know the young families moving to my electorate from, particularly, Western Sydney—my electorate has been referred to as 'the nappy belt' in recent months—are very grateful that they're going to be given some real assistance. When you talk to young families in Paterson and say, 'How are you going?' they usually say, 'God, the roads are terrible,' and 'Child care is so expensive.' Mr Mc 219646 Need a good infrastructure minister! Ms SWANSON 264170 You know what? We're doing that. We're fixing it. We're getting on and fixing the roads and helping local government thanks to that funny little thing called the federal assistance grants. We're going to improve those for local government, which is a really great thing. They will be able to fix the roads in and around Paterson. And we know that we're helping families out with child care, with paid parental leave, with better wages, increased wages. I asked the Treasurer today why it was so important to get wages moving again. Unlike the past government, we do not have a structural mindset of trying to hold wages back for ordinary working people. We want to get a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. We are on their side. We want them to have a decent and fair workplace, where they will be rewarded for their effort. I, for one, am more proud of what we have done in six months than what the last government did in 10 years. They really achieved nothing. Even if this government only gets to— (Time expired) 16:00 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash It's only reasonable and fair in a debate, if we're having a reasonable debate, to respond to the previous speaker, and I'd like to respond to the member for Paterson and her enthusiastic address to the parliament. As she says, she has been here for seven years. One thing I'd like to say to you just as a word for caution, after being here for a lot longer than seven years, is you will find that some of you won't be there after the next election. I notice the guffawing and humour. I'll say it again, because Keating said the same thing to me a long time ago. He said, 'You won't be here,' and guess what? He was absolutely correct. I was sitting just down there. I remember it very well. So I want to say to the member for Paterson, firstly, there are no more childcare places going into Paterson under your legislation, not one new childcare place, and I know there's not an electorate in this building that doesn't need more childcare places, especially the electorate of Monash. Secondly, I saw three electric vehicles as I was coming into work today, into the parliament today—three of them, in Canberra. You used to see one or two now and again; I saw three this morning. They are owned by the wealthiest citizens in Australia. Poor people don't buy EVs. So it's actually the Labor government transferring, if you want to look at it another way—I'm responding to the member for Paterson—public funds, your appropriated taxes, to the wealthier people in the community. Thirdly, I don't know whether your IR changes are going to make any difference to the growth in wages. I hear the slogan. I hear the argument. I think the slogan by the government is, 'We're getting wages moving again,' and I've heard slogans like that. But I want to know what the modelling is that the IR changes are going to actually increase wages, because I haven't seen IR changes increase wages for workers ever. So I've got to accept it as a fait accompli now? Why would I? Why would I accept that? You have proposed this legislation, and you say it's going to increase wages for a lot of workers in those, as I heard the Labor members call them, feminised industries. I'm still responding to the member for Paterson, who was saying, 'So much has been achieved in the first six months, more than the government achieved in 10 years,' and on it goes—pure rhetoric. My sadness is two things in the election campaign: the 97 times the then campaign machine said, through their leaders, 'We are going to give you a $275 reduction in your electricity bill.' $275 means a lot to a household in my electorate. If you told a household in my electorate, 'You're getting a $275 decrease in your electricity bill,' they'd be pretty excited about that, and they might even go out and vote against the member for Monash, which I find unbelievable, that that could happen, that I could be sold out. For a measly $275 I'm gone. But that's what they believed, that they would get that. We then find out in the budget papers that there's going to be a 56 per cent increase in their power bills. Did you hear, throughout that campaign, in May of this year—only this year—anybody saying to you, 'The moment we get in we're going to make changes to the IR laws in this country'? Did you hear it? Anybody? Mr MT4 Corangamite? I didn't hear you say it. I didn't hear you mention it. I didn't hear the now Prime Minister say it. I didn't hear the now Treasurer say it. I didn't hear my opponent in Monash say it. I didn't hear anybody say it. Nobody mentioned it. IR has been a major issue in this country in my electorate for— (Time expired) 16:05 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite The rising cost of living is hitting a lot of Australians hard; we know that. But it is outrageous that the member for Hume has the hide to move this motion when he and the government of which he was part are in large part responsible for the rising costs of living facing so many families. The costs are largely a consequence of a wasted decade of the previous coalition governments, including more than 20 failed energy policies which were overseen, presided over, by the member for Hume. We know that this MPI is about the opposition saying that the government has failed to deliver on cost of living within the first six months. This is an outrageous statement by the opposition, who have overseen what they've overseen, which has hurt so many families. But we are moving. We are moving quickly, and it is action. We have already delivered a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers and a five per cent pay rise to those on a minimum wage. We have introduced the secure work and better pay bill that is now in the Senate, which will hopefully secure an opportunity for many Australians to improve their wage. We are taking a place on the global stage when it comes to climate change, which in turn means we will push for renewable energy jobs. And we have delivered on cheaper child care. It's gone to the Senate today. It is really something that I and Labor are so proud of, because it will mean that 1.2 million families will have cheaper child care, and that means that more women—who predominantly are still the ones who are at home—can return to work. I note that the opposition, within this MPI, have an all-male line-up for the MPI. It would be very pleasing if we saw women from the other side step up and discuss this issue, because many women in feminised workforce sectors are impacted so strongly by the previous government's inaction. Many people in my electorate know that Labor didn't create these challenges, but they have elected us to take responsibility and address them, and we are doing just that, as I have said. We've hit the ground running. We have a plan to build the economy in a responsible way that creates jobs and looks after people and business. The October budget was focused on responsible measures which don't put extra pressure on inflation, and that is an important thing. That's why the Albanese government is delivering cheaper child care to ease the pressures on young families, expanding paid parental leave to allow parents to work flexibly as they deserve. Many essential medicines are now cheaper. We are delivering a plan for more affordable housing and we are getting wages moving again. One of the first acts of the Albanese government was to successfully argue for the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, an outcome that has helped around 2.8 million Australians. And we are doing so much more. We've extended pandemic leave that was due to expire under the Liberals. We've introduced legislation that will drive investment in cleaner and cheaper energy, as I've said, putting downward pressure on power prices. We've introduced legislation for cheaper child care for 1.26 million families and, as I've also mentioned, budget cuts: we have cut the costs of medicines for people. We are fast-tracking fee-free TAFE places. Pensions, allowances and rent assistance have been increased in line with inflation, and we have a new pensioner work bonus so that older Australians can keep more of what they earn without it affecting their pension. The Albanese government knows that the best defence in these difficult times is a responsible budget, and that's what we have delivered. The budget marked an end to a wasted decade under the Liberals, which gave us energy chaos, stagnant wages, a skills crisis and a trillion dollars of debt without an economic dividend to show for it. Unlike the former government, which did not increase real wages—it was the worst decade for productivity in half a century—we are doing better, and we will ensure that we do help invest in business, because under the previous government— (Time expired) 16:10 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls Cost of living is such a real and challenging issue for households and for people in my electorate, and it's the thing that they talk about the most. There's real fear out there. We in regional and rural electorates represent people who perhaps aren't as well off as people in seats such as in inner-city Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney, and those people can perhaps afford to focus on issues that they believe are higher order in their lives. But, for people who are doing it tough and for people who are really struggling to make entrepreneurship work, these cost-of-living pressures are really serious. In the six months of this government, we've seen rising inflation, serious rising prices for household energy—and that's forecast to rise by more than 56 per cent over the next two years—and the rising prices of basic household goods. I find the energy thing really disturbing. I think if you go to an election and you make a commitment that people's household energy bills are going to drop by $275 and they don't, and you don't look like doing it, the people who voted for you deserve of some sort of explanation. I'm new to this place, like some of you over there. When I listen to question time, I don't hear explanations. I don't hear reasons why we're not delivering on what we said we would do. I just hear, 'It's all the previous government's fault.' I suppose, as an observer, I'm just wondering how long you can run that argument before you realise that are you the government and that you've got to put some policies in place to ease this pressure. I don't want to give you advice—I shouldn't—but the people in my electorate don't like seeing people on the government benches laughing all the time when things are going really, really badly for them, particularly with energy prices. So you can take that on board if you like. It rubs them the wrong way, I can tell you. So just a message on tone there. In terms of basic household goods, obviously in my electorate agriculture is what we do and what we've done for many, many, many years, and we're proud of the fact that we provide cheap, clean, really high-quality food to the people of Australia, and people can go and buy amazing quality apples and pears and dairy products and meat and grains all at really good prices and trust in the quality of that because of what people in my electorate do. Those people are businesspeople, and unfriendly business policies are going to increase the prices that people pay at the check-out. The worst unfriendly business policy that those opposite are proposing is to rip more irrigation water out of places like my electorate of Nicholls and make it harder to produce that clean, cheap, green food for people. We've already given up 2,100 gigalitres of water to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and that's had has a massive effect on people in my electorate. What we don't want is for you to rip a further 450 gigalitres out. It causes the cost of living for people in my electorate to rise, but it causes the cost of living for everyone in Australia to rise because food prices will increase. Not only that—the other problem we've got with agriculture at the moment is labour. People can't get the labour they need to work on the farms—to work in the dairy farms. The Nationals brought a really good policy during the last term of government called the agriculture visa. It is a real win-win. When you go and talk to some of the Filipino people who have made their lives in my regional communities and are contributing to the dairy industry in a fantastic way—the farmers are happy, the workers are happy and it's fantastic. We wanted to increase that with an ag visa, and those opposite have ripped that away. In my final 14 seconds, I will just say that the IR legislation is the most business unfriendly stuff I've ever seen come out of this parliament. Hawke and Keating would never have done something so radical that rips productivity away from the economy. (Time expired) 16:15 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but the tactics committee of those opposite keep sending their loyal soldiers over the trenches at MPI time, sending them over into no-man's-land with no ammunition and not even a bayonet. Yesterday in the Federation Chamber I spoke about my recollections of the last leaders debate in the lead-up to election day this year. The Prime Minister squared off with the former Prime Minister—the former Minister for Finance, the former Treasurer, the former Minister for Health, the former Minister for Home Affairs and the former Minister for Industry, Science, Energy And Resources. Despite being heavily outnumbered, I reckon our Prime Minister came out on top. The main reason why my mind turned to that debate was the chalk-and-cheese comparison on where each leader's priorities were. The Prime Minister quite simply committed to, as one of his first acts in office, intervening in the Fair Work Commission's annual wage review by making a submission from the government to ensure the lowest paid workers were able to have a shot at keeping their heads above water. How did the member for Cook respond? The mask was not just chipped. It was shattered on the ground, and everyone could see what was truly underneath: the leader of a government that could not care less about improving the living standards of some of our lowest paid workers. Nobody should have been surprised. Here the member for Cook was, on live TV, as a caricature of himself, on display for all the voters to get a better look at. The rest is history. What did the Albanese Labor government do once it got elected? It made that submission, which was ultimately successful. We will stand up for working families who have been languishing and treading water for the past last nine years. Those opposite really do not give themselves enough credit. It might shock a few of my colleagues to hear me say this, but those opposite think six months is ample time to undo nine years of vandalism. I've heard many members use the phrase: your best day in opposition is worse than your worst day in government. But we have a long list of factory settings in need of a reset. The Albanese Labor government has hit the ground running, fulfilling election commitments as every good government should. For many of these settings, those opposite still fight us tooth and nail on them. I look no further than the secure jobs, better pay bill. This is legislation which aims to deliver pay rises for the lowest paid workers in the country. Interestingly, we've also seen a new line being used: making a bad situation worse. In fact, I've heard the member for Dickson use it numerous times. The first instance I can recall was not long after the election. To that end, I would say this: which one of the above statements could possibly be true? You can't have it both ways. I'm sure they know this already. You just can't use the word 'responsible' in the same sentence as 'a trillion dollar government debt'. The bad situation they're talking about can only be referring to what they left our government to sort out, after nine wasteful years in the doldrums of energy policy, skills and education policy and wage stagnation. I thank the member Dickson for his candour and honesty about it. Those opposite might not be responsible economic managers, but they did have more than the usual number of them. The former government had, after all, not just one but two treasurers and two finance ministers at the exact same time, yet none of them could see the writing on the wall. Though, to be fair, one of them had their hands a bit full with a number of other jobs. The member for Cook was a job creator, just not in the conventional way. He certainly was no fan of conventions. Two treasurers and two finance ministers could have teamed up to provide some much needed for relief for Australians out there. Think about the collaboration that could have taken place if only one had known about the other! They didn't see the inflation rising at the same time as the wage price index was basically flatlining, as they were quite proud of back in the day, except for now, when they admit that people are hurting with the cost of living—utterly craven. At the end of the day, they could have had scores of treasurers and finance ministers—they might have, for all we know—but that would have fixed very little, because it's just not in their DNA to stand up for working families. It's not in their DNA to stand up for those doing it tough. It's not in their DNA to stand up for those out there who want to do a little better than they did last year and want to do a little bit better in the year after that too. In May, those opposite left the engine room of government aflame, in neutral and idling. The Albanese government has reached the scene holding the jaws of life. The Albanese government is extinguishing the flames. If those opposite are genuine about helping families with cost-of-living pressures, I suggest they let us get on with the job. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 48 BILLS Customs Amendment (India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022, Customs Tariff Amendment (India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022, Treasury Laws Amendment (Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022, Customs Amendment (Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022, Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022 48

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

Customs Tariff Amendment (India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022

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

Customs Amendment (Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022

Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022

Returned from Senate 48 BUSINESS 48 BUSINESS Consideration Of Legislation 48 16:21 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 133, the question shall be put on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Bradfield, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 53517 The matter before the House is the motion moved by the honourable member for Bradfield to suspend the standing orders. The question is that the motion be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [16:25]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

77 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. 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. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 57 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chaney, K. E. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. Tudge, A. E. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BUSINESS 49 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 49 16:32 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 National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022: (1) the second reading debate occurring on both bills together; (2) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm on Tuesday, 22 November, the bills being called on together for further consideration, with 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 Wednesday, 23 November at 9 am; (3) from 7.30 pm on Tuesday, 22 November until the adjournment of the House: (a) any division called for being deferred until the first opportunity on Wednesday, 23 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 Wednesday, 23 November, if the Member then so desires; and (4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. As members would be aware, we're wanting to make sure that the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill has a chance to be before the Senate this year. In order to do that, I've received correspondence in a joint letter from the crossbench requesting that what we've done for a number of other bills to get them across to the Senate we do differently, particularly given the nature of this legislation. So what's being proposed today is that the speaking times remain at 15 minutes and that the House will sit tonight until 10 pm. I will put a similar motion on the Notice Paper tomorrow so that we can have it. We will just see how the speaking lists are going. At the moment, tomorrow would finish well before 10 pm, but whenever that has been the case a whole lot of people have added their names to the list, and that may happen again so we will see where it lands. But the intention, and what this resolution will do, will be that it will keep speeches going on this bill until 10 pm tonight. But, forewarned, we intend, if we have to, to do something similar tomorrow. Speaking times will remain at 15 minutes and the debate will effectively be suspended between 7.30 pm and 8 pm so that anyone scheduled to speak on the adjournment is still able to have that adjournment speech. Other than that, at this point nothing changes. But the general rule, from 6.30 pm on there will be no divisions, there will be no quorum called. It's the best way we've been able to balance the request from the crossbench with what the government is trying to achieve in getting this through, and also being mindful of the Jenkins recommendations on late sittings. I commend the resolution to the House. Question agreed to. BILLS 50 BILLS National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022 50

National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022

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

Second Reading 50 16:35 Dr REID 300126 Robertson We are forward-thinking, we provide the foundations for nation-building, and we deliver law that safeguards our institutions and the integrity of government. The National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill will provide the commission with a broad jurisdiction to investigate serious or systemic corruption, corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector. It will have the ability to investigate ministers, parliamentarians, their staff, statutory office holders, employees of all government entities, and government contractors. Further, it will have discretion to commence inquiries on its own initiative or in response to referrals from anyone. Moreover, it will have the power to investigate both criminal and non-criminal corrupt conduct and conduct occurring before or after its establishment. Above all, it will be independent. The independent commission will be led by a commissioner. The commissioner of the Anti-Corruption Commission will have a full suite of powers, similar to that of a royal commission, and will be able to use these powers to undertake an investigation into a corruption issue if it involves serious or systemic corrupt conduct. To determine whether an allegation or claim could be serious or systemic corruption, the commission will be able to undertake preliminary inquiries, using powers to compel the production of information. I will say it again, because I think it is important to reiterate this point: it will be independent. Just as important as the detection of corruption is the prevention of corruption and ensuring adequate education opportunities are available. The commission will have a mandate to undertake corruption prevention and education functions. This will ultimately include public inquiries to examine corruption risks and vulnerabilities and measures to prevent corruption. The commission will provide information and assistance to understand the concept of corrupt conduct and to identify and address vulnerabilities to corruption. The commission's work on corruption prevention and education will be informed by the insights the commission draws from its investigations and the intelligence that the commission will collect. It will also engage in broader public education about the commission's role and corruption risks and pathways to report corrupt conduct. I know I'm starting to sound a bit like a broken record, but I cannot overstate the importance of the commission's independence. The National Anti-Corruption Commission's independence will be secured in multiple different ways. The commission will be able to conduct investigations on its own initiative or in response to referrals or allegations from any source, with agency heads required to report corruption issues within their respective agencies to the commission if they suspect it could be serious or systemic corruption. The appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioners will be subject to approval by the parliamentary joint committee which I will touch on later, with the commissioner's appointment duration being a single term of five years and the deputy commissioners' appointments being two terms of five years each. The appointees will have security of tenure comparable to a federal judge. Further, the bill provides for the parliamentary joint committee to review and make recommendations on the sufficiency of the National Anti-Corruption Commission's budget. A point that was raised in our many hours of doorknocking and phone banking during the election campaign was the oversight of the National Anti-Corruption Commission: how is this commission going to be overseen? The commission will be overseen by a parliamentary joint standing committee as well as an inspector. The parliamentary joint committee will comprise 12 members: three government, two opposition and one crossbench member from each House, including a government chair. In addition to confirming appointments and reviewing the commission's budget, the committee's oversight role will include reviewing the commission's performance and its annual reports. The inspector will deal with any corruption issues arising in the commission and complaints about the commission. At present, there's much discussion surrounding how the hearings of the National Anti-Corruption Commission will work, so let's break this very important component down. The commission will be able to hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances and if satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. This test will ensure that the benefits of holding hearings in public are balanced with other potential negative impacts. Without limiting what the commissioner can consider when determining whether to hold a hearing in public, the legislation will prescribe a number of relevant factors, including: the nature of the corruption issue; unfair prejudice to reputation, privacy, wellbeing or safety that may be caused; and the benefits of public awareness. This is relevant for reputational and wellbeing safeguards. The commissioner's investigation function would be balanced with strong safeguards to ensure that corruption investigations do not cause undue reputational damage. These safeguards include requiring hearings to be held in private unless there are exceptional circumstances and the commissioner is satisfied it is in the public interest to hold a public hearing. The safeguards also include: requiring the commissioner to clarify the capacity in which a witness is appearing at a public hearing; requiring certain sensitive evidence to be received in private; the provision for non-disclosure directions about a notice or summons or to protect sensitive information; an express ability for the commissioner to make public statements at any time to avoid damage to a person's reputation; and provision for the inclusion of statements in investigation reports where it is appropriate and practicable to avoid damage to a person's reputation if the commissioner forms the opinion that a person has not engaged in corrupt conduct, or a statement to that effect, and if a person gives evidence at a hearing and is not the subject of any findings or opinions in relation to the corruption investigation, or a statement to that effect. Now, to ensure that this commission is powerful and is able to function and discharge its duties to the best of its ability, it will need to be funded adequately. That is what our government will ensure. Our government has committed substantial funding to the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, in the order of $262 million over four years, for the establishment and ongoing operations of this important institution. This will ensure that the commission has the staff, the capabilities and the capacity to triage referrals and the allegations it receives, conduct timely investigations, and undertake corruption prevention and educational activities. The legislation provides for the parliamentary joint committee to regularly review and report on the sufficiency of the commission's budget. I reiterate what I said earlier. Today we begin the process to fulfil the election commitment of establishing an independent federal anti-corruption commission. This is forward thinking. This is nation-building. This is how you return accountability and integrity to federal politics and to government. This is what trust looks like. 16:44 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman I rise in support of the coalition's proposed amendments to the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022. The amendments offer commonsense protections to some of the more contentious elements of these bills. The additional protections we are seeking are to ensure that people brought before the NACC get a fair hearing and to ensure bipartisanship in the appointment of the commissioner. The NACC Bill lays out the template for the creation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The NACC will exist to investigate and stop any cases of serious or systemic corruption. The commission will have the power to compel the production of documents, obtain search warrants, seize evidence and exercise limited powers of arrest. The commission would also have covert investigative powers, including telecommunications interception powers and the ability to use surveillance devices. So the way this entity is formed and the protections and oversights in place are of significant importance to the way the Commonwealth government operates. It is really imperative that this is done right and isn't rushed through. The coalition supports the NACC Bill in principle but has proposed some strong amendments. If implemented correctly, an integrity commission can become an important tool in protecting our democracy and ensuring probity in government processes. But, as we've seen with many of the state integrity bodies, if done poorly these bodies can become something quite harmful to these purposes. We've heard a lot from the government members about the coalition's record on this, but let's look at the facts rather than the popular narrative that has been spun recently. It was in fact the coalition that introduced Australia's first ICAC, in New South Wales back in 1988, and it was the former government, in 2018, that announced it would establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission. It was again the former government, in 2020, that released a consultation paper alongside a proposed draft of the bill, and it was the then Labor opposition that opposed these proposals. So the push for a bipartisan approach to establishing a Commonwealth Integrity Commission was scuttled. We support a corruption commission because corruption, of course, is wrong and should be stamped out. We believe that people who break the law should face the law. But, with such a broad application and all the powers of a royal commission, it is incredibly important that we get this absolutely right. We're introducing amendments that will ensure the extraordinary powers of the commission are applied in a fair and reasonable way. It shouldn't come as a surprise to the government or the crossbench, because many of the amendments we're proposing have come out of the additional comments that the coalition members of the committee made during that committee process. I acknowledge the great work done by the member for Menzies in leading the coalition's push on that front. This is about getting the balance right. First of all, we will introduce an amendment that will close the loophole that the government has introduced for union representatives. The NACC applies to a broad range of Australians. This isn't just for parliamentarians and the people who work in this building, and it's broader than just Canberra public servants. It also applies to the members of the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Federal Police. It applies to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, to aged-care workers and to any contractor, subcontractor or other person working under a power under a law of the Commonwealth. It's very important to remember that this isn't just us establishing new rules for ourselves. We are subjecting many thousands of hardworking Australians to these new protocols and this new agency. Yet somehow the NACC does not apply to union officials exercising a power under a law of the Commonwealth. How can it be that union officials won't have to answer to the NACC but an NDIS worker or some of our ADF personnel may? We have many ADF personnel moving around this building today as part of the ADF Parliamentary Exchange Program. How can we look at them in the face and say that it's appropriate for them to face all the powers of the NACC but not for a union official to do so? The government has been very evasive in denying that there is a carve-out, but it's there in black and white in proposed sections 12 and 14 of the bill. In a table in proposed section 12, item 2 in column 1 says: An individual (other than an official of a registered industrial organisation) … It explicitly carves out a union official from the definition of an individual. I know those on the left aren't big fans of individualism. Those who come out of the union movement often aren't fans of individualism. But to put into legislation that a union official isn't regarded as an individual might be taking things a little bit too far. Proposed section 14 says: A statutory office holder is an individual (other than an official of a registered industrial organisation) … It's truly unbelievable stuff; I was quite surprised to find that in there. I thought last week's IR changes were bad enough in terms of looking after the unions, but it's quickly descending into farce across nearly every bill the government is introducing into this House. We're also introducing amendments supported by eminent experts in the field, including the Law Council of Australia, the Queensland Council of Civil Liberties and the South Australian Bar Association, to ensure the bill has adequate protections. We think it's important that it isn't just the commissioner that decides to commence a public hearing, as that sees too much power vested in one single official. This power should be shared between the commissioner and a deputy commissioner to ensure good governance. This proposal was supported by The Australia Institute, the Victorian Inspectorate and others. We think it should be compulsory, not optional, for the commissioner to consider factors including whether confidential information is involved, whether there would be unfair prejudice to a person's reputation or whether a person giving evidence has a particular vulnerability such as being under direct instruction or control of another person. We're also seeking to amend the bill to ensure the commission should be required to commence an inquiry into matters that took place prior to the establishment of the commission but only if it is in the public interest for them to do so. The bill states that the commission will have the power to act retrospectively. But for this bill to have any credibility and for the new NACC to be fit for purpose, the parliament should place a limit on retrospective action. We don't need to go into endless witch hunts raking over the distant past, searching for faint relics no longer relevant or threatening. The commission created by this instrument must find any corrupt conduct which afflicts Australia today rather than waste precious resources on tit-for-tat battles over matters that are now old. The coalition is also calling for all decisions of the commission to be subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, as significant aspects of the bill are not subject to that review. This was an amendment proposed by the Law Council of Australia, and the coalition believes this is a commonsense provision. The commission has the power to impose nondisclosure notations or gag orders on people. These prevent them from disclosing that they have appeared before the commission. We think it is essential that there be limited expectations to the interest of mental health and of the people that come before the commission. People should be able to make a disclosure to an immediate family member as long as they are not a person of interest themselves, a medical professional or a mental health professional. I note the government's amendments this morning have gone some way to addressing that. The bill abrogates the privilege against self-incrimination and legal professional privilege. Our amendments ensure this is only done when absolutely necessary because of the significant impost on these fundamental rights. That amendment was also supported by the Law Council of Australia. We believe that investigations shouldn't go on indefinitely. Justice delayed, as they say, is justice denied. Our amendment will propose a 12-month time limit on investigations. I think that's very fitting, given the length of time a lot of these state investigations have gone on for and the amount of damage that's been done over those long, drawn-out investigations that seem to go on forever. We think bipartisanship is essential in the creation of a new body like the NACC. The coalition is proposing a three-quarter majority of the parliamentary committee should be required for appointments of the commissioner and the inspector. Without support of all sides of this chamber, the commission risks losing the trust of the public. Sadly, vexatious complaints are part of life. The Law Council of Australia's submission noted: The Bill does not include offences for making vexatious complaints, and the Law Council considers that this is appropriate, given that such offences may deter people from making a referral. I encourage the government to look closer at those sorts of issues. It's important we take lessons from the failures and abuses of power we have seen from some of the state based integrity commissions. We need to make sure that Australia in 2023 does not resemble Salem in 1693. Sadly, we have seen too many examples from the state based integrity commissions which would not have been out of place in Salem. Murray Kear, the former head of the New South Wales SES, was investigated by ICAC for dismissing a staff member allegedly in reprisal for the staff member making allegations about the conduct of another staff member. ICAC used its inquisitorial powers and falsely released a public report condemning him. Kear was forced to retire without ongoing wages and was rendered unemployable by the public nature of these findings. Kear took the case to court and the magistrate dismissed the charge, finding him not just not guilty, but proving him positively innocent. Despite this, ICAC never apologised nor exonerated Kear. This is just one example of many where ICAC has overstepped the mark. We had Doug Barr, a South Australian police officer. He was investigated by the South Australian ICAC for his involvement in the investigation into the Salt Creek kidnapping. More than two years after the ICAC investigation started, Barr, unfortunately, took his own life. When the report was released it was made clear that Barr was not accused of corruption, and also that the report was dated for release eight days before Barr's untimely death. Had the investigation been more efficiently organised and less psychologically damaging for those involved it is likely Barr would still be with us today. As Barr's wife noted, 'The process is the punishment, whether you're guilty or not.' We have the case of Georgina Vasilaveski, a former Renewal SA executive, and her then boss, John Hanlon. They were subject to an 18-month public investigation by the South Australian ICAC. However, despite the length and effort of the investigation, it was ultimately thrown out due to a lack of evidence. According to Vasilaveski, 'The complaint against me cost me my 20-year career in government.' She also claims it took three years to investigate a matter of $1,032. A little bit closer to here we had the case of Margaret Cunneen, who was a top New South Wales DPP prosecutor. Cunneen was investigated by the New South Wales ICAC in 2014 for individual allegations which were almost certainly malicious and trivial in nature. The matter went to the High Court in April 2015, where the court ruled the investigation did not fall within the scope of ICAC's functions and did not have the power to investigate the allegations. Four out of five High Court justices agreed the ICAC had no power to investigate allegations against Cunneen because the allegations did not fit the definition of corrupt conduct in the New South Wales legislation. And of course there is Michael Gallacher. In 2014, counsel assisting ICAC Geoffrey Watson implied, while questioning a witness, that Michael Gallacher, the then New South Wales police minister, had been complicit in hatching a corrupt scheme. No evidence was produced, but the accusation alone was enough to see Gallacher dumped from the Liberal Party frontbench following almost 40 years of public service—almost 16 years as a police officer and then 21 in the parliament. He later resigned from parliament. A letter from the ICAC inspector Bruce McClintock to Gallagher in 2018 noted that he had a 'very, very considerable degree of sympathy' for Gallacher, and felt that what happened to him was 'wrong and unfair'. He also noted that no finding of corrupt conduct had been made against Gallacher. Gallacher described it as five years of personal hell, noting that it was 'like a nightmare where you're calling out for help but nobody comes'. The South Australian Bar Association has given a very strong submission to the inquiry into this bill and noted: There have been many failed prosecutions in South Australia as the result of an ICAC Investigation. And: Corruption Commissions across the country have extraordinary powers. Terrorism suspects are given more rights when criminal charges are brought against them than a public servant who is brought before an anti-corruption commission. I have outlined those concerning case studies because we can't end up in the situation where we have these sorts of injustices. We need a NACC framework that recognises that elected officials are also here to do a job, and we need to have adequate protections to prevent the model becoming a political tool. The bill will cost $262 million over the forward estimates, and it is critical this money is used well. Definitions are important, particularly in legal proceedings. The bill requires far clearer, less ambiguous explanations of the terms and powers upon which it seeks to rely in founding the NACC. The coalition's amendments provide a much tighter and targeted approach to ensure that the NACC achieves its purpose. We cannot allow good men and women of all persuasions and all sides of politics to be sacrificed at the altar of the all-powerful commission merely to satisfy the media or the mob. We cannot allow the lives of innocent individuals to be destroyed by a press release without due process or protections. I commend the coalition's amendments to these bills to the House. 16:59 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I recently received an email from a constituent, Michael, from Meander Valley. Michael asked for an update on what the Labor government had been doing in our first few months in office—six months yesterday. He told me that the ALP was elected for two reasons—now, I believe we were elected for more than that, but this is Michael's story—one, because of our commitment to climate change and two, because of our promise to establish a National Integrity Commission. I was very pleased to be able to tell Michael that we are keeping our promises on both these matters. The Albanese government's landmark climate change bills have passed the Senate, ensuring that Australia's emissions reduction target of 43 per cent and net zero by 2050 will be enshrined in legislation. I was also able to tell Michael that the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the associated bill before the House had been introduced to parliament, that the Albanese Labor government was delivering on its 2022 election commitment to legislate a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission by the end of the year. And it's important, because the member who spoke previously mentioned that he was concerned about the NACC being used for political attack. This will be an independent body. The commissioners will independently determine what gets assessed and what gets investigated—nothing to do with this chamber here. I am thrilled to have the opportunity to speak on these bills today. I've been calling for this National Anti-Corruption Commission since I was elected. I was thrilled when the now Attorney-General made this part of the Labor policy suite going into I think the 2019 election. It's remained a major part of our plank ever since. And here it is, in this chamber today being debated and on its way to becoming law of the land. The National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 will establish the commission as an independent agency and empower it to investigate and report on serious or systemic corruption in the Commonwealth public sector, refer evidence of criminal corrupt conduct for prosecution, and undertake education and prevention activities. The Attorney-General has been clear in his many consultations with members of all sides of the House that this is a serious body and it will do serious work. This legislation gives full effect to the design principles that were taken to the federal election—principles that were developed with eminent legal and integrity experts and endorsed at the election by the Australian people. As Michael said, it was one of the key planks of our election campaign, and here we are today making it law. The principles enshrined in this legislation include: having a broad jurisdiction to investigate; operating independently of government; operating with oversight by a statutory parliamentary joint committee that is empowered to require the commission to provide information about its work; having retrospective powers to investigate allegations of serious or systemic corruption that occurred before or after its establishment; having the power to hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances and where it is in the public interest to do so; being empowered to make findings of fact, including findings of corrupt conduct, and refer findings that could constitute criminal conduct to the Australian Federal Police or the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions; and operating with procedural fairness, and its findings will be subject to judicial review. It is a serious body doing serious work with all the safeguards you would expect of such a body. This legislation also draws on the best elements of state and territory anticorruption laws. We know that corruption has many corrosive effects on society, including to undermine democracy and the rule of law. I will read a passage from the Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales about why exposing and preventing corruption is important: Undetected and unchecked corruption in the public sector can cause serious damage including: undermining public trust in government wasting public resources and money causing injustice through advantaging some at the expense of others inefficiencies in operations reputational damage which makes it difficult to recruit and retain quality staff or obtain best value in tender processes. It may also be more difficult to attract business investment, adversely affecting prosperity. The ICAC also notes that the World Economic Forum has estimated that the cost of corruption globally is about US$2.6 trillion a year. The impacts of corruption disproportionately affect the most vulnerable people in society. Widespread corruption deters investment, weakens economic growth and undermines the rule of law. I note recent comment from the Law Council of Australia that it has never been more critical to take decisive action in Australia to continuously strengthen our systems of integrity and independent oversight, especially given how the administrative and executive powers of the Commonwealth, along with national security and law enforcement powers, have expanded in recent years. The NACC will have the power to investigate ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, statutory office holders, employees of all government entities, and government contractors. It will have discretion to commence inquiries on its own initiative or in response to a referral from anyone, and it will be able to investigate criminal and non-criminal corrupt conduct and conduct occurring before or after its establishment. The definition of 'corrupt conduct' is central to the commission's jurisdiction. It is consistent with key elements of existing definitions at the state and territory level and encompasses conduct by a public official that involves an abuse of office, breach of public trust, misuse of information or corruption of any kind. Further, the commissioner will have a full suite of powers like those of a royal commission and will be able to undertake an investigation into a corruption issue if they are of the opinion that it could involve serious or systemic corrupt conduct. The commissioner will be able to hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances, if satisfied it is in the public interest to do so. At the end of an investigation, the commissioner will be required to prepare a report setting out their findings and their recommendations, and reporting at the end of investigations will provide transparency and support the commission's prevention and education function. The legislation also provides strong protections for whistleblowers and exemptions for journalists to protect the identity of sources. Importantly, the government has committed $262 million over the forwards for the establishment and ongoing operation of the commission. This funding will ensure that the commission has the staff, the capabilities and the capacity to properly consider referrals and allegations, conduct timely investigations and undertake corruption prevention and education activities. As someone who has had the privilege of being a member of the government for six months—I've been here for six years—I'm so proud of this government, this Prime Minister and this Attorney-General for delivering on our commitments to the Australian people. This legislation is particularly important, and I have been a strong supporter, as I say, of a national integrity and anti-corruption commission since before it was even my party's policy. A federal anti-corruption commission is long overdue. Australians deserve a robust system of accountability. As I was able to tell Michael, and indeed the many Lyons constituents I speak to daily, the introduction of this bill shows that this government is delivering on our promise to tackle corruption and restore trust and integrity to federal politics. The Albanese government is committed to integrity, honesty and accountability in government, and this legislation is a cornerstone of this government's agenda to restore public trust and strengthen standards of integrity in our federal government. I commend the bill to the House. 17:09 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I welcome the introduction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022. This legislation has been a long time coming. Like so many in the House, I had the issue of integrity in government as a key platform during my campaign, and it was one that our electorates believed in strongly enough to vote for change. A majority of voters surveyed in my electorate indicated that it was one of their main drivers in deciding how to vote. Curtin constituents told me they were fed up with politicians not being subject to the same level of scrutiny and accountability as other professions. This lack of transparency has created deep mistrust in politicians and the Canberra ecosystem. So this bill should be celebrated as the first integrity commission model introduced into our federal parliament by a major party. I want to acknowledge the many years of advocacy, and the introduction of legislation, by Independents on the crossbench, including Cathy McGowan, Helen Haines, Zali Steggall and Andrew Wilkie. It was their tireless efforts to demand that politicians should lead by example and embed best practice in what we do that brought this issue front and centre. They paved the way for this bill, and I thank them for their efforts. While a national anticorruption commission is only part of the solution to rebuild trust in our government, it is a significant component, and my community and I commend the current government for its introduction. Finding the right model requires a balancing of interests—protecting the rights of individuals while recognising the need for open investigation to shine a light on how our governments operate and continually improve our systems to guard against corruption and to safeguard our democracy. I think this bill goes most of the way to finding this balance. I want to take this opportunity to reflect the views of my electorate, the Curtin community. Engaging with my community about the NACC Bill has been both rewarding and a privilege. I live in an electorate where so many people are enthusiastic and engaged and are willing to have the conversation about what's best for Australia and the world rather than just what will benefit their own interests. I'm very proud to represent Curtin. I had hundreds of informal conversations with constituents throughout the election campaign. The desire for a national anticorruption commission was consistently one of the top three issues raised. Since the election, members of the Curtin community have made their views heard through two public events. Soon after the election, on 12 July, we held a public integrity forum, which was open to anyone who was interested in the proposed National Anti-Corruption Commission. On a cold and dark Tuesday night, more than 130 Curtin constituents attended this forum to hear about key aspects of an anticorruption commission and the required balancing of interests, from the former President of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of WA, Carmel McClure AC, and then-barrister Sam Vandongen, just before his appointment to the Supreme Court of WA. From this conversation, we created a summary of my constituents' key concerns, which we shared with the Attorney-General. I thank the Attorney-General for his engagement on this issue and his willingness to listen to the views of the Curtin community. On 13 October we also held a public interactive policy workshop, with an open invitation to the Curtin community to attend. We ended up with more than 50 Curtin constituents participating in the policy workshop, which was facilitated by eight lawyers, to learn more about the model proposed by the government and share what they liked and what raised concerns in relation to key aspects of the bill. This was an opportunity for participants to delve into the details of the NACC Bill rather than just deal in the rhetoric. It also gave constituents the opportunity to listen to and understand contrary points of view and find compromises in real time that considered multiple interests. We summarised these issues and concerns into a submission to the Joint Select Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. I want to thank all members of the Curtin community who participated in these events and the lawyers who volunteered their time to help my constituents build a deeper understanding of how the legislation would work. I'd also like to thank those who have contacted me outside of these events and given their time and their efforts to convey their views on the bill. Based on input from my community through these events, as well as consultation with experts and with my fellow parliamentarians, I will be supporting a number of amendments to the bill during consideration in detail, but I'd like to take this opportunity to outline the main areas that I think could be improved. The ability to hold public hearings is an important design principle for an effective anticorruption commission, and I'm pleased to see that public hearings are part of this legislation. But I'm concerned that, with the current drafting, public hearings will be few and far between. Section 73(2) says that hearings should be held privately unless there are exceptional circumstances and it is in the national interest for a public hearing. I believe that this test is too high and does not take into account the role of public hearings as an investigative, preventative and educative tool against corruption and misconduct. I believe that applying the exceptional circumstances test is an unhelpful barrier to inquiry. If we want to deter people from engaging in corrupt behaviour and encourage witnesses to come forward, to create a culture of public integrity, then public hearings should not only be in exceptional circumstances. Public hearings should be held whenever it is in the national interest, at the discretion of the commissioner, taking into account the relevant factors listed. I believe that the commissioner will be able to make sensible decisions on this issue, balancing the competing interests of public trust and individual rights, without the additional constraint of an exceptional circumstances test. Another issue my community raised is the need to ensure that the National Anti-Corruption Commission and its officers are set up to be completely independent and autonomous. For this body to be successful, it needs to carry out its functions independently of government and removed from any third-party influence. I hope that this and future governments will be open and transparent about the funding of the NACC, and I recommend that the NACC budget be tabled annually so that it can be scrutinised. I also urge the government to do everything possible to ensure that senior office holders appointed to the NACC have bipartisan support. This commission will not work in restoring public trust if it's run by the friends of the government of the day, rather than impartial judges. To have an impartial NACC, we also need an impartial parliamentary committee. Appointing an Independent crossbench member, Helen Haines, as Deputy Chair of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation has helped build public trust in the current review process. My community and I would like to see this approach continued. In the ongoing operation of the committee, this could be done in a variety of ways—for example, through appointment decisions requiring multipartisan support, or the committee could even have a non-governmental chair. At the very least, the minister should respond publicly to any recommendations made by the committee if he or she overrules them. The crossbench has repeatedly called for stronger whistleblower protection in the NACC legislation. Strong whistleblower protection is fundamental to ensure integrity and to encourage witnesses to corruption and misconduct to come forward. I note that the government's response to crossbench concerns about enshrining whistleblower protection has been to propose introducing a new bill to deliver improvements to whistleblower laws, ahead of a fuller review in 2023. While this is welcome news, I think there is still merit in including the whistleblower protections in the NACC Bill. Whistleblower provisions need to be strong, comprehensive and fit for purpose. I'm concerned that a one-size-fits-all approach applied through separate legislation may not be sufficient. But, if this is not an option, the priority amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act need to be substantive and work together with later amendments to support disclosure of relevant information with necessary protection. As a parliament we need to do more to protect people who've stood up to expose wrongdoing and misconduct from prosecution—brave people like Bernard Collaery, a lawyer exposing the Timor-Leste bugging; David McBride, a military lawyer, exposing alleged Australian war crimes; and Richard Boyle, who's exposed alleged aggressive tactics by the tax department. In its current form, the bill requires a review to be undertaken after five years, with a response to the review from the government due a year after that. Given the significance of this new body in rebuilding trust in government, this seems a long time to wait to make improvements. I accept that it will take a while before the commission is fully operating, but I'd like to see a review three years after full operation commences, which is probably about four years after the bill commences. I believe this would allow an adequate period of operation for the reviewer to assess the commission's success and allow the reviewer to assess the impact of things like the exceptional circumstances test for public hearings and the impartiality of the committee and appointments process. Critically examining and regularly improving the performance of our institutions is part of holding government to account, and I'll be moving an amendment in the consideration-in-detail debate on this issue. In conclusion, I commend the Attorney-General on the introduction of this bill and thank him for his consultation and measured consideration of feedback in the lead-up to its introduction. I think this bill will go a long way to restoring some of the public trust in government that's been destroyed over the last few terms. I look forward to the establishment of the NACC, and I'll continue to play my role in scrutinising the activities of the commission to make sure it's operating independently and fairly. 17:19 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Today I rise to speak about the government's National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. I'm incredibly proud to speak in support of this bill. This is possibly one of my favourite moments in federal parliament so far in my short six months, because this bill is emblematic of so much about the Albanese Labor government, of which I am proud to be part. It is yet another example of our government being true to our commitment to the Australian people. We said we would restore integrity to the centre of how our politics operate; we said we would lift the standards of propriety to which we are rightly held by our constituents; and we said we would introduce legislation for an anticorruption commission before the end of 2022 and we did it in September this year. Here we are, six months since our election, debating sensible and balanced but, most importantly, robust legislation to implement a national anticorruption commission. I've spoken previously in this place about how delivering a federal integrity body was crucial in my decision to run for the seat of Boothby at this year's election. Like many of my colleagues here in this place and in the other place, and like so many residents of Boothby and across Australia, I was sick of the constant scandals, the allegations of rorts and the misuse of taxpayer money by the previous government that we saw night after night after night on the evening news—a government that refused to bring on legislation to introduce an anticorruption commission, instead holding out for a model that was widely panned as ineffective by the relevant experts and integrity bodies. This Anti-Corruption Commission bill that we are debating today is a key election commitment not only for our government but for me personally as the member for Boothby because I, like all Australians, believe our government and all representatives in this place should act ethically. It is crucial to the success and continuity of our democracy that our actions build trust in government in our society, and I'm going to repeat that because I think it's really important. It is crucial to the success and continuity of our democracy that our actions here in this place and in the other place build trust in government in our society. It is absolutely phenomenal to realise that the Commonwealth is currently the only jurisdiction in Australia that does not have an anticorruption body. This is an egregious failure, and one can only form the conclusion that this failure to introduce an anticorruption body was a deliberate choice on the part of the previous government. I draw my own conclusions as to their reasoning, and at the last election I believe Australians drew their own conclusions as well. In September, when this bill was first introduced, I said in this place that there is of course a practical reason why an anticorruption commission will be able to improve the relationship between citizens and government: integrity is directly related to our ability to deliver for the Australian people. It is necessary for the public to be able to hold us to account for our commitments and the way we make use of public resources. These public resources come directly from the Australian public, and our job as democratically elected public representatives is to allocate those funds appropriately, to make the best use of the funds for the betterment of Australians and of our country—not betterment for ourselves or for themselves, or that of our families or our mates. I come to this place with a background of delivering services designed to improve the lives of some of the most vulnerable—those experiencing homelessness, domestic violence, ill health or mental illness, or those in aged-care services—and I've seen how far even relatively small amounts of government funding can go to really improve the lives of Australians. We can make a real difference in the lives of Australians, who elected us, when that money is used properly, and that is what we are all here for. This bill will ensure that all of us, whatever our politics or party membership, are held to standards to safeguard this and that the Australian public can be assured of this. Integrity, and this Anti-Corruption Commission, is a priority of this government. I was shocked when I found out that, according to the Transparency International's corruption perceptions index, Australia's score out of 100 for transparency declined 12 points from 2012 to 2021, and our international ranking dropped from 7th to 18th. 2012 to 2021: that's a decade that coincides with the term of the previous government, and if they would like to argue otherwise I invite them to put their money where their mouth is and back the bill. This finding, obviously informed by the many high-profile instances of alleged corruption and misconduct of recent years, the scandals and the rorts, makes clear that we cannot be complacent about integrity in our system of government. This bill establishes the National Anti-Corruption Commission as promised prior to the election. Importantly, it establishes the commission as an independent agency separate from government. The bill empowers the commission to investigate and report on matters of serious and systemic corruption in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. It rightly empowers the commission to refer evidence of criminal conduct for prosecution. The Attorney-General has undertaken a methodical, reasonable and consultative process to reach this point. The bill has been examined by a parliamentary joint select committee, which delivered a unanimous report to the House recommending the parliament pass these bills. I would like to acknowledge the dedicated work by the member for Indi over many years in advocating for this commission, as well as my friend and Labor colleague Senator Linda White in the other place, who chaired the committee. The process of designing this bill and the commission began following the election with the public announcement of a series of key design principles for the commission. I will speak about this briefly because they underpin the aims and scope of the commission. The commission will have broad jurisdiction to investigate serious or systemic conduct by Commonwealth ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, statutory officeholders, staff of government entities and companies and contractors, and by any person who adversely affects the honest or impartial exercise of a public official's functions. The commission will have the ability to investigate criminal and non-criminal conduct, and conduct occurring before or after the commission's establishment. The commission's independence from government will be assured by its ability to receive referrals or allegations from any source, but also to commence investigations on its own initiative without referral; by granting it discretion to take a range of actions to deal with an issue of corruption, including investigation, referring to an agency or taking no action if that is appropriate; and finally, by ensuring the security of tenure for a commissioner and up to three deputy commissioners. The commission will also operate under the oversight of a parliamentary joint committee which will review the commission's performance, as well as an inspector who will deal with complaints regarding the commission. Another of the broad principles that underpin this bill is that the commission will have the ability to hold public hearings and make findings of fact. It will also have the power to enter Commonwealth premises and request information from Commonwealth entities without a warrant. There will be power for the commission to hold hearings, and these are to be held in private unless the commission determines it is in the public interest to hold public hearings. I think this is a really important point: the commission itself, not the government, will determine whether the hearings should be held in public. It can give consideration to a range of issues, such as reputational damage, the context under which a particular witness is giving evidence, personal safety, and the ability for a matter to be later prosecuted should that be the decision. The commission will have the ability to make recommendations and findings of fact in reports, including a finding of corrupt conduct, but not findings of criminal liability. This can rightly only be determined by a court of law. This commission will have the ability to refer matters for prosecutorial consideration. These powers represent a reasonable and fair balance to ensure the commission strikes the right balance between upholding the public interest, which includes the ability for matters to be prosecuted if the commission believes as a result of its investigations that a referral to a prosecuting authority is warranted, and ensuring appropriate reputational safeguards for those under investigation. Boothby cares about integrity, I know that a National Anti-Corruption Commission, one with teeth as they say, that actually holds politicians and public servants to account, is a priority for the people of Boothby. I know that because they told me. I heard it from people who told me that they'd only ever voted for conservative parties but who came out and letterboxed for me and handed out how-to-vote cards because they cared so much about integrity in public life. I heard it from Labor voters, some of whom had been motivated to get actively involved in a campaign like mine for the first time because they cared so much about integrity in public life. And I heard it from people who probably hadn't been interested or actively involved in politics previously but had been moved to participate by sheer outrage at the repeated scandals and misuse of public funds that they saw on the nightly news. What all of these citizens of Boothby had in common was that they were motivated because they value our democracy—in different ways and with different priorities, sure, but they were not going to take it for granted that the system would just work. It requires oversight, vigilance and accountability. It requires a body that can give assurance that actions and decisions were made with integrity, and that's what this bill delivers. The people of Boothby told me they wanted an anticorruption commission with teeth, and this Anti-Corruption Commission can make public findings and referrals for prosecution where it sees fit—real consequences. The people of Boothby told me they wanted an anticorruption commission that could take referrals from anyone, and this Anti-Corruption Commission not only can take referrals from anyone but can also commence its own investigations if it sees fit. The people of Boothby told me they wanted an anticorruption commission that would consider matters from both before and after the establishment of the commission—retrospectivity—and this Anti-Corruption Commission will do just that. The people of Boothby told me they wanted an anticorruption commission that would be independent, and this Anti-Corruption Commission will make its own decisions about what it investigates. When I spoke about the concept of a federal integrity commission back in September when this bill was first introduced to the House, I said that, without this accountability and oversight, 'faith in our democracy, in our parliamentary processes and in this place erodes'. And we've seen the consequences of this erosion of trust in democracy around the world in recent years. It can happen quickly with a dramatic rupture, or discontent and mistrust can build over time until all of a sudden they can threaten the very foundations and even existence of a functioning democracy. A deficit in the people's trust in government contributes to some of the great challenges of our age: divisiveness, disinformation, social isolation and an inability to face our many profound challenges. Conversely, the strength of our democracy is that it is for all of us. We are Australians here representing our fellow Australians, governing by the people and for the people, and Australians want to know that when we, their elected representatives, make decisions on their behalf those decisions are for their benefit. The Australian people are entirely correct to demand integrity from their elected representatives, and I encourage all people in this place to stand up for democracy, stand up for accountability and stand up for integrity by committing to stamping out corruption in our politics for good. I'm sure the Australian voting public will be watching to see who votes against an Anti-Corruption Commission, and they will draw their own conclusions as to why that might be, just as they drew their own conclusions about why the previous government, despite so many calls and promises to introduce such legislation, failed to do so over nine long, scandal-plagued years. So I ask: who's going to vote against integrity? Why would you vote against integrity? Deputy Speaker, in May Boothby voted for integrity, and you'll be unsurprised to know that I will be voting for integrity. I will be voting for this Anti-Corruption Commission. The Albanese Labor government is delivering on another key promise. I commend the bills to the House. 17:33 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar By the time I decided to stand for election in my community of Mackellar, I had spent years watching parliamentary standards slip to disturbingly low levels, with one pork-barrelling rort after another performed in a clinical and systematic way, and repeated government-friendly appointments to institutions that underpin our democracy, such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, meaning that their independence is distorted. In nine years, the coalition government made 90 party-friendly appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Australia deserves a whole lot better. We deserve a political system we can trust. Speaking to the community of Mackellar both before and during the election campaign, I realised that I was certainly not alone in these concerns. During the campaign, people in Mackellar would email my office, approach me on the street and tell me during town hall events that restoring trust and integrity in our federal political system was one of the biggest issues they wanted their MP to tackle. In the Mackellar matters report by the Voices of Mackellar group, restoring integrity to our political system was ranked the second most important issue to the people in my electorate, narrowly behind climate action. I came to realise that restoring integrity in our political system was actually the first step to achieving meaningful reform in other areas and that the scandals, the rorts and the unethical behaviour were obstacles to progress and to good long-term political decision-making. The evidence also shows that corruption is rising in Australia. Since 2012, Australia's position on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index has dropped significantly. In 2012, we were ranked seventh in the world for the strength of our public sector to withstand corruption. A decade later, we are ranked 18th in the world, largely due to the failure of the previous government to implement a national integrity commission. The Labor government's introduction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 to establish a national anticorruption commission is definitely great progress and is welcomed by ordinary Australians across the country. This progress has been hard won through years of advocacy by many, including many from the crossbench. Cathy McGowan MP, the former member for Indi, advocated and campaigned tirelessly to restore integrity in politics. In 2018, she introduced the detailed National Integrity Commission Bill. It was not legislated, but it certainly saw the coalition government promise to legislate on integrity in the next parliament. Helen Haines MP, the current member for Indi, then took up the baton. I congratulate her for her incredible persistence and for the hard work she has done to bring this to fruition. As we know, the coalition government failed to deliver on its promise of a national integrity commission in the 46th Parliament. This was despite Helen Haines's introduction of the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020, which provided a gold-standard model for an integrity commission. Helen and so many other community Independents around the country, including me, campaigned hard in this year's federal election, and have done so since, to ensure a national integrity commission would be achieved in this parliament. So what does the government's National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 promise? How will it restore integrity and trust in our political system and protect our democracy? As we've heard, the bill creates the National Anti-Corruption Commission, to be led by a commissioner and up to three deputy commissioners. It will be overseen by a joint standing committee of the parliament and by an inspector, who will be empowered to require the commission to provide information about its work. The commission established by this bill will investigate and report on serious or systemic corruption in the Commonwealth public sector, refer evidence of criminal conduct for prosecution, and introduce education and preventative activity regarding corruption. These are all sensible objectives and long overdue. But are they enough? During my election campaign, I promised the people of Mackellar a federal anticorruption commission—as we keep hearing—with teeth, one with considerable powers of investigation and with the independence and funding necessary to carry out its duties free from government input. This bill goes a long way towards that end and, on behalf of the Australian people, I would like to express my deep gratitude to the Attorney-General and the government for the consultative approach they have adopted in bringing this bill to parliament and for adopting all six recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation in addition to the three recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. I also commend the inclusion of the inspector role and the parliamentary committee, which will provide strong oversight of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. I remain of the view, however, that the bill could be amended in several key ways to ensure it meets the Australian community's high expectations. Firstly, it is critical that the joint parliamentary committee which is tasked with the oversight of this commission is robustly independent. To achieve this, it would be optimal if members of the government held fewer than half of the positions on the committee. In addition, I consider that having a non-government chair of the committee would bolster its independence. Secondly, I would like to see the bill contain stronger protections for whistleblowers. We heard just yesterday in this chamber the member for Clark detail whistleblower allegations in relation to coal exports, which reminded us just how important it is for whistleblowers to feel confident to come forward and that they will be protected from prosecution and personal harms. We have seen several other instances recently where the existing whistleblower protection laws have failed to protect whistleblowers. In July of this year, the Attorney-General ordered that the case against Bernard Collaery for unlawful disclosure of information be dropped. Our current legislation has failed to protect whistleblowers in that example and several others. Protection for people who seek to blow the whistle on conduct which has otherwise been suppressed is a critical part of ensuring integrity in our political and governmental systems. Thirdly, a national integrity commission could have an increased role to play in actively promoting integrity in politics and government. Deterring and investigating conduct is one side of the coin, but prevention is better than cure. This includes inquiring and reporting on types of corruption, developing anticorruption plans, advising on agency interventions and educating office holders across the government. By expanding the functions of the National Anti-Corruption Commission in this regard, we can get to the root of corruption and stop it before it gains a hold. Lastly, public hearings are amongst the most powerful deterrents against corruption. Public hearings bolster public trust in our institutions, educate the community on the critical role that an anticorruption commission plays and ensure procedural fairness for defendants. As the New South Wales ICAC commissioner said, in comments on 20 October this year: We've had investigations which have commenced in public and as a result of that information, other people have come forward and … have raised significant issues of corruption. It also, I think, shows transparency and accountability for the agency and justifies the case that ultimately is made for change. The bar for hearings to be held publicly should not be as high as it currently is proposed in this bill. It should not take exceptional circumstances for the public to be entitled to witness the operation of the commission's investigations. I consider that the commission should have the power to hold public hearings where it is in the public interest to do so. That test requires the commission to give due consideration to whether the conduct in question is sufficiently serious to warrant a public spotlight on it. Former judges and lawyers have sharply criticised the inclusion of the exceptional circumstances requirement. Anthony Whealy KC found that, in legal terms, 'exceptional circumstances' has no real meaning and it will act as a brake on the public interest test. To finally be debating this bill in the House is actually momentous. Its passage will enhance democracy, and I wholeheartedly thank the government for addressing this critical issue so early in their first term, as promised. This bill is strong. It will be a potent tool to combat corruption, but further amendments will assist in achieving this high ambition. A non-government majority on the committee, robust whistleblower protections and public hearings will ensure that the National Anti-Corruption Commission is as effective as possible. I thank the government, all transparency organisations, my fellow crossbench colleagues and former members of parliament who have worked tirelessly towards this historic moment in our nation's political history. I commend this bill to the House. 17:44 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Corruption undermines trust, and trust is the basis of legitimate government. I'm pleased to speak on this bill to establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission that will have a broad, independent jurisdiction to investigate serious or systemic corruption, including criminal and non-criminal conduct, and conduct that occurred before this commission is established. Having been a member of the joint select committee which examined the legislation, I was satisfied with the process and grateful to all those who took part, both committee members and witnesses. I wish to pay a special tribute to the committee secretariat and the Parliamentary Counsel, whose expertise and professionalism enabled us all to work within the timeframe. In speaking in favour of the bill, I want to go back to what I said in my first speech some five months ago. I said then that integrity and respect are vital in our national institutions and that I was keen to examine and vote on legislation for a federal integrity commission. This is in fact one of the reasons I decided to stand for office; one of the reasons I was elected in Hasluck; indeed, one of the reasons each of the new members of this House sit here today. No-one stands for public office without great motivation. One of my motivators for standing was that I was angry with the careless attitude of some politicians to vital questions of probity. I felt deeply the need for this body to come to being. The ALP took this policy to the election. It was front and centre during the campaign. It cannot be overstated just how integral to my campaign and to the campaign of so many of this chamber today the push for a national anticorruption commission, or a federal ICAC, as we sometimes called it back then, was. Indeed, very early in my campaign, in July 2011, I stated that stamping out corruption is important to me, that we needed a national anticorruption commission, and only Labor would deliver one. There wouldn't have been a single one of my supporters out doorknocking with me or phoning the electorate who wasn't also in some way motivated to see a strong, transparent and independent anticorruption body implemented to stamp out corruption and to start the process of restoring trust in the institution that is our federal parliament, our democracy. Throughout the many thousands of conversations I and my campaign team had at that time, I cannot recall one individual who argued against the concept of an independent federal body with the power to investigate corruption. There is no doubt in my mind that the lack of an anticorruption body and the steadfast promise that Labor would deliver one had a significant influence on the election result. This is not to understate the suite of important reforms and policies we took to the election and have already started to implement here, but I know that I am far from alone when I talk about the power of the promise to hold power to account and to restore trust. Many people from all around Hasluck followed the announcement of this policy closely during the election. Chris Miller stated: 'This is one of the most important policy initiatives of the election.' Jonathan Mann of Lesmurdie commented simply: 'We need this.' Peter Williamson of Gidgegannup said: 'Sing this long and loud: we need to stamp out corruption in all our public organisations.' Rob Richardson of Mundaring agreed, saying: 'Too many in government turn a blind eye to the goings-on in government. Remember the standard you walk past is the standard you accept.' Really, how can we expect people to uphold standards in their daily lives, in their workplaces, in their business dealings, and in their other interactions in the communities if we here do not hold ourselves and the whole of government to the highest standards? In this government must lead. The coalition had announced plans for an integrity commission back in December 2018. No bill was brought to the parliament. A model was floated which was generally regarded as lacking teeth. No-one will describe this bill as lacking teeth. There may yet be some members here or in the other place who don't want to see an integrity commission. I hope not because, as I said at the start, corruption undermines trust, and trust is the basis for legitimate government. The coalition members, though, who served on the joint select committee are fully supportive and played an integral role in examining the legislation. Crossbench members too were constructive in that process. I need to especially mention the fine role played by Senator White, who chaired the committee and did so with respect; and the deputy chair, the member for Indi, whose dedication to this area of governance is commendable. Interest in the review of the bill, though, was not limited to committee members, staff and witnesses. Members of the public, too, have been following the process of the review with great interest. On 6 October, soon after the joint select committee had begun its work, I announced to the Hasluck electorate via social media that we had begun examining the legislation so that we could ensure that we ended up with a powerful, transparent and independent commission. I'll share one comment from a supporter, Ms Denise Murphy, who replied as follows: Thank you. Wishing the committee all the best in their endeavours on our behalf. It's a simple comment heavy with meaning. I was thanked for my work on the committee before we had even started. Ms Murphy wished us well as we embarked on our work. She recognised that it was indeed an endeavour, that we had serious work to do, and, above all, that the committee's work, as the parliament's work, was done on behalf of every Australian—'on our behalf'. This is true of any work done in any committee and in the parliament. I think that it is especially true when the legislation goes to heart of good governance itself, as this bill does. I will make a few comments about the bill. The proposed commission has a broad jurisdiction. One of the important aspects of that broad jurisdiction, and one that I know is important to the Attorney-General, is that it treats all of those covered—from the Prime Minister all the way down to the most recently employed public servant—equally. Australians expect and appreciate that equality of treatment. The commission will be independent. Its power to act on its own initiative is underlined and stressed in the bill, something recommended by the committee. The commission will have oversight from both a parliamentary joint committee and from the office of the inspector. During the joint select committee review process, we heard, usefully, from a broad range of witnesses, including Mr Bruce McClintock SC, who shared his views on the role of the inspector. That evidence has found its way into the bill via the second recommendation of the committee—to expand the role of the inspector in relation to witness summons, arrest warrants and other matters. The bill sets a high bar for public hearings. The distinction between the commission as a body investigating corruption and the courts' subsequent prosecution of corruption is an important one. I think the balance struck in this bill is the right balance. Where the commission makes a finding of corruption, that finding will be reported upon according to the commissioner's discretion under the act. The commissioner is also empowered to make statements that serve to protect the reputation of witnesses where necessary. The government had also agreed to recommendation 6 of the joint select committee—that the commissioner will be required to advise persons investigated of the outcome of the investigation, regardless of that outcome. I welcome the government's amendment in relation to the application for warrants. Members opposite have quite rightly been concerned about the politicisation of the AAT, and I commend them for their interest in that question. Regardless, the powers of the commission to pursue warrants are significant powers, and significant powers require significant balances and protections. Federal Court judges are legally qualified, have wide and deep experience and occupy a position of status commensurate with the powers sought to be exercised under this legislation. Recommendation 1 of the joint select committee report suggested extending protections for journalists' sources to those working across the editorial chain. I'm happy to see that recommendation has been taken on by the government. I believe in a free and independent press, and if we're serious about restoring trust in the institution of government and in our democracy then we must be serious about the role an independent press plays in that process when free in their pursuit of truth and accountability. I am pleased, too, that the government has taken on recommendation 4 of the joint select committee—that wellbeing safeguards be improved for persons who are issued a summons or notice by the commission. Commission proceedings, by definition and by their nature, will be likely to cause stress to all involved. Alleviating that stress and supporting witnesses and those subject to the inquiry should be supported. I do feel compelled to address the ridiculous claim by the opposition that unions are somehow excluded from the National Anti-Corruption Commission because they are classified as registered organisations. Unions are treated exactly the same way as any other third party who tries to corrupt a public official. Registered organisations include employer groups like the Australian Industry Group, the chambers of commerce, the real estate institute and the motor traders association. Is the opposition seriously suggesting now that each of these employer groups should also be regarded as public officials? Let's be clear: the bills we have before us will create a National Anti-Corruption Commission, which will be able to investigate corruption across the Commonwealth public sector. It is not directed at private activity; it is directed at the public sector and has a broad jurisdiction to investigate those who corrupt or seek to corruptly influence the public sector. I hope and expect to see this bill passed by both houses this week and to see the new Australian National Anti-Corruption Commission commence work by the middle of next year. The people of Hasluck too hope and expect to see this occur. Lastly, I wish to pay tribute to the Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, and his team. He has poured a great deal of his attention and energy into this bill and also a great deal of hope—hope which he referred to in his first speech in this place in 2007, when he spoke of the quality of the laws we make, the policy we shape and the administration we provide. The Attorney-General understands that corruption undermines trust, and trust is the basis of legitimate government. This bill is a testament to his vision. 17:56 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi It's quite an understatement to say that I'm very pleased to rise and speak on this bill. Finally we are debating a National Anti-Corruption Commission. Today I'm wearing a special brooch gifted me by the people of Indi when I started my crusade around establishing an integrity body in the federal parliament. It's a cockatoo, and the cockatoo is a mascot of the people of Indi. But they made me a special one, one with teeth, because they told me, 'Helen, you must not rest until we have an integrity commission with teeth.' As parliamentarians we're sent here by the people we represent to make decisions in their best interests, to make laws in the public interest, to approve spending public funds on the most worthy causes in the most efficient way possible. We are sent here to act with integrity, to uphold the dignity of public office and to execute our significant powers in good faith. Yet too often this is not what the Australian people see. Instead, they've seen public money spent for political gain, marginal seats that get all the shiny infrastructure projects while safe seats get nothing and decisions that seem to benefit the interests of major donors over the interests of the community. We've seen sports rorts, car park rorts, Leppington triangle, Helloworld, Paladin, jobs for mates, pork-barrelling. It's these scandals and more that have chipped away at the trust Australians have in government, in democracy, in all of us here in this place. If we want the trust of the Australian people, if we want them to trust in government and democracy, we have to show that bad behaviour won't be swept under the rug, that there are consequences, that we're holding ourselves accountable to them. That's why we need a strong National Anti-Corruption Commission that is independent of government, that has a broad definition of corruption, that is properly funded, that is transparent—to bring integrity back to politics and to earn back the trust of the people who elect us. I was elected on a platform of integrity, to bring the standards of integrity and decency I saw upheld by my colleagues in my career as a nurse and a midwife; as a research academic in hospitals, clinics and universities; and as a company director in not-for-profit organisations. I wanted to bring that to this place. By the time I came to parliament in 2019 there'd been more than six years of parliamentary advocacy to establish an integrity commission and more than a decade of public advocacy. In 2018 this House passed a Senate motion calling for a national integrity commission. Emboldened, my predecessor Cathy McGowan introduced a national integrity commission bill, with the Greens introducing a similar bill in the Senate. A month later the former government committed to establishing a commonwealth integrity commission, a promise they took to the 46th parliament. I started my parliamentary career as an optimist. I still am, but I've learned a thing or two along the way—particularly about parliamentary process. I believed the then Attorney-General's assurances that an integrity commission was priority reform. But as the year wore on and the stalling tactics became obvious, and then insulting—not just to the parliament, but to the Australian people—it felt to me like the whole thing had become a farce. Tired of waiting, I worked with constituents, with esteemed judges, ethicists, legal academics, integrity bodies and MPs across the parliament to write a consensus bill that made the grade. And to those dedicated, erudite people who worked so hard with me—people such as Professor AJ Brown, the Hon. David Harper, the Hon. Margaret White, the Hon. Anthony Whealy, the Hon. Stephen Charles, the Hon. Mary Guadron, the Hon. Geoffrey Watson, Fiona McLeod KC, members of the Accountability Round Table, Transparency International Australia—the list goes on—the nation owes all of you a debt. In 2020 I tabled my Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill, which I am proud has served as a model for the legislation here today. Just one week after tabling that bill, we finally saw the exposure draft legislation from the previous government for their Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Standing here now it is important to reflect back about that and to understand really how bad that model was: no public hearings, no public referrals, a definition of corrupt conduct limited to criminal offences, limited ability to look into corruption that occurred in the past. It was rightly trashed from pillar to post. I want to highlight now the work of the new Leader of the Opposition, and to highlight his leadership role in bringing the coalition to the table in such a way as we have now. I want to thank them very much. I want to thank Senator Scarr and the member for Menzies for the way they worked in the parliamentary committee that I've just served on inquiring into this bill. But I want to take us back to November 2021, when I tabled my Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill for a second time in the parliament and called on us all here at that time to bring on debate. Historically that vote had the majority on the floor of parliament because the majority of people in the House wanted an integrity commission. I was unsuccessful on that day due to a technicality in the COVID rules, and the former government dug in. They had a model and they weren't going to change it. If people didn't like it that was their problem. But, as it turns out, it actually was the coalition's problem. Integrity in politics is not a niche issue. From Mansfield to Wahgunyah, from King Lake to Corryong, people everywhere told me to keep up the fight. Independents who made integrity their central policy were elected in record numbers at the last election and their communities, like mine, have sent them here to secure a strong anticorruption commission. I am a vocal supporter of this bill. I believe it is an excellent model. It will establish a powerful anticorruption commission. But it can be better. I worked hard as deputy chair of the committee, as did my fellow members who examined this bill, to ensure that we gave it proper scrutiny. I'm pleased that the government has accepted all of our recommendations. I'm especially pleased the government has taken up the proposal from my Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill to explicitly give the NACC the power to commence corruption investigations on its own initiative. This is a crucial power, central to the National Anti-Corruption Commission's independence and to its role in education and improving Commonwealth governance. But this model can be improved further before we deliver the Australian people the National Anti-Corruption Commission they deserve, that is fit-for-purpose and fulfils its role for many years to come because, as legislators, we are legislating right into the future. I promised the people of Indi and the nation that I would work all the way to the finish line on this legislation to get the best possible integrity body that we can. Not all parliaments get the opportunity to set up a transformative independent body such as this. We do. Firstly, I will move an amendment to strike out what I consider the unnecessary and alarming 'exceptional circumstances' requirement. This is the single-most important change to the bill. The 'exceptional circumstances' requirement is the biggest threat to the openness of the commission. My amendment will ensure that the commissioner may decide to hold public hearings if the commissioner is satisfied it would be in the public interest—tested, simple and safe. This is not just a fine legal point; it's a threshold question for public trust and the principle of transparency. The committee inquiry heard little support from witnesses or submissions for the 'exceptional circumstances' test and an overwhelming amount of evidence against it. Former judges, past and current ICAC and IBAC commissioners and transparency advocates all want it gone. The 'exceptional circumstances' test has been opposed by Professor Anne Twomey, the Hon. Robert Redlich, National Integrity Committee member and former Supreme Court judge the Hon. David Harper AM, the Centre for Public Integrity, the Accountability Round Table, the Ethics Centre, the Governance Institute of Australia, Transparency International Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law. Looking back through materials presented to me at stakeholder round tables with the Attorney-General in June, there was no mention of exceptional circumstances. The very department that drafted this bill was unable to say when the clause was added. People have drawn their own conclusions, and, rightly, they should. In standing by the 'exceptional circumstances' clause, coalition members have cited fears about the grave mental health impacts which may arise from appearing before a public hearing. These are really important concerns, and I share them, but they can be addressed in a way which enhances protections but does not hide the most critical corruption investigations away in the dark. That's why I will move an amendment to make it mandatory for the commissioner to consider certain factors when deciding whether to hold a public hearing, including unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing caused from a public hearing. This was supported by Transparency International Australia and the Law Council of Australia. It is already in place for the Australian Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner and in some state anticorruption commissions, including in New South Wales. If 'exceptional circumstances' remains, it should be defined. The public deserves to know what circumstances justify the holding of a public hearing. My amendment will define 'exceptional circumstances' to mean 'circumstances where it is preferable or appropriate for evidence to be heard in public'. This will ensure the number of private hearings is not unreasonably increased due to the ambiguity of the phrase. This was supported by the Australian Federal Police Association, the Community and Public Sector Union and Transparency International Australia. Secondly, my amendments will seek to enshrine a broad definition of 'corruption'. My amendments will ensure the commission has explicit jurisdiction to investigate pork barrelling when it meets the threshold of serious and systemic corrupt conduct. 'Pork barrelling' will be defined as 'any conduct that involves the allocation of public funds and resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes'. The major parties' silence when it comes to pork barrelling is deafening. Let's call it for what it is: it's buying votes with taxpayer money. It doesn't pass the pub test, and my constituents are stumped as to why it still goes on. Given the level of public concern regarding the alleged misuse of billions of dollars of public grant funds, there should be no ambiguity regarding the NACC's ability to investigate this questionable practice. I will also move an amendment to ensure that the conduct of any person, notably third persons, that could impair public confidence in public administration can be investigated by the NACC when it meets the threshold of being serious and systemic. That's a tried and true provision in every single anticorruption body in Australia, apart from Western Australia and Tasmania, and it belongs in this model too. Thirdly, I will move amendments to strengthen the all-important parliamentary oversight committee's role in keeping the National Anti-Corruption Commission independent. This amendment will ensure that the decision to approve or reject recommendations for the appointment of the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector is a true consensus decision, not a government fait accompli. I have two alternative amendments to do this. The committee must make the appointment decision by a majority, and my amendments ensure that either this majority must have two non-government members or, alternatively, a majority must be made up of two-thirds of committee members. I will seek to amend the bill around those areas. This will ensure that appointment decisions have multipartisan support and that the committee does not become a rubber stamp as a government-stacked oversight body. Fourthly, I will introduce amendments to enhance budgetary transparency and oversight. Around Australia, anticorruption commissions have been starved of adequate funding. Even the threat of funding cuts could have a silencing effect on investigations. My amendments will require the parliamentary joint committee to review the NACC's budgets every 12 months and will require the minister to table a statement of reasons if they deviate from the recommendations of the parliamentary joint committee in relation to the budget. And these amendments will ensure that the review function is used and will give the parliament and the public the chance to scrutinise government decisions in relation to funding requests. In conclusion, it is persistent advocacy that has brought us to this moment today—from civil society, from the crossbench, from the Australian people. Keeping the pressure on has kept this on the agenda, and I congratulate the Attorney-General for his work on this bill. I congratulate the government for making this a priority agenda item for this parliament. Big reforms don't just happen. They're made up of dozens of quiet conversations between unlikely allies, united across party lines. At this point I wish to acknowledge the member for Bass, who, through the difficulty of pressures in the last parliament, stood true to her convictions to restore integrity to this place. History will judge her well. Parliamentary moments that cut through the noise—another trip to the Attorney-General's office or the Prime Minister's office, collaboration, working with the people—have borne results. I call on all members of this parliament to support my amendments and for us all to support this bill. I sincerely hope today is the first step in the long road to restoring trust in federal politics and integrity to public life. (Time expired) 18:11 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I'm so pleased to stand and speak in support of a National Anti-Corruption Commission. Six months ago this week, the Australian people put their faith in an Albanese government precisely because they wanted to see integrity in politics. I am every single day both humbled and proud to represent my community of Chisholm, and I know how important the promise of a National Anti-Corruption Commission is to the people I stand here for. This was a promise that we, the Australian Labor Party—now the Australian Labor government—made ahead of the recent federal election, and I know just how important it is to deliver this, both to ensure that we have integrity in government and to show Australians that governments mean what they say. For too long Australians have been governed through spin, through announcements with no delivery. We need to move away from those craven, cynical times—and we are. This bill goes some way to restoring the faith that has been lost in institutions like this. Indeed, all the things the Albanese government has achieved so far—climate change legislation, a responsible budget, cheaper medicines and child care and much-needed funding for important infrastructure projects—demonstrate that we are doing what we said we were going to do. It's as simple as that. Australians not only deserve better than what we've had over the past decade from a federal government; they demanded better, on 21 May this year. An independent, transparent anticorruption commission with teeth is something this nation absolutely needs. I really personally care about this deeply. It is impossible to emphasise enough how important integrity in politics, in our public institutions, is to our community in Chisholm. Recent OECD reports revealed alarming results for Australia, with less than 40 per cent of respondents having trust in government. This should be cause for all of us, regardless of party or persuasion, to reflect and to take real steps to restore trust, restore faith in government, in public institutions, in politicians. We make decisions about spending public money. It needs to be for public good. We need governance that is in the best interests of our community, of the nation—not of ourselves in this chamber. We are taking real steps in this legislation to restore that faith. When I was speaking to my community throughout the election campaign it was really heartbreaking and harrowing to hear the cynicism for the institutions just like this, just like the parliament of Australia, that people had. This place was established to serve the public, but it has been treated with disdain and distrust, and, I must say, understandably so in many instances. Every day I encounter people in my community who've experienced despair and abandonment at the hands of the former government. I'm working hard every single day to repair trust in this institution, to give people hope that our democracy works for them, that we're here to serve our communities and not to serve ourselves. The sports rorts, the car park rorts—people, myself included, have been angry and disgusted at what they've seen. The effects of this distrust are profound. I appreciate why a family in my electorate, in Mount Waverley, might have little faith in government after their experience with the NDIS and the devastation and desperation that they felt. I know that this government, the Albanese government, is doing all it can to repair this important but broken system. Last week I met with a family from Glen Waverley who have been broken down with a $30,000 robodebt. I can understand why they may not regard government as an institution that is compassionate and that acts with integrity. I understand why community and sporting groups across my electorate don't always believe things politicians say or promises made, because announcements with no follow-through were made in Chisholm in the period of the previous government. I am really pleased that in the budget we've delivered on each and every one of the commitments I made during the federal election. I think this goes some way to restoring trust in government, to deliver what we said we were going to. I can understand the cynicism though. I will give an example, the headspace in Box Hill, a much needed service in my electorate. I announced a commitment a few months ago during the election campaign. It turns out the previous government had the money budgeted years ago but they sat on the money, sat on the photo opportunity, until they had already committed, so they could roll it out as a flashy campaign moment. That's disgraceful. I think of all of the young people in my community who have contacted me about a service like headspace. I think about all of the young people who, in the years between my announcement and the money being squirrelled away previously, could have made great use of a mental health service. Of course treating our community in this way erodes trust. Of course it does. That's why this legislation is important. It's about restoring trust. But it's also more than that. It's about ensuring accountability. There must be consequences for bad behaviour. This legislation is about ensuring justice. The joint select committee's recommendations on this legislation are welcomed, and a significant sign of how genuinely embraced our government's efforts have been to establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission. The work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has also been welcomed by the Albanese Labor government, a government that seeks to unite where others have sought to divide, to restore trust and repair a sense of faith and hope for the future of our great nation. Today's tabled amendments follow careful consideration of recommendations made by the reports of the joint select committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. These amendments will broaden safeguards for the protection of journalists in relation to search warrants and extend protections for their sources. They will improve safeguards for the wellbeing of persons who may require assistance to comply with a summons or notice to produce; explicitly permit people to disclose information to a medical professional; require the commissioner to advise a person whose conduct has been investigated of the outcome of the investigation; amend the definition of 'corrupt conduct'; clarify that the commissioner may deal with a corruption issue on their own initiative; require surveillance and interception warrants to be issued by eligible judges of federal superior courts; enhance the power of the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner inspector regarding witness summonses and arrest warrants; narrow the grounds for bringing contempt proceedings; and amend the requirement that all evidence which discloses legal advice be given in private. I think these amendments are a sign of good faith and genuine commitment to improving the standards of this place, and personally I'm really pleased to see it, as I know the people in my community of Chisholm will be too. The National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill continues to deliver our commitment to legislate a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. I'm proud that ours is a government that values integrity, honesty and accountability. I will always respect my community and act in a way that is befitting the people I care about, and part of demonstrating that is providing my full support for this legislation. This legislation gives full effect to the design principles we took to the federal election. These principles were designed by some of the finest minds in the land—eminent legal and integrity experts—and were, of course, endorsed by the Australian people, including the people of Chisholm, six months ago this week. This legislation draws on the very best elements of the state and territory anticorruption commissions and laws and has been a very long time coming indeed. The legislation provides the commission with broad jurisdiction to investigate serious or systemic misconduct across the Commonwealth public sector. The commission can investigate ministers; parliamentarians and their staff; statutory office holders; and a range of other employees and contractors. The commission will have significant powers. It will be independent and will report to ensure transparency. Of course, we don't want corrupt conduct to occur in the first place, and this commission is not merely a stick; there is a prevention and education function embedded in it. This is really important. This legislation contains protections for whistleblowers and journalists and, once again, through this promotes transparency. The people of Chisholm demanded this legislation, the people of Australia demanded this legislation, and I am so proud to be part of a government who will finally deliver a National Anti-Corruption Commission that treats our communities with respect. 18:22 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise to speak in support of the National Anti-Corruption Bill 2022. It is an equivocal support, though. I've grappled with this bill. There's no doubt in my mind that people who are in positions of responsibility have an onus to always act responsibly and conduct themselves in accordance with the law. No-one is above the law, whether it's a politician, a judge, a public servant or a member of the ADF. It doesn't matter who we're talking about; no-one is above the law. It's one of the principal tenets of our criminal justice system in this country and, in fact, in many Western countries. Corruption is wrong, and it should be stamped out where it is present. People who break the law should face the law. Having said that, I want to talk a little bit about some of my concerns with this bill. I have some concerns about the draconian measures of this bill, where people no longer have a right to silence. They are compelled to give evidence. If you've been charged and you're on trial for a criminal offence and you are in a court of law, you can insist on your right to silence. A court or, in fact, even an investigating police officer can't compel you to answer questions. It's one of the fundamental principles, once again, of our criminal justice system. And yet in these ICAC models—pretty much across this country, in states and territories and in the federal model that's being proposed—you don't have that right. That right is stripped away from you. As a person who used to represent criminals, or alleged criminals, many years ago, I have some fundamental concerns about that. The criminal justice system provides people who are alleged to have committed offences greater rights than this bill will. I know that some people will say that this is not a court that makes a finding of guilt. I accept that. I think that what saves this is that ultimately these hearings will be done, in most instances, behind closed doors. What really, really worries me—and I want to get this on the record—is the potential politicisation of this forum. Someone who could be acting with mala fides could make a complaint against an opposing parliamentarian, for example. Someone who might have it in for that person could make a complaint to the commission. We are kidding ourselves if we think that that's not going to happen. Unfortunately, it's going to happen. I know people who have appeared before these sorts of commissions and the sorts of pressures that people will feel. I wouldn't say it is duress, but it is extreme stress that these bodies put people through. These are things that we should tread very, very carefully around. I do acknowledge that the model before us will predominantly have closed hearings, unless there are exceptional circumstances and unless it's in the public interest to have a public hearing. But we should also be very, very mindful that this bill is not just—and I say this to Australians who may be listening to this or reading this at a later time—a corruption commission for politicians. It will capture Australian public servants. It will capture members of the Australian Defence Force. It will capture people who are working in the NDIS system. It will capture anybody who is working in the Commonwealth Public Service, or, in fact, people who are contracted to the Commonwealth Public Service. So it is not just a commission for politicians. That's really quite an important point to make. Having talked about of some my concerns—Mr Deputy Speaker, I won't wrap up there because I've still got another eight minutes, despite your wanting to wrap me up, let the record show. But the coalition— Mr Rae 300122 Just start again! Mr WALLACE 265967 I'm happy to ask for an extension of time. I'm just warming up! The coalition was the first party to seek, or in fact implement, a corruption commission, back in 1988. So we have, as a conservative political force, been the ground breaker. While we as a party support the NACC, it's important, as I've said, that we take serious care to get the balance right. We've engaged in this process in good faith through the parliamentary processes and through the committee processes. We're committed to being a constructive opposition. The coalition opposition is supportive of good policy where it's good policy but, where it's not, we will call it out. I am concerned about the doubletalk of those on the other side of the House. They talk the big talk about integrity, but what we've seen in the last couple of weeks in this place, through their Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 that passed this House in the last sitting week, was the abolition of the ABCC. I'm not going to talk at any great length, as I normally do, about what Labor do in relation to the ABCC. But what's quite amazing is that they talk the big talk about integrity and yet, when it comes to the CFMMEU—which the Federal Court has acknowledged as the 'greatest recidivist organisation in Australia'—they've removed the watchdog in relation to that union. Mr Rae 300122 Different bill! Mr WALLACE 265967 Of course it's a different bill. I'll take that interjection. Of course it's a different bill. The principle remains the same. You either believe in integrity or you don't, and, where you profess the importance of integrity, you can't stand up on the same dais and say that the most recidivist organisation in Australian history should not be under the same rules and should not have some form of integrity commission. Those members opposite should reflect on that very fact. Interestingly, this bill effectively provides a carve-out for unions. Those members opposite will quibble with that. The Attorney-General will quibble with that, but sections 12 and 14 make it very clear that the unions are getting a carve-out. So the CFMMEU are getting not only a free ride here, through the abolition of the ABCC, but also a carve-out of this bill. For the life of me, I don't understand how the media and the crossbench are not jumping up and down about this very point. Whilst Australians want integrity, they want integrity across the board, not some sort of a la carte integrity. One of my other concerns about this bill is in relation to gag orders. This place has just gone through a torturous process about acknowledging people's mental health and the wellbeing of workplaces, yet this bill, in my view, does not appropriately provide for the care and the wellbeing of individuals who may be the subject of investigations. I note that the Attorney-General put out a press release today about making some amendments in that regard. I haven't had an opportunity to go through that point in any great detail, but, if someone is the subject of an investigation, surely, for goodness sake, that person should be able to share the fact that they are the subject of an investigation with their doctor or their psychiatrist or a psychologist. If their partner is not also the subject of a similar inquiry, they should be able to share it with them as well. Otherwise, that individual is left totally exposed on their own. Think about the sorts of pressures that would be brought to bear on you as an individual if you were the subject of an investigation and you could not tell a soul. Have a think about what sort of impact that would have on you. Some of the amendments that we are looking at, as a constructive opposition, are in relation to public hearings. We believe that it should be compulsory—not optional—for the commissioner, when considering whether it should be a public hearing, to consider factors including whether confidential information is involved, whether there would be unfair prejudice to a person's reputation or whether a person giving evidence has a particular vulnerability, such as being under direct instruction or control of another person. When it comes to telecommunications warrants, I've seen that the Attorney-General has also put out an amendment today in relation to making the decision-maker of those warrants a judge of a federal superior court. That's common sense and is preferable to having decisions about the issue of warrants being made by AAT members. With no disrespect to AAT members intended, warrants are very, very serious things to issue, potentially in relation to politicians. It could be the Prime Minister, for example. It could be the Chief of the Army or the Chief of the Defence Force. It is very important that that issue be considered by a very senior judge. And, I'm sorry, but an AAT member—particularly given they don't have security of tenure—is not, in my view, properly equipped to make those decisions. I'll leave it there. I could go on for hours, but I won't. 18:38 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I rise to speak on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. Before I begin my remarks, I want to respond to the previous speaker, the member for Fisher. I understand that he raised concerns around mental health non-disclosure amendments. I can say to the member that the government has made clear that the non-disclosure won't apply to those people who are seeking mental health support from psychiatrists or psychologists. That was made clear by the government, as was another non-disclosure consideration around people with a disability so that, if those people need to speak to a support worker, for example, that is a consideration of the commission at the time. I appreciate the concern raised, but hopefully that alleviates the member for Fisher's concerns with regard to that. Usually in this place, when rising to speak on a bill, it is customary for members to say how pleased they are to rise on a bill, but the truth is that it is with mixed feelings that I rise today on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill because of the way in which we have got here, the necessity of this bill and the fact that, even though I was proudly a member of the previous parliament, the 46th Parliament, we didn't get it done in that parliament. Our institutions in this country matter. We need to make sure that Australians feel empowered by what happens in this place as well as by the standards by which our politics is practised here and around the country. And Australians need to feel empowered by our institutions—for feel that they are acting in their national interest and feel a sense of pride that our institutions are helping to create a society and a community that is worthy of the Australian people. Leading into the last election we heard from the Australian people that the expectations of the people we are fortunate and privileged to represent were not being met by this place on matters of anticorruption and integrity in government. In this place, under the previous government, the Australian people made it abundantly clear that the standard by which they wanted to see politics practised in this country was not being met by the Morrison government. The Morrison government made a commitment to introduce a National Anti-Corruption Commission bill, but they didn't introduce it into the parliament. An exposure draft was put on the Prime Minister's website, but the Prime Minister didn't stand in this place holding a piece of legislation and moving it in this place in order to try to bring forward a national anticorruption body. I'm not here today to run through the list of political scandals of the previous government, because that's not what this bill is about. This bill isn't about the Morrison government; it's about the Australian people. It's about making sure the Australian people feel a sense of empowerment and pride in the institutions of our democracy and that we in this place are holding ourselves to a higher account. The problem is not that there were things that happened in government; of course there were. The problem was that the previous government promised to the Australian people that they were going to bring in an anticorruption commission and an integrity commission. They went to all the effort of releasing an exposure draft, but they didn't actually bring it to this place. You don't get points as a government for putting things on a website. You get points for doing the job you are privileged and elected to do. That changes right now with this bill. How this bill is formed and the aspects of this bill are really important. I want to go through some of the details of the bill and how they align with the commitments made by the then Labor opposition and now Labor government, and I want to take this moment to congratulate the Attorney-General and his team. He has helped steer this historic bill into this place and is going to, once it is passed—and I do believe it will pass—be able to say that he, at this time, gave the Australian people a great reform, an important reform, a national anticorruption commission. It is a great Labor reform and one that will last longer than hopefully all our political careers and one that the Attorney-General can be extremely proud of. The bill delivers on our commitment to introduce legislation for a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission by the end of this year. We are doing it and it is still 2022, and the bill is here before us. The commission will have full powers to investigate and report on corruption in the Commonwealth public sector, including ministers, MPs, their staff, statutory office holders, staff of government entities, and contractors. Most importantly, this bill will be independent of government. In this place it's important that we hold ourselves to higher account than ordinary Australian workplaces, and any MP who is feeling squirmish about the fact that we are bringing in a National Anti-Corruption Commission should really take a long, hard look at themselves as to whether or not they belong in this place. A national anticorruption commission should make members of parliament feel pride and feel like they are part of a reform that is going to lift the standards of politics in this country. If you are in this caper for any reason other than to serve your community, you are in it for the wrong reasons. This National Anti-Corruption Commission will ensure the politics practice in this country is of an extremely high standard. Another important aspect of the National Anti-Corruption Commission is it will be able to receive referrals or allegations from any source and commence investigations of its own initiative. Being independent means being independent. It means being able to investigate matters in which it sees a potential for serious or systemic corruption. Being independent means it is not for the government or the cabinet to dictate what can and cannot be investigated. We saw patterns of investigation closely controlled by the cabinet. We saw patterns of investigation where the Public Service was very closely linked to the political wing of government. Trust was eroded from the Australian people by the people running this parliament, and that cannot occur. This body must be independent. The other important part of this bill is that the powers of the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be retrospective as well as prospective. The commissioner and deputy commissioners will have the same status and security of tenure as judges, and I'm confident the selections of commissioners will be ones where the Attorney-General and others will consult with those on the National Anti-Corruption Commission parliamentary oversight committee and ensure the people serving this body will be of the highest calibre and people who are worthy of the institution we are setting up in this country. The commission will be fully funded and free to determine its own budget. The Australian people clearly demanded that integrity be lifted in politics. I think the key things brought in from the last election that I was speaking to people in my electorate on were about making sure the National Anti-Corruption Commission was independent and that it had the power to look at previous matters, along with the fact it could decide what it was going to investigate without influence from government. They were the main criteria that people in my electorate wanted to ensure and see as part of this National Anti-Corruption Commission, and all of them are in this bill. I am proud of that, and I am proud of this bill. Referring back to my other hat as chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, it is worth noting as part of my contribution to the debate on this bill that, as part of our routine inquiries into pieces of legislation and into government instruments, we received independent legal advice that raised concerns around the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial in relation to public hearings. Public hearings are not something that should be taken lightly; it is a serious tool of the commissioner to access, and it should be used in a way that is mindful of the human rights implications of such hearings. I absolutely believe that public hearings are an essential tool for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. I'm pleased the commissioner has the power to utilise public hearings when they deem it appropriate, as per the conditions. But it is not something to be dismissed. It is not something that we should be easily swayed by politically. This is a serious decision relating to the rights of Australians and the human rights implications of Australians. There absolutely need to be public hearings; I'm a firm believer of that. But it does raise human rights implications, and we are a country that doesn't make legislation hastily; we do it carefully and in a considered way. This is something that I think the parliament has the right balance on and something that I think we can be confident will protect the interests and the rights of Australians. I'm proud of this bill. I'm proud of our Attorney-General. I'm proud that Australians can breathe a sigh of relief that the institutions that they elected us to are holding themselves to a higher account; that Australians can know that we, in this building, take the matter of integrity and public governance seriously; that corruption is not allowed in Australian politics; that we, in this place, are firm believers in Australian democracy and Australian democratic institutions. I say to any Australian, or any person in my electorate: have faith and believe, and help create good institutions in this country. It's what helps create a good society. If we do not empower and believe in our own institutions, then we have nothing. The National Anti-Corruption Commission is an important institution that adds to the framework of our democracy. It's not good enough that we didn't have one. It's not good enough that all the states and territories had one. It's not good enough that there was one promised and never delivered. This is now a change to that long line of unsatisfactory outcomes. I'm proud of the Australian Labor Party, of the Albanese Labor government, which is delivering a national anti-corruption commission. It will leave our country in strong stead. It is an important reform not just for this parliament but for the Australian people, and I commend these bills to the House. 18:51 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong It is an honour to speak to this bill, the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, and a related bill. The Albanese government has presented a model for the NACC in its first six months, a model which is much stronger and much more independent than that proposed by the previous government. I congratulate the Attorney-General and his team for the speed, dedication and commitment that they have displayed in bringing this legislation to this place. In this last sitting period for the year, the parliament has an opportunity to keep faith with the Australian people and to pass this legislation for a national anti-corruption commission. It's a very exciting moment for this parliament. Integrity in government was high on the agenda in this year's election. In my electorate of Kooyong, the integrity and transparency of our federal government was a leading concern, along with urgent action on climate change and women's equality. There are, however, three residual areas of particular of concern in this legislation. They are of concern because they go to the issue of trust. Public confidence in a government's ability to govern fairly, transparently and with integrity underpins the success of its every policy. To prevent perceptions of interference, governance of the NACC, including appointment of its commissioner and allocation of its budget, should be beyond the reach of the elected government. The NACC must be able to operate independently in order to reinforce its transparency and effectiveness in the public eye and to rebuild public trust in our institutions. Firstly, the government proposes a committee with broad representation from parliament to oversee appointments to the three key NACC roles. Involvement of all sides of the political spectrum is important in ensuring that these appointments are above reproach. Giving a government member overriding power on this committee renders it vulnerable to influence from a political appointee with a sympathetic ear. The stacking of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with some 88 political appointments by the former government is a salient reminder of the risks of government interference. An appointment committee with broad representation from this parliament, and with decisions made by the majority, would provide assurance of the commission's independence. I know that my crossbench colleagues will be speaking in detail to this really important matter later in this debate. Secondly, the NACC will be different from other government agencies. Its purpose is scrutiny of our government, but our government is the entity which will decide on its funding. This engenders conflict, and the conflict means that the funding of the NACC cannot, and should not, be dependent on the usual appropriations processes. To ensure that the NACC has the staffing and resources sufficient to discharge its statutory obligations, it has to have sufficient resources to discharge all of those responsibilities to a high standard and in a timely manner. We know that governments can starve oversight bodies of funds through the usual budget processes in order to limit or delay their scrutiny. Claims of underfunding of anticorruption bodies in other jurisdictions in the last few years demonstrate that this is a real possibility. In 2020, the state Auditor-General, reviewing the New South Wales ICAC, decried the absence of an independent adviser on its funding requirements. In Victoria, the head of our own Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, Robert Redlich, has also suggested that funding should be removed from the discretion of the government of the day and given to the parliament. At a federal level, in recent years we've seen how the previous government responded to the Australian National Audit Office's examination of the sports rorts affair and of a dubious transaction in which $30 million of taxpayers' money was paid to a Liberal donor for land valued at one-tenth of that sum, to name just two of the rorts that we saw with the previous government. What did that government do when the ANAO identified these rorts? It cut its funding. It also cut funding to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. It cut funding to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. It cut funding to the Australian Law Reform Commission. I could go on and on, but I only have 15 minutes. What is the solution? The solution is to safeguard the funding base of the NACC with legislated annual indexation and with an independent parliamentary body reviewing the agency's requests for greater funding. This is the basis for the amendment which I move today. I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to set a funding floor for the NACC which is equal to the amount allocated to the NACC in the 2022-23 Budget; and ensures that the annual budget for the NACC includes a minimum indexation which is not less than the annual CPI". This amendment calls on the government to set a funding floor for the NACC equivalent to that allotted to it in the 2022-23 budget and to ensure appropriate indexation of the NACC's annual budget. This would ensure that subsequent governments can't cause this important body to die a miserable death by a thousand budget cuts. A budget mechanism independent of the executive government will ensure that our National Anti-Corruption Commission is robust and viable and able to do its job. Thirdly, the arguments for public hearings are fundamentally about transparency. Public hearings are an opportunity to see our anticorruption mechanisms in operation, particularly in cases that do not meet the criteria for prosecution in the courts, in which public hearings are, of course, the norm. They can expose systemic failings of government of the sort that we're currently seeing with the robodebt royal commission. They can set a standard for public servants of the level expected and desired by our constituents and by the public. Politicians should be held to a higher ethical and behavioural standard than other members of the public, not a lower one. The late inclusion of the exceptional circumstances clause in proposed section 73 of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill is disappointing. 'Exceptional' is not defined. In effect, all investigations under the NACC will be unusual, given that its primary remit is to investigate serious or systemic corruption. Proposed section 73 separately mandates a public interest test aimed at protecting reputations, safety and security. So exceptional circumstances are separate to the question of public interest. The effect of this is to set the bar too high for there realistically to be any public hearings. Should a brave commissioner attempt to exercise her discretion to hold public hearings, the potential is there for witnesses to initiate potentially drawn-out litigation on the meaning of the term 'exceptional circumstances', which will render the process unproductive and expensive. The Victorian IBAC is the only state or territory integrity commission to have this test, and it has told us that the exceptional circumstances test has the effect of placing an artificial limit on the IBAC's ability to conduct examinations. We do need to have public hearings when they are in the public interest. Australians need to see the checks and balances of our government in action and to hear the evidence of its investigations at first hand, without media filters or political spin. Without these areas being addressed, we risk having a NACC which does not fully give the country what it really wants: a strong, independent body which will re-establish our faith in the transparency and the integrity of our public institutions. This is not just a test of the Albanese government; this is a test of every member of both houses of our federal parliament. Your votes for a stronger NACC will be a public record of the importance that you place on restoring trust. This is an opportunity for our parliament to keep faith with the Australian people and to build an independent and transparent anticorruption body as a pillar of accountable government. The last election was largely about climate, but it was also about trust. Our public institutions suffer from a chronically low level of public trust, and so I say to my parliamentary colleagues, on both sides of both houses: this is your opportunity to keep faith with the Australian people. The NACC will not just expose corruption; it will expose weaknesses in our systems and, importantly, it will set the standard for what integrity in our government looks like. The amendments that I and other members of the crossbench are submitting are the checks and balances required to safeguard the reputation of our National Anti-Corruption Commission and to ensure that we have an anticorruption body that all members of this parliament can be proud of. This will be our legacy to future Australians. This is the way to restore trust. When we all return to our electorates, they'll know how we voted for this amendment. They'll know if we were prepared to stand in the light. They'll know if we were happy to provide this important body with the assurance of the appropriate funding that it needs and deserves. I'd like to finish by circling back to the significance of this legislation. In 2012, the people of Indi banded together to elect Cathy McGowan, an Independent who pledged action on integrity in government. Her lead was then taken by Helen Haines, a much-respected member of this place, who fought with tenacity and grace on this most important of issues during a time in which the previous government was not interested in engaging on this important issue in any meaningful way. More recently, a record number of electorates around Australia have acted, singly but simultaneously, to elect Independent representatives chosen by their communities. In 2022, a people-powered coalition of the willing and the passionate came together and listened to the voices of my electorate. The people of Kooyong told me that integrity and transparency was one of their most significant concerns. The people of Kooyong want to be able to trust their government. The people of Kooyong want to be proud of their government. I'm privileged to be in this House and to have the opportunity to support the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill. The people of Kooyong voted for this law, and I'm proud to be able to deliver it. I commend my amendment to the House, and I thank the government for the opportunity to speak on this very important legislation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the honourable member for her contribution. Is the amendment seconded? Dr Scamps 299623 I second the motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I just bring it to the attention of the honourable member that, given that you've already spoken on this bill, you are unable to second the amendment. I call once again: is there a seconder for the amendment? In the event that the amendment is not seconded, it lapses. Ms Price 249308 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 19:04 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I too rise to speak on the Albanese Labor government's National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and, of course, our amendments. Trust in government is so important, and this bill delivers on our election commitment to legislate a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission by the end of the year. We went to the election and put that to the people. The bill will establish the commission as an independent agency and empower it to investigate and report on serious or systemic corruption in the Commonwealth public sector and also to refer evidence of criminal corrupt conduct for prosecution and to undertake, really importantly, education and prevention activities. The Commonwealth is the last jurisdiction in the nation—the last one—to implement an anticorruption body, and our national model draws on the very best elements of all the state and territory jurisdictions, which have been operating for a considerable amount of time. The reason that we are indeed the last jurisdiction relates specifically to the inaction of the Liberals and Nationals over many, many years. We heard them promise, quite falsely, many times that they would introduce some form of a national integrity body, albeit a very inadequate form, but they never actually delivered on that. They failed to establish one. They also failed to actually introduce any legislation into the House to that effect. This was despite widespread calls right across the community for such an entity. People en masse were calling for greater transparency in the federal government and the federal jurisdiction. Establishing a national anticorruption commission is vitally important for our nation. It's important for people to have trust and faith in all their institutions. This is an issue that I have publicly called for on so many occasions over the years, and it's one that Labor is absolutely committed to. It is Labor that are now delivering on this and delivering on our election commitments. It was also, of course, one of the major issues in this year's federal election. In my electorate of Richmond, this is an issue that I have spoken about with many locals for a considerable time—for years, in fact—and it was one of the major policies that we took to the election. I'm very proud to be a strong voice for the New South Wales North Coast in the Albanese Labor government. We are a government that is delivering on integrity, on honesty and on accountability through this National Anti-Corruption Commission. We know how important this is. I come to this from a number of perspectives, but particularly as a former police officer. I certainly know why oversight and transparency are so important to the proper functioning of all our institutions. It actually matters, because integrity matters, and we need to have those oversight bodies across all of our institutions. That's why commissions with oversight and investigative powers really do matter in terms of people's trust. Today we tabled our amendments to further strengthen the bill, and these amendments follow very careful consideration of the recommendations made in the reports of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. These committees presented the government with a range of recommendations and changes, and I would like to run through some of these because they are very important and really do strengthen the bill. In particular, it broadens the safeguards for the protection of journalists, and I'll go into further detail about that later. It also improves the safeguards for the wellbeing of persons who may require assistance to comply with a summons or notice to produce, and it expressly permits people to disclose information to a medical professional, which is vitally important as well, given the circumstances they would be in. It also requires the commission to advise a person whose conduct is being investigated of the outcome of the investigation. It amends the definition of 'corrupt conduct'. It requires surveillance and interception warrants to be issued by eligible judges of federal or superior courts, and it enhances the power of the commission inspector regarding witnesses summons and arrest warrants. It narrows the grounds for bringing contempt proceedings. It's amending the requirement that all evidence which discloses legal advice be given in private. So these are really important amendments to strengthen the bill. It is through this entire process of listening to all of the concerns that have been raised that we have been able to strengthen the bill. This legislation is a cornerstone of our agenda to restore public trust and strengthen the standards of integrity in our federal government, and that is what Australians voted for. The design principles were developed with legal and integrity experts. And, as I've said, this national commission—very proudly the first of its kind—draws on the best elements of existing state and territory anticorruption commissions and laws. I would like to now speak to a number of important principles of the bill regarding the jurisdiction of the commission. The bill provides the commission with a very broad jurisdiction—which is important—to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector. The commission will have the power to investigate ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, statutory office holders, employees of all government entities, contractors and contracted service providers. It will, very importantly, have discretion to commence inquiries of its own initiative or in response to a referral, and it'll be able to investigate both criminal and non-criminal corrupt conduct, and conduct occurring before and after its establishment. That issue of retrospectivity is vitally important, too. The definition of 'corrupt conduct' is central to the functions and jurisdiction of the commission and is consistent with very key elements of existing definitions. The definition encompasses conduct by a public official that involves an abuse of office, a breach of public trust or the misuse of information. The commissioner's powers will be very widespread, a full suite of powers, very similar to those of a royal commission. The commissioner is able to use these powers to undertake an investigation into a corruption issue if the commissioner is of the opinion that it could involve serious or systemic corrupt conduct. To determine whether such an allegation would be serious or systemic, the commissioner can also undertake preliminary inquiries by using powers to compel the production of information, which is vitally important to establish the facts to move forward. Very importantly, too, the commission will be able to hold public hearings if satisfied that it's in the public interest and exceptional circumstances justify doing so. This is extremely important. The exceptional-circumstances test is really an appropriate threshold because of the significant nature of the power to compel a person to answer questions at a public hearing, the sensitivities involved in holding public hearings—for example, there may potentially be the risk of prejudicing a future criminal investigation or a trial—and taking into consideration the issues of reputational harm that may arise. So it's important that the commissioner has that capacity. But this commission and this commissioner will be totally independent, and that's, of course, secured in a whole variety of ways. As I said, they can conduct investigations of their own initiative in response to referrals or allegations from any source, and it's vital to the absolute essence of this integrity commission to ensure that independence. There will be oversight of the commission by a parliamentary joint committee and an inspector, and the joint committee is multipartisan. They will have a number of roles as well. These are all very important safeguards. Really importantly, this bill provides whistleblower protections, something that I and many people in my electorate feel strongly about. There are strong protections for whisteblowers against adverse consequences, including criminal offences and immunities. Public officials making disclosures to the commission will be protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, and it is vitally important that people feel confident to put forward that information. Another very big issue in my electorate and right throughout the country was the importance of having journalistic protections also, and this bill ensures that the appropriate protections are there. It does include an exemption for journalists, for a journalist's employer and for persons assisting a journalist in their work from answering questions or providing information that would enable the identity of an informant to be ascertained. There may be a number of people who assist a journalist in their professional capacity, either associated with their work role or associated indirectly—for example, a lawyer providing legal advice. It's vital that we have these protections and that that particular aspect is enshrined in this bill, because those journalistic protections, too, are at the heart of the importance of this legislation. Equally important are the reputational and wellbeing safeguards, and the commission needs to be balanced with really strong safeguards to ensure that corruption investigations do not cause undue damage to a person's reputation or wellbeing. This can include requiring public hearings to be held in private, unless the commissioner's satisfied that it's in the public interest and that exceptional circumstances justify holding a hearing in public or requiring the commissioner to clarify the capacity in which a witness is appearing at a public hearing. It's important to have all of those safeguards in place. Also, permitting disclosure of information that is subject to a non-disclosure notation to a medical practitioner or psychologist—I think that it's important that people are able to do that and have the capacity to do that sometimes, given the circumstances of the investigations. Also, if the commissioner forms the opinion that the person has not engaged in corrupt conduct a statement to that effect, and if a person gives evidence at a hearing and is not subject of any findings or opinions in relation to the corruption allegation a statement to that effect—that is so vitally important. We need to make sure those safeguards are provided. The element of reporting is vital as well. Reporting at the end of investigations will provide transparency and support the commission's prevention and education function as well. After completing a corruption investigation the commissioner will be required to prepare a report setting out their findings and recommendations. We know how important it is that that is in place. The prevention and education functions are also necessary. They will also have a mandate to undertake a whole range of corruption prevention and education functions, and that can include undertaking public inquiries to examine corruption risks and vulnerabilities and measures to prevent corruption. Also, the role of broader public education, in terms of the role of the commission, and the corruption risks that may potentially occur, and avenues to report corrupt conduct—the commission will have a very widespread remit. I think those educational aspects and prevention play a very vital role in the success of the commission. As I said, for many, many years I have been on the public record absolutely supporting the establishment of a national integrity commission. I called for that because of the need for transparency and accountability. As I say, we need to have it in all of our institutions across all levels of government. The fact that we haven't had it has really been a disgrace. It has taken the election of a Labor government to make it happen. It has been many, many years. We have had so many people right across the community—not just in legal circles but in a whole range of different community sectors and individuals—countless numbers of people, who have raised it with me over the years. I have wholeheartedly supported having it in place for many, many years, as I say, for many reasons, but primarily—my background is as a former police officer. I know how important it is that people can see there are avenues to have protection for our institutions and a capacity to make sure that action can be taken and investigated. It is important for all of those people within the institutions to know that such strong integrity measures do exist. At the same time, it's important to have a whole range of safeguards in place. The balance has to be right and this bill and our amendments get that balance right to ensure that people can absolutely have faith in this. I'm really proud to be speaking on this bill today, because it has been many years to get to this point and it is really important. It's one of the many important bills that we'll pass here. I, along with all my colleagues, and the Albanese Labor government, look forward to the whole parliament coming together to pass this important legislation to finally establish—and we will do that—a powerful, transparent and, very importantly, independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. I certainly hope that indeed all of the House supports it. It's important for us in this institution and important for the general public to see that this is what their government is doing, this is what the Labor government is doing. I commend the bill to the House. 19:19 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper In the months leading up to the election in 2019, as a first-time candidate I spent a great deal of time speaking to people about the national integrity bill and the national integrity commission, because I believed in it. I believed that it was required and was needed at a federal level. To be perfectly honest, I was quite surprised to find that there wasn't one. Having spent 12 years as a police officer and 18 years as a lawyer, I've always had a governing body watching over me, watching over conduct and watching over my colleagues, and calling out corrupt conduct where they saw it. As I said, it was quite surprising and the reason why I was quite open and was happy to see that the government I ultimately joined was going to push for a national integrity commission. So it is with some frustration that I now stand here on the other side of the floor, having to talk about amendments and look at the integrity bill being put forward by Labor and the flaws in that bill. It is frustrating that we didn't get it through in our time. To be perfectly honest, it was a missed opportunity, and, if I want to be completely honest, it is one of the reasons we are on this side of the floor. It is imperative that we have the right National Anti-Corruption Commission Act and that it is fit for purpose, and there are a number of sections that concern me greatly that it is not fit for purpose. I can speak from experience because I've actually appeared before commissions in my 18 years as a lawyer. I've acted for those people who have been called to commissions by way of subpoena. One thing that strikes me as ironic, and is one of the flaws in this bill, is that some of the worst people called before commissions are afforded protections that we see are not afforded to people who are high-profile. That is one of the major things that concerns me about this bill—that it will allow, through the 'exceptional circumstances' test, trial by media. Others across the floor may say, 'That's not going to happen; we've never seen it before.' I can think of three examples right now that I have watched. The first is of former minister Mike Gallacher. He was a former police officer. He was well respected. He left the police and became the minister for police in New South Wales. He was called before the ICAC in New South Wales, and the ICAC counsel assisting, Geoffrey Watson SC, accused him of corruption in a public hearing. That was it for him. It didn't matter that he was ultimately exonerated; his career was over. He could have been the Premier of New South Wales, but, because of an allegation in a public hearing, rather than a hearing behind closed doors, to find whether there was a case to answer, his career effectively came to an end. He was, as I said, a well-respected police officer. He lost everything. The Liberal Party lost a good member. He was cleared of all charges but in the real world that meant nothing. There was that taint attached to him. People don't understand that the rules of evidence don't apply. The rules of evidence are paramount in a criminal trial. But before a commission you can make allegations, you can make suggestions and you can make innuendos that will crush not only a person's career but a person's life. It will crush their family. I move on to extremely skilled and professional senior counsel Margaret Cunneen, in New South Wales. Margaret Cunneen was well known as an officious, professional barrister in the criminal field. Due to a set of circumstances and the fact that the definition of 'corrupt conduct', as in this bill, is ambiguous, is vague, she ended up in ICAC with allegations of a personal nature that bore absolutely no relevance to her professional position and therefore couldn't be defined as corruption. In my view, and in the view of the High Court ultimately, it was an abuse of process, and the High Court found on 15 April 2015 that the authority had misinterpreted the definition of 'corrupt conduct'. Thankfully for Margaret Cunneen, being such a tough woman and well respected in her field, she is still now at the top of her game—senior counsel. And of course we all know about the former New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian, whom I have personally known for over 20 years. Her reputation was dragged through the mud unnecessarily in the interest of the public and a public hearing. There was no reason that they couldn't have taken that evidence in camera, in private, and made a decision—which we're still waiting for, mind you. Gladys Berejiklian has had to stand down, and she'll never be back. Why would she be? She's been dragged through the mud, her personal life thrown all over the TV, the newspapers and social media. We still don't have a result. They could have had that behind closed doors. Again, I am in support of a National Anti-Corruption Commission. I can say that I was in the police during the police royal commission, and there was a definite need for a police royal commission. I'm not walking away from that. But I did see colleagues whose families were targeted by investigators and terrorised to get evidence from them. It turned husbands against wives. So, we need to ensure that any type of anticorruption bill or anticorruption commission that we have does not do that again. Police officers were having mental breakdowns, institutionalised because of the bastardry and terrorism—the overreach—by the commission and the investigators. That is not what this bill is intended for. Another flaw in this bill that greatly concerns me is that the bill doesn't make all decisions of the commissioner subject to judicial review, and I believe that is a serious mistake. There are scenarios in which the commissioner would be the sole decision-maker in a matter such as commencing a public hearing. In my view, this is a dangerous precedent based on the examples I've just provided. Every level of the judiciary, with the exception of the High Court, which is exempt under this act, has a court of review. The local court has the district court reviewing. The district court has the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the Court of Criminal Appeal. Then why does this commission not have a body review? It is because people make mistakes. People have bias. When those considerations come into play you need that body of review. You need to have the honesty of the High Court to review these decisions so we don't ruin lives, so that people who have been accused of corrupt conduct but who have not engaged in corrupt conduct get a fair trial. As I said, there are no rules of evidence here. Any allegation can be made based on assertions, based on innuendo, and it will destroy lives. To those people who have been corrupt, I can tell you from a lawyer's point of view that when you enter into a commission, an ICAC, rest assured—and this is what I used to my client—they already know the answer to their question. So don't lie. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 76 ADJOURNMENT Wentworth Electorate: Schools, Environmental Conservation 76 19:30 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth One of the most important gifts we can give our children is a good education, and I'm so proud of the wonderful work done by the schools across my electorate in Wentworth. That's why I was delighted to welcome primary and secondary school students to my office in the last few weeks to hear about their experiences and, most importantly, understand what the things are that matter to them most so I can have the voice of young people in this House. They told me about the need for strong action on climate so that the next generation can enjoy our beautiful, diverse and inspiring planet. They talked to me about the need for cleaner, faster and more accessible public transport so that young people can actually access and have the freedom they deserve in the community. Young women told me about the importance of gender equality and about female opportunities in work and how important that was for them as they were growing up. They talked about the need to foster inclusion and belonging so that everyone, no matter who they are, has a place in our society. Most of all, we talked about the importance of kindness in politics and in our day-to-day lives. It was best summed up by one fifth grader who said that, when he was starting kindy, he didn't know anyone and he felt really scared, and then another child said to him, 'Do you want to play with me?' And that made all the difference to how he felt that day. It was a powerful reminder of the need for kindness and decency, both in how we conduct our politics and in the decisions we make in this place. I'd like to thank all the schools that took part: St Andrew's school, Cranbrook prep, Bondi Public School, Waverley College, St Francis of Assisi school, Kambala, WAYS Secondary, and my old school, Ascham. These sessions reinforced to me the vital importance of making sure that every family has access to high-quality education and, in particular, high-quality public education if they want it. That is why I'm especially proud to be working with my colleague Alex Greenwich, the member for Sydney in the New South Wales parliament, in our push to improve access to great educational choices in Sydney's east. I'm excited to see that the New South Wales government has been listening and is opening a review into eastern suburbs public education, and I'll be working with my families in the community and with others around the community to make sure our community's voice is heard. My community in Wentworth is passionate about protecting our environment and our climate. One of the areas which they are deeply concerned about is native forest logging, an unsustainable and uneconomic practice that is hindering our efforts to tackle climate change and is putting national treasures like the koala at risk. Every year Australia logs around two per cent of our native forests. This deprives our country and our planet of a powerful carbon sink. Forestry experts estimate that it also generates emissions of around 15 megatons annually, roughly equivalent to the emissions needed annually to reach Australia's 43 per cent emissions reduction target. Cutting down trees is not good climate policy, and it needs to stop. But, beyond the climate impacts, continued large-scale logging activities put biodiversity and our treasured national heritage at risk. Australia already has the shameful accolade of being the mammal extinction capital of the world, and, if we continue to destroy our native forests, we will lose national treasures like the koala and the great glider forever. The Samuel review identified the need to take urgent action on native forest logging and regional forest agreements under which most of this activity is governed. I support such action. The good news is that we can do this in a way that also benefits our economy. In the southern parts of my home state of New South Wales, stopping the logging of native forests and transitioning to active forest management and a tourism industry would provide an estimated economic benefit of more than $60 million. I'm therefore delighted to see the government commit at COP 27 to a global partnership to halt deforestation, but this pledge must be followed by action. That means developing a national plan to end native forest logging. It means working with state and territory counterparts to put in place programs that provide employment opportunities in forest management and tourism that ensure that nobody is left behind as part of this transition. And it means ending the counting of forest biomass as a source of renewable energy, because this destroys carbon sinks and generates emissions in the process. Finally, I'd like to thank the members of Wentworth, and particularly Daniella and Eliana, who have really led my education in the environmental space. Thank you; I am listening. Victoria State Election 77 19:35 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara The Victorian election campaign has been at times a pretty ugly demonstration of our democracy, and I rise tonight on a matter that, frankly, I would rather not rise on and that gives me absolutely no joy, seeing some of the behaviour and some of the failures of leadership by the Victorian Liberal Party. Matthew Guy wants to be the Premier of Victoria. That is a high office. It's an office that demands respect and appreciation for the huge responsibility that comes with being the leader of the state of Victoria. Yet what we've uncovered and what is being demonstrated by the Liberal Party—how they are willing to get to the high office of Premier—has been absolutely despicable. Let me take you through some examples. First of all, there is Mr Tyler Baker-Pearce, who in Narre Warren South is running as a candidate. This is a man who has stood outside Auschwitz-Birkenau taking a selfie, smiling and putting a hot emoji on it. He has a long history of vile, antisemitic remarks. This man somehow was awarded the Liberal Party' preferences over the Labor Party. The Labor Party preferenced the Liberal Party above this character. The Liberal Party decided to grant this Neo-Nazi their support in the election. This is coming after months and months of the Liberal Party dancing with these extremists. I'll give you another example. There was a Freedom Party candidate, Rebekah Spelman, who publicly called for the Premier to be hanged. She publicly called for the Premier of Victoria to be hanged, and she gets Matthew Guy's preferences in the upper house—above-the-line preferences. This person, calling for violence against political leaders, gets the Liberal Party's support. Sadly, there's more. There is the person who stood next to well-known Neo-Nazis only the other day and again called for the Premier to be turned into red mist—a reference to sniper bullets being aimed at the Premier. It's not the first time she's called for violence against the Premier. The Liberal Party in Victoria preferenced her in the upper house in Western Metropolitan. There's more. In their seat of Narre Warren North, they're running a candidate who, frankly, has views that are unbefitting of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party are our opponents. I respect the Liberal Party, and I respect many members of the Liberal Party in this place. But this candidate is unfit to be a member of your party, let alone a candidate in the state election, and you're running him in a seat in Narre Warren North. After some of the views that he expressed against our First Nations people and against a whole range of different issues, including women's reproductive rights, he doesn't get Matthew Guy's preferences; he gets his full endorsement. He dismissed his comments as 'silly comments'. I've seen some pretty rough-and-tumble stuff in politics in my time, but this cannot be the standard that is acceptable in our democracy by any of the major political parties. There have been moments when the Labor Party, and people inside the Labor Party, have expressed views that, frankly, are unworthy of the Labor Party. If anyone has any suggestions of people and members of the Labor Party who do that, I am always open, because we must hold ourselves to a higher account. Our democracy is diminished, the people of Victoria are diminished and the Liberal Party in Victoria is diminished when they hold themselves to such an appallingly low standard. Violence and threats of violence against parliamentarians will end in a way that we have seen internationally. It will end with one of our colleagues being on the receiving end of violence. We must work together to call out violent acts. We must work together to ensure that the standards of politics in this country are those that are worthy of the people that we are privileged to represent, and the standard that I have seen set by those seeking to hold high office in Victoria has been absolutely appalling. Iran: Human Rights 78 19:40 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak about the bravery of the people of Iran as they protest against the repressive, autocratic and undemocratic regime in that country. I'm proud that my electorate of Bradfield is home to a significant community of Australians of Iranian background. Recently I met with a delegation of Australians of Iranian background, who live in my electorate, to discuss the widespread protests in Iran. My Australian Iranian constituents explained to me the long history of the repression of women and of politically motivated violence carried out by the Iranian regime. Several told me, very bravely, of their own personal stories of being arrested and tortured or of their relatives and friends who had suffered such a fate. They also spoke of the series of popular uprisings over recent years as ordinary people in Iran fight for rights that we take for granted in liberal democracies like Australia. The Green Movement in 2009 and mass protests in 2019, and again in more recent years, have seen many brave Iranians take to the streets and, sadly, have seen many killed and many more arrested. The most recent protests follow the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, a young woman who was violently arrested by the religious police in Tehran on 13 September on the grounds that she was not complying with the regime's onerous requirements about what women must wear in public. Mahsa died a few days later as a result of her brutal treatment. Since Mahsa's death, we have seen protests across Iran, with many women taking the brave step of not wearing the head coverings that the regime insists on. My Australian Iranian constituents at this meeting told me of the systematic cruelty and abuse of power which has been displayed by the Iranian regime, including shutting down the internet as part of trying to suppress knowledge of the protest movements. Following this meeting, my Australian Iranian constituents have informed me of further developments in Iran, including over 40 deaths, many of them being children or teenagers, on Saturday 19 November as part of the response by the Iranian regime to antigovernment protests in Kurdish areas; military vehicles being deployed and live bullets being used against people, in particular in the city of Mahabad; and reports of large-scale random shootings at civilians in homes and shops, which my constituents have compared to attacks by an invading army. The Liberal-National coalition believes the Australian government should announce a tangible response to these human rights abuses in Iran and make its position clear on the implementation of diplomatic measures which have been proposed by the community and, in many cases, have already been implemented by Australia's allies and partners around the world. At the moment Australia is a long way behind many of our allies and many like-minded nations when it comes to taking a clear stand. Other nations have already announced targeted sanctions against the leadership of Iran and against the Revolutionary Guard. Within Iran, we are seeing heroism being displayed by many people. Many ordinary people are showing great bravery in standing up, particularly for the rights of women and girls, and participating in the protest movement in response to the murder of Mahsa Amini. Other countries, from Canada to the UK to many nations of the European Union and to the US, have taken, and announced, strong action, and the coalition believes that the Australian government should also be announcing its position, and catch up with like-minded nations around the world. Australia should be leaning in to support those brave souls in Iran and to stand consistently with other like-minded nations. It is particularly disappointing, as my constituents pointed out to me when we met, that Iran, under its oppressive regime, is presently a member of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Our government should be calling for Iran's removal from that body. I want to acknowledge the bravery of so many people within Iran, and I want to acknowledge the courage and the advocacy of Australian Iranians around the nation, including in the electorate of Bradfield. I join with my constituents in expressing my abhorrence at the violence, oppression and repression of women being carried out by the regime in Iran and expressing my support for the Iranian people as they rise up against this oppression. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 79 19:45 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I rise to give voice to young people in my electorate, thanks to the Raise Our Voice campaign. Taylah Cowley is a 14-year-old, and here's what she's written about an issue our government is taking very seriously. She says: Our country needs to redirect its attention to the tragic issue of domestic violence. For the future, I dream of a world where women don't have to worry about being harmed at the hands of their partner or father. This change would affect the entire nation, not just direct victims of domestic violence and women. This idealistic world, where women don't have to live their lives in fear ensures the well being of all Australians. Approximately one woman a week dies at the hands of her current or former partner. That's 52 women a year. 52 too many. As a nation we need to take a stand together against this issue, it is the only way to instigate change. If not now, when does it end? Everyday people can help by supporting various charities. Also by educating not only yourself but those around you as well. Our governments have previously provided funding, but it's not nearly enough. Domestic violence is not acknowledged nearly enough and our new parliament can help with that. Through publicly standing with victims and educating all Australians, young and old, there's hope for the future. If we can educate our next generation about domestic violence and the lifelong consequences of these actions, maybe we can put an end to this violence. I'm calling on the new Australian Parliament to make a change because no-one should have to endure abuse. I have full faith that our new government will do everything they can to be a catalyst for change. If not them, then who can we depend on to back the people of this nation? Taylah is right: these are pressing issues. I'm pleased that last month we launched the second ever 10-year National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children, which is the blueprint for how we will work to address family violence, including early intervention, response and supporting the recovery and healing of victims-survivors. Our ambitious target is to end violence against women and children within one generation, and I know that's exactly what Taylah hopes that we will achieve. I also want to thank the other young people who submitted speeches through the Raise Our Voice initiative, and I want to read some of the speech by Ben Buenen, who wrote on the theme of uniting the nation under the common goal of moving forward together. He writes: Australia has a new parliament. Filled with brand new MPs, an enormous crossbench, a new government, and a new opposition. A new parliament with renewed ambitions and goals. The next term of parliament will be busy, and it certainly won't be easy. But while all sides of politics are focused on achieving these aforementioned ambitions and goals, it is important to remember that every MP and Senator in these chambers should be working towards a common goal. It goes without saying that the improvement of our society is in the best interests of all Australians, and while we may not always agree on what form this improvement takes, we must never lose sight of this goal. We must not let politics divide us and keep us from taking the necessary steps towards a better life for all Australians. That is why, I believe the 47th parliament of Australia should focus on unity. Uniting the nation under the common goal of moving forward together. It can be achieved and it's time to put an end to politics for politics sake, and focus on moving forward together, socially, economically, and ensuring that Australia continues to be the greatest country in the world. They're the words of Ben Buenen. I think what those two speeches show is an enormous commitment by our young people to see Australia achieve its full potential. I hope that, in the six months we've been in government, they've seen that we are working very closely with this parliament—the whole mix of the parliament—and they've seen that we get to speak on bills and that no-one is gagged, that we have agreements about how we do that so that all voices are heard. That is a big contrast to the previous government—and they can roll their eyes at me a little bit, but they know that many, many debates were not given voice in this parliament. I look forward to continuing to build the confidence of these young people so that one day they may be the people standing in this place, sharing their ideas and doing what we're doing—trying to make a better Australia. Fisher Electorate 80 19:50 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher In the second week of October I hopped on my pushbike for my fifth annual Tour de Fisher. Each year I cycle the length and breadth of the Fisher electorate holding listening posts in local parks and cafes. This year, I think, was the biggest yet, with 23 listening posts in 23 towns over 4½ days. It began with a launch in chaotic weather from Kings Beach, which almost blew us away. I held a listening post in Beerburrum's new cafe, Cafe Phillies, and I was treated to an impromptu question time at Montville State School. I called on Labor to come to the table on Sunshine Coast rail from Beerwah station, and I visited businesses right across Fisher, from Sippy Downs to Golden Beach. Each time I'm reminded that we really do live in the greatest place on earth, the Sunshine Coast, and it's largely thanks to the people who call it home. Only a week later I joined leaders and volunteers from across the Sunshine Coast for the annual Fisher Community Awards. I want to send out my gratitude and enormous thanks and praise to Kim McCosker, our MC; to Priscilla and the Caloundra Power Boat Club; and to Brenda at Brenco Trophies for their support. Each year, we honour those unsung, fantastic people in Fisher. I'm not going to say that phrase 'unsung heroes', because I think that is totally overdone, but it's those amazing people, who often go without recognition, that make Fisher the place to be for education, employment and retirement. While I spoke about students of the year yesterday, I want to acknowledge a few more of the award winners from the Fisher awards night. We had the Fisher Educator of the Year, Mr Murray Finch, who, after 40 years, continues to teach at Caloundra State High School. Forty years, Deputy Speaker Freelander—can you imagine being a paediatrician for 40 years? You probably can, actually! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I have been. Mr WALLACE 265967 Murray Finch is inspiring active living and is offering boys a valuable male role model. Fisher Education Provider of the Year was Kairos Community College, Caloundra, whose unique approach to holistic group learning is giving vulnerable and otherwise disengaged young people the chance to realise their potential and to graduate from high school. Fisher Business of the Year was the QLD Group. Paul Smith and Stu Anderson have created a million-dollar landscaping and drainage business which is creating jobs and funding local community groups through campaigns like the Give Me 5 For Kids Appeal. The Fisher Educator of the Year, GreaseBoss, are fast becoming an Internet of Things and high-tech manufacturing icon across industries, all while supporting men's mental health. The Fisher Employee of the Year, Josie Tully, is a proud Gamilaraay woman and commercial analyst at HeliMods, whose work in and beyond the workplace is empowering young people and women to thrive. Fisher Senior of the Year, Cath Scully, is making a difference to the isolated and those in palliative care through her writing, radio, dance teaching and personal support. The Fisher Senior Group of the Year was Uniforms 4 Kids, who have provided over 3,000 items of clothing for young people in need by connecting law enforcement and first responders with a hardworking team of artisans in Caloundra. I actually jumped behind the sewing machine and helped them out once. It doesn't happen very often, but I did it that day. The Fisher Environmental Leader of the Year was Mooloolah River Landcare, whose education, citizen science and practical environmental initiatives are engaging locals across generations to protect our local environment. The Andrew Wallace Community Group of the Year was the Mooloolaba Surf Life Saving Club, sometimes referred to as South Alex. This surf lifesaving club celebrated 100 years of lifesaving patrol and community service. Thank you to all the clubbies at Mooloolaba for your vigilance and service, and thank you to all those who took part in the program. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 For members interested, this is my 42nd year as a paediatrician! Gilmore Electorate: Cancer Treatment 80 19:55 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore With an ageing regional population, my electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales South Coast faces a number of challenges to access health care—so it is no surprise that improving access to local health services is a huge passion of mine. Local people deserve to have affordable access to health services without the need to travel. It isn't just my passion; we have a number of passionate local advocates as well. But tonight I want to focus on a couple of fierce advocates in the Eurobodalla. One such advocate was so passionate about improving our health services that he hung up his stethoscope, as it were, and replaced it with parliament. I have fought long and hard with the local Eurobodalla community, like the ONE Eurobodalla team, and fabulous local doctor advocate and now member for Bega Dr Michael Holland for a Eurobodalla radiation therapy centre in Moruya. The recent federal budget committed $8 million to finally make this a reality—a small portion upfront with the rest in reserve while we, sadly, try to convince the New South Wales government to get on board. I have been horrified by the reaction of the New South Wales government to our calls for this radiation therapy centre. Who knew that lifesaving cancer treatment could be so controversial? It's been an intriguing journey. Perhaps it goes to show why Dr Holland's predecessor failed to deliver this really important piece of health infrastructure over his many decades as the member for Bega—something he would now love to be conveniently forgotten. Well, I certainly haven't forgotten. Straight after our commitment was announced, the then Liberal Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, said there was no need for Labor's commitment. His statement, as quoted on WIN News, was, 'This is already in train to be delivered jointly by the Perrottet and Morrison governments.' He went further to say it was 'already underway'. Interesting! Clearly, the former minister had missed something important because his New South Wales counterpart had the exact opposite to say: they weren't doing it. It so happens that that remains their position. Confused? Yes, me too. While it was true the Liberals promised this centre in 2019, they never delivered it. The community is still trying to get the New South Wales Liberals, which the former member for Bega was part of as a cabinet minister, to deliver. Here we are, three years after their commitment, with local people still travelling hours for treatment—patients like Cathie Hurst, from Bingie, diagnosed with cancer in March 2021 and forced to choose between Sydney and Canberra for her treatment. It's 2½ hours to Canberra and more than four hours to Sydney to get radiation therapy—appalling! I recently joined the new member for Bega to receive a petition with more than 5,000 signatures from local people crying out for this centre. The New South Wales minister for regional health now says, three years after the Liberals' promise, she will employ a consultant to discuss this with key stakeholders. What more evidence could possibly be needed at this point? We know the need and we know the desire, and we need to get on with it. I was appalled when, just today, an article was published in the Daily Telegraph making some truly astonishing accusations. The article suggested our commitment to the radiation therapy centre was a 'defiant move' by a local doctor, Dr Holland, who has lived and worked in the community for years, who knows the health services in this community better than anyone. They tried to suggest there was something sinister. It is hard to believe what could be sinister about providing lifesaving cancer treatment to a region of 80,000 people. 'Defiant', they said, against a government that continues to fall back on report statistics. Cathie is not a statistic; she is a person. This is what she told the New South Wales parliamentary inquiry in October last year: Travelling meant that I had to be prepared for whether I was going to vomit on a plane, have diarrhoea attacks or anything, which is highly embarrassing and concerning. You get shaky just thinking about, can you get on the bus for that long, or the train, or whatever it was you were taking. The difference between that and actually having a hospital or a facility in your region where you can drive yourself, have your 15-minute radiation treatment and come home—it would make all the difference to people. If pushing for this critical service is defiant, then I stand defiant with Dr Holland and the more than 5,000 signatories to the community petition—defiant against a state government ignoring the health needs of our community. We will continue this fight because the people of the Eurobodalla deserve access to lifesaving cancer treatment close to home. The House transcript was published up to 20:00 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wilkie ) took the chair at 12:30.

Tuesday, 22 November 2022

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wilkie ) took the chair at 12:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 82 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Youth Voice in Parliament Week 82 12:30 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Earlier this year, Foundations for Tomorrow sent me their Awareness to action report, which captured over 10,000 young Australian voices, providing an insight into critical issues for young people. The results of the report are confronting. Only four per cent of young Australians have absolute confidence in our approach to solving global challenges, with 60 per cent feeling uncertain about the future. When young people were asked what traits would enable them to put their trust in leaders they identified proactive action, increased sustainability and improved transparency. While these findings indicate a trust deficit amongst young Australians, they also provide insight into how the situation may be rectified. Our young voices are diverse and perceptive. It's time they were heard. Many Australians, especially young people, remain underrepresented in our parliament, and I believe that until they see themselves in our chambers we will struggle to rebuild this trust. This group embodies the future of Australia. It is our responsibility to encourage their engagement and their shaping of it. To achieve this goal I joined with the Raise Our Voice campaign, which strives to amplify young voices, offering a platform on which to lead conversations on domestic and foreign policy. This year participants were asked to submit a 90-second speech in response to the question 'What should Australia's new parliament accomplish?' In Mayo I received five distinctive entries, and I felt that each warranted recognition. Fifteen-year-old Addison discussed sexual assault, identifying failures in our justice system and the need for greater action. Eleven-year-old Denver argued convincingly for the construction of an Adelaide cricket ground. Seventeen-year-old Thomas spoke of a future in which 'issues of oppression and coercion are brought into the spotlight', with similar views being presented by 11-year-old Hudson, who spoke about 'increasing awareness of racism' and 'remembering that we're all humans, no matter what race you are'. Finally, 16 year old Daniel shared and excerpt from his poem about climate action. He wrote: I gaze with sorrow, For I know what comes tomorrow. Water, wind and fire of which she warned them would follow. I must say, it is a privilege to talk and engage with young people in our community. I don't know about other members in this chamber, but certainly when I talk to young people in my community I feel immense hope for tomorrow. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 82 12:33 Mr 299174 Bennelong LAXALE () (): I too am reading a few statements from young people within my electorate, on behalf of Raise Our Voice Australia. Its aim is to amplify diverse young voices 'to actively lead conversations in politics, domestic and foreign policy'. The first one is from Yuna Cho, who is a 14-year-old student from the Bennelong electorate: I am one of the many lucky people living in this country being able to proudly call myself Australian despite my foreign heritage. People from all around the globe are able to call Australia their home, and despite our accepting society, it would be an overstatement to say that everyone in our country is treated equally. Racial prejudice is still apparent in our society. Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people still have to deal with racism, and our migrants and refugees still fear their contribution to our larger community. Australia is a socially developed country when it comes to multicultural diversity. However, we can still achieve more. I wish to see Australia as a unified, patriotic nation. I wish for our new Australian parliament to proudly represent our nation to become stronger and a more harmonious nation. Every single Australian should be proud of our beautiful land, our people, our cultures, and our differences which makes us all unique yet unified at the same time. The leaders of our country should show us what it means to be an Australian, and represent our country with pride. I hope our new Australian parliament will help us build the country we all love. The second speech is from Patrick, who is 19, works full time and lives in Bennelong: Housing in this country is broken. Young people like myself are going to auctions only to find themselves outbid by someone who already owns two, three or four houses, meanwhile pushing up the price of housing and making it harder for young people like myself to enter the market. Why is this happening? A good place for the new parliament to start would be by examining the merits behind giving public money to people who are fortunate enough to already own multiple houses and using it as a tax dodge to write off the loss should they choose to invest by buying up further supply in the housing market. As a result—the cost of rent and property values goes up and up and up, and one of the key things the new parliament could do would be to invest in nation building projects like public housing. If we invested in public housing, we would not only create thousands of new jobs and opportunities for young people through apprenticeships, we would also help reduce inequality and crucially, bring down rates for everyone else … It gives me great pleasure to read these two speeches on behalf of young people in my electorate. I encourage as many young people as possible to be engaged in politics and to reach out to their MPs. Maybe they too can have a speech read out here in parliament on their behalf. We don't necessarily have to agree with everyone, but a conversation is incredibly important. I thank Patrick and Yuna for their contribution in this parliament. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 83 12:35 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack It's a privilege to stand here during Youth Voice in Parliament Week to present a speech written by 14-year-old Joshua Patrick from Northam, which is in the great electorate of Durack. I was very impressed by Joshua's understanding of some of the key issues affecting regional and remote Western Australia. I truly appreciate the effort that he has gone to to ensure that his experience is heard. This is what Joshua wrote: Having personally had lived experience, or had those in my immediate family experience disability; caring role and accompanying poverty; complex medical issues and unnecessary health system battles; the inherent isolation and diminished opportunities for those living in regional (and remote) WA; and domestic violence and sexual abuse, I am well-placed to comment on what the new Parliament should achieve. I am also a passionate, creative experimenter in the realm of affordable, achievable, sustainable environmental practices and solutions. The recommendations I would prioritise, are: A more flexible, long-term/future-proofing and individualised approach to disability funding disbursement An increase in the Carer's Pension for families who find themselves suddenly thrust into a caring role where the sole or primary breadwinner must necessarily immediately cease work, with a fraction of the income required to cover fundamental living expenses plus additional medical expenses/travel/parking etc. Greater holistic support services such as treatment options and in-home care for those suffering chronic or complex health conditions and their families/carers A greater range of educational and recreational opportunities for young people living in remote or regional WA to provide equal chances for those equally as gifted as their metropolitan counterparts to succeed academically, as well as equal opportunities for geographically disadvantaged young people to excel in the sporting arena More prompt validation and action when victims of domestic violence, particularly vulnerable children and single mothers, disclose or give cause to suspect domestic violence or abuse Continued and increased support for schemes to encourage and provide resources for young people with the intelligence, passion, drive, energy, opportunity and creativity to come up with solutions, suggestions or proposals that may prompt society to stop living so unsustainably, whether large- or smaller-scale ideas, such as the Water Corporation's 'Think Tank Challenge', (in which I am a finalist) I hope you will see that I am well-placed to make the above recommendations knowledgeably and from a position of rare and unique insight, due to the diverse range of life circumstances I have personally experienced in my life. That's the end of Joshua's speech. Thank you, Joshua, very much, for your incredibly thoughtful contribution. I look forward to meeting you soon in Northam to discuss your priorities further. Queensland: Floods 83 12:38 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I was very pleased last week to learn that up to 10 local sporting community clubs in my electorate will share a total of $5,498,083 to assist with flood recovery. Last week, the Australian and Queensland governments announced that 200 sites across 20 local government areas are set to benefit from $75 million in joint Australian and Queensland government funding in response to the major flooding and severe rainfall that have occurred since late 2021. I know that local state members Mark Bailey, the member for Miller; Peter Russo, the member for Toohey; and Jess Pugh, the member for Mount Ommaney, were also pleased to hear this good news. As elected representatives, we know how important local sporting clubs are for our communities. Local clubs provide enormous social benefits. Most of them provide a fair, safe and inclusive environment for children and young adults to have an enjoyable and healthy sporting experience. Sport has enormous health and social benefits. It helps children keep fit. It teaches children the importance of teamwork and of winning and losing. Anyone who wants a game gets a go. The best thing is that these funds will mean that clubs will be repaired, rebuilt and strengthened through the Community and Recreational Assets Recovery and Resilience Program and the Sport and Recreation Recovery Grant Program. Both programs are funded under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. This funding will help my local clubs re-establish operations and better cope with future severe weather. Many clubs like Brothers Saint Brendan's in Rocklea and the South Brisbane District Cricket Club were hit badly by the floods in 2011, and had to rebuild. They were then gutted again when it rained in February this year. These clubhouses, change rooms, playing fields and other important community assets are fundamental to volunteers delivering sport and active recreation opportunities in my community. Congratulations to the Sherwood Magpies, the Brisbane Rugby League Referees Association, Queensland Gaelic Football, South Brisbane District Cricket Club, Western Districts Netball, Corinda Horse and Pony Club, Brothers Saint Brendan's, AFL Queensland, Oxley Rowing Club and the Carrington Boating Club Corinda, for each securing much-needed funding. I know our clubs are grateful for the funding. Many of them have already emailed my office. Many of them have limited means to fundraise for the money needed for the damage from the floods and rain, so these funds being distributed will be a great help. These projects will, obviously, also create jobs for local contractors, whose work will directly support their communities. Funds from these joint Commonwealth and state grants will help our clubs get back on their feet and better cope with the future severe weather events that we know are coming more and more often. I, along with the state members, look forward to seeing these projects completed and seeing the Moreton clubs back up and running and better protected. International Men's Day, Mackay Man of the Year, Shed Happens 84 12:41 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson Saturday 19 November was International Men's Day—an important day to recognise the valuable contribution and the fundamental role that men play in society. It also gives us a chance to teach our young up-and-coming men about the importance of treating women with dignity and respect, to mentor them and to let them be the best men they can possibly be. On Friday 18 November, an event was hosted at Ocean International Resort, where over 120 people—men, women and our youths—came and had a fantastic morning. It coincided with our 2022 Mackay Man of the Year award. I'm pleased to announce that Keiran Horsfall was successful in becoming Mackay Man of the Year. He is a senior constable in the Queensland police force—one of Queensland's finest—but he's also a father, a husband, and a mentor to many of Mackay's youth. He does an amazing job mentoring these young folk almost every day. He's instrumental in Project Booyah, in which he sits down with some of these young men who have got themselves on the wrong side of the tracks, has a discussion with them and brings them right back. I'm proud to say that, at the breakfast, there was a young man there who had a bit of a sketchy past, but Keiran's help brought him back on track and he has now got gainful employment and is actually going very, very well. There were also two runners-up: Col Benson and Bill Lansbury. Col is a retired serviceman. He looks after the Air Force memorial at Bakers Creek and can always be found at events such as Remembrance Day and Anzac Day, where he is constantly helping the community. Bill Lansbury is a husband, a father and a long-time Rotarian and is involved in many charities throughout Mackay. Frank Cowell organised this event, with his committee: Councillor Fran Mann, Councillor Belinda Hassan and ex-CEO of RACQ CQ Rescue Ian Rowan. Frank is also Mackay's Citizen of the Year. He's instrumental in Shed Happens. Shed Happens is where people can go and have a cup of coffee, sit down and talk about blokes' issues. So well done to Frank. Blokes, on average, make up seven out of nine suicides in Australia, and that is just an unforgiving statistic. We need to look after our men. We need to look after our boys. Well done, Frank Cowell and your team. Hunter Electorate: Youth in Sport 84 12:45 Mr 298840 Hunter REPACHOLI () (): The Hunter has produced some outstanding sports people in the past, and it's important that we have support for the next crop of our local sporting talent. Unfortunately, succeeding in sport doesn't just take talent and determination; parents also have to put their hands in their pockets to get their kids to competitions. The Local Sporting Champions program provides financial assistance to young people to compete, coach or umpire in their chosen sport. Sport is important in the development of young people. It teaches them lifelong skills, such as teamwork. It keeps them fit and healthy and it allows them to excel in something they love and enjoy. Congratulations to our recent sporting champs, Aaliyah Kilroy, who competed at the Football Australia national youth championships; Cameron Gawn, who competed at the School Sport Australia swimming championships; Isaac Elson, Zac Nichols and Eddie Westfall, who competed in the New South Wales Combined High Schools Sports Association secondary boys tennis championships; Ella and Sophie Fairhall and Zane Bourke, who competed at the AusCycling national championships; Ethan Williams, who competed at the Australian all schools track and field championships; Harrison Preece, who competed at the School Sport Australia 12 and under national golf championships; Koby Kattau, who competed at the School Sport Australia championships in lawn bowls; Liam Mackenzie-Smith and Makaylah Grace Fenwick, who competed in the Australian interschool equestrian championships; Riley Burgess and Nate Ebbeck, who competed at the Australian Junior Motocross Championship; Tom Brum, who competed at the national ice hockey championships; and Jakob Thompson, who competed at the Virtus Oceania Asia Games in swimming. These games were recently delivered by Sports Inclusion Australia in Brisbane, with hundreds of competitors from over 25 nations. These games are an international multisport competition. Jakob Thompson was one of a 41-strong swimming team selected by Sports Inclusion Australia to represent Australia. Jakob took home four gold medals, in the 50-metre freestyle, 50-metre backstroke, 50-metre butterfly and 100-metre freestyle, and also a silver medal, in the 50-metre breaststroke. Jakob is now working towards selection for the global games, which will be held in Vichy, France, in June 2023. Congratulations, Jakob. Keep up the work and training. I wish you all success into the future. Without the help of these sporting grants, these kids sometimes can't get to achieve what they want to achieve. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 Well done, Jakob. I call the member for Capricornia. Capricornia Electorate: Infrastructure 85 12:48 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia The failure of the federal Labor government to deliver on their infrastructure commitments in Capricornia has been front and centre over the past couple of weeks. The federal funding for the Rockhampton Ring Road has been scrapped and delayed for the foreseeable future, with cost blowouts given as the reason. The city of Rockhampton has an estimated 2,600 trucks carrying freight that pass through 23 sets of traffic lights daily, yet we are the only city on the eastern coast of Australia without a bypass or a ring-road. Motorists must drive over one of two bridges. The first is the old bridge opened in 1952, and the second is the new bridge built in 1980. Heavy vehicles are restricted to limited hours of access when travelling over the old bridge. Construction was due to begin in early 2023, following years of planning and anticipation by local stakeholders and government. Business owners within my electorate of Capricornia have invested their hard-earned money into equipment and their time into training staff in preparation for the work to begin. They have received a low and painful blow, following the announcement that the project will be delayed. The excuse for this delay, offered by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, is the blowout in material and construction costs from $1 billion to $1.7 billion. Projects have seen their costs blow out before—it's a tale as old as time—but why is Rockhampton being unfairly targeted, and why has the ring-road been the only one delayed? If the project is delayed, prices are only going to go up. The factors negatively affecting the project are not going to magically disappear in three years. The Queensland Labor government and the federal Labor government are also in league with each other to push the people of Netherdale and Eungella out of their homes. The Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro project stands to evict residents from over 70 properties. Do you know how the community found out that their homes were going to be resumed and flooded? It was through media reports and media releases. There was no consultation and no notice given to the hardworking families who call those areas home. This was a disgusting betrayal of trust. The federal Labor government is aiding this land grab by pledging $32 million to help the Queensland government find alternative water projects. Why on earth would they do that when Urannah dam was ready to go? Urannah dam, a project that I support and fought hard to get $483 million in federal funding for, was axed in October's budget. It was ready to go, after having jumped through regulatory hoops for years. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of this federal Labor government have only confirmed the lack of value and importance they place on the regional, rural and remote communities of Australia, which are the backbone of this great nation. The Albanese government has grossly underestimated the force and capacity of the community of Capricornia. We will not take this lying down, and I will fight every day to see the funding for these important projects restored. Senior Australians 86 12:51 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston Older Australians have worked hard their entire lives, making a significant contribution to our nation and its prosperity; and older Australians need to know that they will be supported in their older years. I am so proud to be part of a government that has taken action in this latest budget to support older Australians, whether that is through improving and enacting the recommendations of the royal commission into aged care or, indeed, taking action on responsible cost-of-living reforms for older Australians. This has been welcomed by many locals in my electorate, and I'd like to thank Sharon from Seaford Meadows for her encouragement. She sent me a message expressing her thanks for all the hard work our government has been doing, particularly in supporting older Australians. I'm pleased that we are delivering on our commitment to Australians like Sharon and that we have introduced a comprehensive seniors package not only for aged care but also to reduce the cost of living. I'm particularly pleased that the benefits of expanding eligibility for the Commonwealth seniors health card are now flowing through. These important changes, passed by the parliament last month, see the income limit increased to $90,000 a year for individuals and $144,000 a year for couples. These reforms will support an additional 50,000 older Australians, and they've had a positive impact on many in my electorate, including John and Cynthia from the Reserve retirement village in Woodcroft, who welcomed these change, saying: 'We are certainly impressed that the new guidelines for eligibility for the Commonwealth seniors health card came to fruition in such a short time.' Our government continues to take action, and there are number of measures that I hope will be passed by the Senate this week, including changes that support pensioners to downsize their home and the one-off credit to the work-bonus income bank, which is before the Senate now. This builds on our freeze to the current social security deeming rates for two years, which came as a real relief for many pensioners facing cost-of-living increases. These reforms have been welcomed by residents like Carol, from Elkanah Retirement Village in Morphett Vale, who said to me: 'Thank you so much for your hard work. Congratulations. You are achieving great support from pensioners across the board.' I am committed to continuing to work across government, with our government, to deliver a better outcome for older Australians, and that commitment will continue to show through. Dividend Imputation 86 12:54 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise to speak on behalf of the families and retirees in Fisher who are fed up with this Labor government. They're fed up with the smoke and mirrors and the broken promises. After six months in office, Labor have demonstrated that their priorities are entirely out of whack. They'd rather fund climate warrior training programs than build a veterans wellbeing centre in south-east Queensland. They're out of their depth, chopping and changing, dithering and delaying, on cybersecurity and energy affordability. After six months in office, it's clear that they're out of touch with the Australian people. In their latest egregious betrayal of trust, this Labor government has broken its promise on franking credits. Before the election, both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer promised Australian retirees and investors that there'd be no changes to franking credits. On 4 March 2022, the Prime Minister promised Perth radio listeners that, when it came to franking credits, 'Labor are not touching them.' Just weeks later, he told the ABC that Labor wouldn't have any changes to the franking credits regime. Yet, low and behold, in the federal budget in October, Labor, in a very sneaky way, included a change to the franking system designed to eliminate the payment of franked dividends to Australian investors through off-market share buybacks. In the words of AFR journo, Geoff Wilson, this is a: … complete regulatory overreach. These two policies are an underhanded attempt to tear apart the franking system introduced by Keating in 1987. Brian from Pelican Waters in my electorate is worried about the impact of these changes on his livelihood in a time of economic uncertainty. Kevin from Buddina calls this latest move an act of bad faith. Ken and Henry from Montville feel that it's an unfair burden on those who've worked so hard to fund their retirement—and they're right. This $550 million tax grab doesn't hide the fact that Labor has no plan for our economy. At least the member for Maribyrnong had the decency to come out and tell the Australian people their policies on franking credits. That's part of the reason why they lost the 2019 election. But at least, as the opposition leader, the member for Maribyrnong had the decency and the intestinal fortitude to come out and tell Australians what the Labor Party were going to do should they win government. This time they were absolutely mute; in fact, they denied they were going to make any changes. But that is exactly what they've done this time around. Shame on them! This government has no plan and no idea and is out of touch with everyday Australians. Wanneroo Agricultural Show 86 12:57 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I rise to acknowledge all things local. In this instance, I acknowledge the achievements of a favourite and adored community event in my electorate of Pearce, the annual Wanneroo Agricultural show, which took place over the weekend. The show is a much-loved event and is highly regarded. It began in 1909 and showcases all things local, such as local produce and land that was worked from our pioneering spirit many years ago, land that is now becoming one of the fastest and largest growing areas in Australia. With that, the growers and the horticulture are now known as the best growers on the land. My community of Pearce is very, very proud of them and incredibly protective. The industries which contribute significantly to our economy in Western Australia and the nation are often local, arising from local business, local passion and local commitment. I would like to acknowledge what Western Australia's largest regional agricultural show gives back to the community, and that is a lot of entertainment over a few days and what they donate to local organisations. The local Wanneroo volunteer fire brigade was the recipient of a grant donation arising from the Wanneroo show. This is just an example. There's also Riding for the Disabled Capricorn Wanneroo, another local organisation that provides opportunities for those with a disability to get to know horses and ride horses. All of these things that the Wanneroo Agricultural show provides for local communities are exemplary. They have many different organisations, whether it's the Historical Society, whether it's the local schools where they dance, and their bands play. Everybody works towards the annual show. It's something that is a showcase of everybody's achievements over the year. I would also like to acknowledge President Michael Aspinall and his hard work on the Wanneroo Agricultural Society committee. They worked incredibly hard from day 1, right the way through to the show. They cleaned, they tidied, and then they started organising for the next show. This dedication and commitment really convey that community spirit and is something that those in my electorate of Pearce are incredibly proud of. It underpins the values of our pioneers, those who worked incredibly hard to work the land and showcase it. That pride is something that I can't emphasise enough. I'm probably being a little bit repetitive in my comments, but it is wholeheartedly and resoundingly successful around the community. I stand here in support of everything they do, and I wish them continued success. Thank you wholeheartedly to all of the committee and all of the volunteers who worked really hard to ensure that this is brought to our community for everybody's enjoyment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 87 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 87

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

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

Second Reading 87 13:00 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari We know how important this budget is for people all over Australia, but I can tell you it is particularly incredible for the people of Lingiari. This budget represents the largest federal government investment in the Northern Territory in a long, long time: $2.5 billion will flow into the Territory, building critical infrastructure, supporting major projects and providing better livelihoods for Territorians. This funding will have tangible impacts on the ground and will go a long way in addressing much-needed social and economic challenges. One key area this funding will go towards is our roads. Anyone who knows the Territory knows how important our roads are. Roads are how we connect to our communities out bush. They're how we make sure our supply lines are strong and that food, petrol and other necessities arrive on time. Good roads mean we can build our regional economies and lead to employment opportunities and better access to jobs. Good roads—safe roads—can be the difference between life and death for people out bush. In this federal budget, $550 million in new funding was committed for our roads. Just last week I had the privilege of travelling out to Yuendumu with the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to announce $350 million for the sealing of the Tanami and Central Arnhem highways. Already, in the community, there is a lot of talk about how the road can lead to greater economic development, with roadhouses, petrol stations and campgrounds needed to support the many travellers along that road. I will be working very hard to make sure our communities benefit from the funding committed and are able to capture the economic benefits of this federal funding. Another $200 million will go towards the Northern Territory Strategic Roads Package, bringing the total to $332 million. That covers roads like the Mereenie Loop Road in Central Australia and the road to the Santa Teresa community, or Ltyentye Apurte, where, in the past, there were a lot of deaths of dialysis patients. People couldn't come in, particularly into Alice Springs, because that road had been cut off. The Papunya and Areyonga roads will all be getting much needed access roads. For years our communities called on the previous government to seal these roads, and to save lives and ensure good connectivity to our regions. Well, one of the things that I have campaigned very hard on is letting those communities know that the federal Labor government has heard their call, particularly in terms of good roads. We have listened. And I'll be working really hard to get that tar on the ground as soon as possible. There will be a lot of discussion with the Northern Territory minister who has responsibility for making sure that those contracts and the tar get on the ground as quickly as possible. The federal minister and I have met with the Northern Territory ministers to make sure that we can get that happening ASAP. Central Australia is a unique part of this country. It has become a melting pot of multiculturalism that is an amazing place to live in and to travel to. However, after a decade of neglect from those opposite, the region has been left with immense social and economic issues. These issues have been targeted by the Labor government in this budget through a $120 million Central Australia Plan, which is being delivered in collaboration with the Alice Springs Town Council—and I have to acknowledge the mayor of the Alice Springs Town Council, Matt Paterson, who worked very hard with both the coalition government and also Labor in opposition to make sure that Alice Springs would benefit from either government—and also the Northern Territory government. This plan and investment will provide a much-needed boost to the region through the creation of a CBD master plan and redevelopment of the CBD in Alice Springs; upgrades in infrastructure at the Gap youth centre, which will provide needed and necessary safe spaces for our youth to go to; and the development and construction of a national Aboriginal art gallery, which will become a national attraction. This is an exciting time for Central Australia, and I look forward to seeing the reinvigoration of a great town that will thrive under a Labor government that doesn't forget about regions. There is also, in terms of infrastructure, $10.9 million which will go towards supporting infrastructure in a lot of our remote communities. We know that young people out in communities certainly need that infrastructure to keep them not only healthy and well but also staying in their communities. I also spoke yesterday about the needed and necessary funding for homelands. We have at the moment a crisis with overcrowding in our communities. The homelands funding will enable those communities to get people back on country and also relieve a lot of the overcrowding that has been occurring in those communities. During the election, I did say and the mantra was that the Territory always does better under a Labor government. Many may scoff, but when you've lived in the Territory—I was born there and I've never left the Territory—you see $2.5 billion investment in infrastructure, and not just any infrastructure but road connectivity, information technology, mobile phones and mobile connectivity, is really important in terms of this budget. People often talk about regional Australia. This is a great budget in the Northern Territory, not just for regional communities but also because it will provide infrastructure and needed connectivity for remote Aboriginal communities that have suffered. I know that members opposite don't like to hear it, but they have suffered in the Northern Territory over the last 10 years under a Coalition government. So it was great to see the investment from the Labor government of $2.5 billion—the biggest investment ever of any government into infrastructure in the Northern Territory. I am proud to stand up and applaud the Labor government, because those communities that are benefiting from all that needed infrastructure certainly have been singing the praises of the government for delivering on that. 13:08 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I rise to speak on the appropriation bills and, really, to comment more specifically on the budget which underpins these appropriation bills. I think it's pretty clear this was a stinker—an absolute shocker of a budget. We know that it's been an absolute stinker, because the Labor Party do not want to talk about this budget. The Labor Party, I think, went out to sell this budget for one morning, got a sense of the reaction from the Australian public and how they felt about this budget, and quickly retreated and have sought to talk about everything other than this budget. I've been involved in a number of budgets as a Treasury minister, and I have to say, when waiting for this highly anticipated budget that the government spoke about in opposition, I didn't think we would end up with something that was smaller than most MYEFOs that I have been involved in delivering over the years. Indeed, this budget is remarkable, in one sense, for what it doesn't do, which is that it doesn't grasp the opportunities that we gifted them with an extremely strong economy. It also did two very destructive things to the Australian economy. At the moment, with rising inflation, rising interest rates and rising power prices, there are two things you wouldn't do in that environment. The first is that you wouldn't run larger budget deficits, because every additional dollar that the government spends is essentially a dollar that the Reserve Bank will try to take out of the economy via a higher cash rate and therefore higher mortgage rates for your average Australian. We saw the final budget outcome for the 2021-22 income year coming in at $100 billion better than expected, with a budget deficit of $32 billion. It's extraordinary, in an environment where we had lockdowns and where we suffered along with the rest of the global economy with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, to have had a $100 billion turnaround and to have delivered a $32 billion deficit. You would have thought that a responsible incoming government would have taken up the cudgels of that improved economic performance and that improved budgetary performance and understood—if we had a Treasurer that understood—that in this environment you need not to run higher budget deficits. Instead, we've got a budget deficit projected for this year of some $37 billion, which is higher than the deficit that was run in the middle of a pandemic. Again, for those Australian out there watching, for every additional billion dollars that the government spends, the Reserve Bank governor has to take a billion dollars out of the economy via increased interest rates. That's the first fundamental error of this budget—pouring more fuel on the fire. Secondly, in an environment where we've got skills shortages, we've still got global supply chain issues and we've got issues with sourcing product in a whole range of sectors—and as housing minister in the former government I can tell you it's most acutely felt in the building industry—what's the second thing you wouldn't do in that environment and with all those factors that are driving inflation to record highs? You wouldn't put in place industrial relations changes that are going to gum up the economy and make it even harder to do business in this country—indeed, harder for every single mum and dad business out there to do business in this country. What will that do? It will push up inflation. What are the two things that economic students sitting at university—economics 101 courses at every single university—or even, indeed, our year 11 and 12 students who are studying economics would say you can't do? You can't place higher inflationary pressures on this economy, which is exactly what this budget has done in the two most fundamental ways. The government inherited an economy that was the envy of the world and a budgetary position that was improving rapidly, and they have squandered that entirely and worsened the problems that Australians are now feeling. What is the consequence for Australians? The consequence is that your average Australian family need to find an additional $2,000 between now and Christmas for the failure of these decisions in this budget. Members of the government might think that a couple of thousand dollars is loose change for them. Well, I can assure them that for the Australian families out there that have to find that extra money—whether it's to fill up their car, whether it's the eye-watering prices they are now facing at the supermarket or whether it's the letters that they keep getting from the bank saying their mortgage has gone up again—that is going to make this Christmas a lot harder. It will also give them more uncertainty about their future and less confidence about their future. The other striking aspect of this budget was the, I think accidental, honesty of the government that one of the key planks that got them elected was false. On 97 occasions before the election, the Prime Minister and his senior ministers and backbenchers promised that they would deliver power price reductions of $275. If you go to the House of Representatives Hansard and look up the number 275, it is not a number that you will see uttered from the mouth of our Prime Minister. Indeed, when the Prime Minister is counting, he goes from 274 to 276. He can't say the words 'two hundred and seventy-five dollars', yet before the election he promised Australians that was what Labor would deliver. Instead, in the budget, what did we see? We see that power prices are expected to increase by more than 50 per cent, which I think is the experience of most Australians when they look at their bills. Labor have a short memory. When the now minister and then shadow minister, the member for McMahon, was making these promises, he forgot that he was part of a government where we saw power price rises, on average, of nearly 13 per cent per annum. That was during the Rudd-Gillard government. Over the duration of the coalition government, between 2013 and 2022, we saw average price rises of 0.3 per cent per annum. It's undoubted that the mismanagement and the expected policy disasters of this government are going to lead to energy poverty for this country. It's clear from the budget papers that Labor themselves expect their policy decisions to impose this additional burden on households. But, as importantly as households—to go back to my earlier remarks—we are going to see a perfect storm for business in this country, particularly small businesses in highly competitive areas, who can't just pass on price increases. They're going to have militant unions knocking on the door, to make life harder, to foment distrust and conflict between them and their employees. Let's remember that in small business—I grew up in a small-business family, so I can tell you—the employees of the business are like family. Small-business owners pay their staff first, the rent second, the suppliers third, the tax fourth and the power bills fifth, and they pay themselves last. Those people now will not only, as I said, have the militant unions knocking on the door; they will also be seeing massive energy price increases that are going to make running their business even harder, when they were promised a reduction. To touch on a couple of my portfolio areas, it was very revealing in the budget to see the government's expectations and the grim picture that they painted about the NDIS, which is in stark contrast to what Minister Shorten said before the election. Before the election, he gave confidence to more than 500,000 NDIS participants and their families. He said to them that the scheme is sustainable as it is and anyone who talks about sustainability, particularly those nasty Liberals, just wants to undermine the scheme. He also said, and had people believing, that no plan would ever go backwards under his watch and that some utopia was going to arrive when the great minister took the helm of the NDIS. What do we see now? We see them backpedalling at a million miles an hour, trying to set the scene. We now have the minister saying: 'Actually, I was wrong. Perhaps there are some sustainability issues. Perhaps there are cost increases that need to be managed.' Now he's blaming the states. He's out there saying that the states have to pick up more responsibility. It was him, when he was a minister in the Rudd-Gillard government, who got completely outplayed by the states. They completely outplayed him and the Prime Minister at the time to ensure that, largely speaking, the states' contribution to the NDIS is capped and managed. And who picks up all the upside? It's the Commonwealth. So thank you, Minister Shorten, for delivering that core problem which you are now saying is an issue for the scheme. You didn't say it before the election, but you're saying it now. Well, I can tell you that more than half a million NDIS participants and their families heard you loud and clear before the election when you said that there were no sustainability issues—none—with the NDIS and that plans would not go backwards under your watch. So let's see where this goes. The budget, I must say, paints a pretty bad picture. Also, in the Housing portfolio, there was the farcical announcement that Labor was going to build a million new homes over five years. That was the headline—a million new homes over the five years. Then we drilled into the detail and asked some questions—'Oh, it's an aspiration to build a million homes over five years. It's actually not us as a government building those homes over five years; it's the businesses-as-usual private sector that will build those million homes over five years. And, in fact, what we've done new in this budget is an agreement with states and territories to have more meetings to solve these problems at some point down the track.' Now, in the last five full calendar years before the budget, Australia built more than a million homes—1,029,000 homes. So what are Labor saying? They're saying, 'Well, starting from 2024, we'll build fewer homes over those next five years than were built in the preceding five years'—under our watch. That is a farcical announcement. It is the sort of hollow announcement that you make when you have a budget that is, quite frankly, less impactful than the average MYEFO. It's a pretty shameless tactic that was appropriately dealt with by the media in regard to how farcical it was. In the Social Services portfolio—another one of mine—the biggest additional spending measure in social services in the so-called bread-and-butter budget, outside of the CPI increases, was the $217 million that was dedicated to wind back the cashless debit card. They are spending 217 million precious dollars to have more alcohol and drugs flood into vulnerable communities. There will be more alcohol and drugs to fuel the dysfunction and the violence that we know occurs in so many of the communities where the cashless debit card has been so successful. It's a budget that fails on so many measures. We saw hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure ripped out of Victoria. In my own seat alone we saw $4 billion cut from the East West Link. We saw $34 million cut from train station car parks at Heatherdale and Heathmont, and it won't be long before people who are back on public transport will be searching for those car parks in the morning and won't able to get one. They also cut $50 million from Dorset Road, one of the most dangerous and congested roads in my area. Why did they cut all that? They did it to give Daniel Andrews his $2.2 billion for the Suburban Rail Loop. This budget fails on every measure. 13:23 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to make my contribution on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023. In May, the Australian people and the people of Werriwa voted for change. They voted for a government that would confront the challenges ahead of this nation—a government that not only would react but would seize the opportunities before it. For far too long Australians have become disillusioned with the effectiveness of government. They had a federal government that reacted only when it was politically necessary, and then didn't take the decisions that would build a better future for Australia and the generations to come. It is the task of the Albanese government to repair the relationship people have with the government and repair the budget left behind. Government can be a force for good. It can implement policies that directly benefit the life of every Australian. Two weeks ago, the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, began the process of restoring faith in the government on behalf of the Australian people. With the first Labor budget in almost a decade, the Albanese government has begun implementing promises made to the Australian people. The budget provides responsible cost-of-living relief. It recognises that the largest strain on budgets of Australians right now is that of inflation. We know that Australians are doing it tough. They have been for the last three years. Our country and indeed the world have been battered by crisis after crisis, and there is a possibility that the world will experience another economic downturn. In uncertain times, I've seen the resilience of the Australian people and the resilience of the constituents of Werriwa. This budget contains $7.5 billion in targeted cost-of-living relief to ease the pressures on Australian families. Our government took a policy of cheaper medicine to the election, and from 1 January the cost of medicines on the PBS will fall by $12.50, a saving of upwards of $300 a year for those on regular medicines. In Werriwa I spoke to a local pharmacist, Natalie, who owns Chemistworks in Edmondson Park. She told me that she's had to have difficult conversations with patients about what medicines they can do without and which they can ration, because they simply can't afford them all. No-one in this country should ever have to make that decision, especially as these decisions directly affect their health and quality of life and have the potential to cause further burden on the health system, not to mention the stress it causes professionals like Natalie. This budget also contains funding for cheaper child care. Beginning in July next year, 1.2 million eligible Australian families will have access to cheaper child care. In the electorate of Werriwa, that's 7,400 families. They will have more affordable child care. Families that earn a combination of $90,000 will save almost $1,100 a year. These families can then choose to work an extra day or spend time on something that's important to them. This is an investment not just in the economy but also in the health and wellbeing of Australians. For those who want to work extra days, this will remove a barrier that is in the way currently. The childcare policy will do that whilst helping family budgets. The Albanese government understands, however, that this cost-of-living crisis must be met with structural reforms to strengthen the Australian economy. That's why the government has committed to expanding paid parental leave to six months which will be shared amongst both parents. This is an economic reform that will have a massive social benefit as well. More women will be able to participate in the workforce, and men will be able to participate in caring. As the world went into lockdown in 2020, Australia suffered because of our position at the end of the supply chain. This can't continue. Manufacturing must be here. Skills must be available here. From PPE to clean energy technology, investing and making things in Australia is important. This budget contains serious investment to re-establish our manufacturing and energy sector, creating the National Reconstruction Fund, which will invest $15 billion in expanding the industrial capabilities of Australia and creating well-paying jobs. Australia is a country that used to build things, and it will again under this government. Supporting our industries will ensure that the energy system is less vulnerable to global shocks in the energy market, and a single energy policy commitment—rather than 22 failed policies—will give the energy sector the stability and certainty it needs to transition to a cleaner, cheaper and more resilient grid. The budget makes targeted investments in that path, as the government has laid out. The government has moved to establish a Rewiring the Nation Office, which will manage $20 billion in funding to upgrade, strengthen and grow transmission infrastructure. With renewable energy entering the market, energy infrastructure must be prepared, so that Australians can benefit. Our industries will also benefit from cheaper and cleaner energy. We have seen recently how vulnerable our energy market is to global shocks. Werriwa residents need lower power bills to help with the cost-of-living increases that the previous government knew were coming. The transition to cleaner energy is an opportunity for Australians to benefit. The investment the Albanese government is making will be met with the necessary funding into skills training. Workers are the backbone of our country, and ensuring that workers can access the training they need for future jobs is critical. Next year, 180,000 fee-free TAFE and vocational education places will be made available, part of the commitment to provide almost 500,000 fee-free places. Additionally, the budget invests in creating 20,000 new university places. Our government is committed to ensuring Australians can acquire the training they need for the future and to securing better futures for them and their families. The budget is also the first step in closing the gender pay gap and advancing gender equality in the country. The Albanese government has put women at the centre of the budget because improving the material conditions of women is both good for the economy and good for society. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. The member for Werriwa will have leave to continue her remarks when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16:00 Ms STANLEY 265990 The decisions of government can make a difference: cheaper child care, extended paid parental leave, supporting a minimum wage and aged-care wage increases. The budget will provide funding to support women's safety at home and work and in the community; $169.4 million over four years will be used to provide an additional 500 frontline and community workers to support women and children experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence. As part of the Albanese government's commitment to Respect@Work, $42.5 million will go towards implementing the response to its recommendations. This government is determined to end gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. The government's Housing Australia Future Fund will commit $100 million for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence, as well as supporting older women at risk of homelessness. Our government has also committed to gender responsive budgeting. Key measures will be assessed on their impact on women so that there will be a complete picture of the consequences of policy decisions. This budget is a refresh on the last nine years of wasted opportunities. It is a responsible and reform driven budget. That's why the finance minister, Senator Katy Gallagher, and the Treasurer, the Hon. Jim Chalmers, went through the budget line by line to undo the damages caused in the last nine years. Their audit identified $22 billion in savings that could be reprioritised and better spent on the services Australians care about. We're investing an additional $437.4 million over three years to support the NDIS to hire more staff and to provide greater support to participants. We're providing $229.7 million to strengthen Medicare and GP grants so that general practices can provide better services to patients. These are the types of investments Australians want. The previous budget was riddled with unnecessary and unfunded proposals that wasted time and money. These savings will be better spent investing in the Australian people. The Albanese government is committing to getting Australians through these increasingly uncertain times. From one crisis to another, there has been no respite for many, and the government understands that. Our government is under no illusions that there are tough economic times ahead, but we are determined and ready. The Albanese government will get on with the promises made to the Australian people: fixing aged care, building our manufacturing capabilities, getting wages moving again, and implementing our economic and social reforms. We also want to confront the challenges we are facing today, whether it be short- to medium-term cost of living, the inflation crisis or the longer-term climate crisis. We won't shy away. The Australian people want a government that provides solutions, that works for them and that takes responsibility and acts, and this is what our first budget does. It keeps the promises made to the Australian people and begins the process of repairing their trust in government. I commend the bill to the House. 16:04 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey There is no doubt, it is beyond dispute, that Australians have it very tough at the moment. Cost of living is going through the roof, inflation is going through the roof and energy prices are going up. As we saw in this budget, it has never been tougher to balance the budget. Unfortunately for the Australian people, Labor have missed the mark with this budget. It's not delivering solutions today to the Australians who need support. In fact, it's showing that things are going to be worse under Labor. It's only getting harder to make ends meet, and there is no real hope for Australians coming out of this budget. We need to understand what's at stake here. We can talk a lot, and I will talk a little bit, about the numbers, but just last week I was in the electorate of Casey and filled up the car with petrol—and I did note how expensive it was—and I went in and was speaking to the service attendant, and she was telling me a story of the day before, when a couple had filled up their car and had gone in to pay and started crying. The reason that they started crying is they did not have the money to pay for that fuel. That is the reality of what we're dealing with with this cost-of-living crisis. It is literally people not having the money to pay for their petrol, for their food, for their energy—to have to make choices. Those people need solutions now, and, when we listen to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, every solution they provide is something into the future. There are some good initiatives in this budget that we support as well—I'm not denying that—but every solution they come up with is about things happening six or 12 months from now. The reality is that when you literally cannot afford to put petrol into your tank or to pay your electricity bills or to eat food, you don't care about what's happening in the future. You need support now. And we're not getting that support in this budget for Australians. In my electorate of Casey, we're also having infrastructure being ripped out of our community, which I will touch on. I must say, sitting in this House listening to many speeches from those on the government side, they are very happy, as is their right, to brag about and celebrate the many investments that their communities are getting. It's hard not to smirk with the irony when, about six to 12 months ago, they were complaining about the very same practice, but that is the way politics works. It's really clear when you look at this budget, when you listen to the Prime Minister or when you listen to the Treasurer that this isn't about solutions for real Australians. This is actually a budget full of politics and spin. It's not really surprising that it's a budget that is all about politics and spin. I'm a big believer in business and I spent my career in business, and the first thing we always did was have a look at who's making the decisions and understand their motivations and their history. So I thought I would understand the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, the two figures that are making the decisions on this budget that are affecting Australians. What's their experience in business and in the real world outside of the Canberra bubble? I had a look at the Prime Minister. I wanted to understand his history. It's well documented. He's been in this House since 1996, which is a great achievement for the Prime Minister, but it does show that he's spent a lot of time in these halls on an income that's guaranteed every week. That's not a criticism. It's just the reality of our roles, and I acknowledge I now have that luxury as well. But I looked back; we've all had a career before politics. What did the Prime Minister do? Surely he spent some time in business? No, the Prime Minister was a union official and a staffer before he entered this House. So he's never had to make those decisions to employ people and make choices. The Prime Minister has no experience in business and has had guaranteed income for a long time. Surely our Treasurer? He does have a PhD, I do note. He hasn't worked in business—I'm jumping ahead; I'm going to ruin the punchline—but he does have a PhD. I thought, 'Oh, well, he's got the economic qualifications to manage the economy, so that should give us some comfort.' But then I thought I would actually have a look at this PhD that the Treasurer has. It's actually not in economics. It's not in finance. I am happy to put my hand up and say that I had made that assumption about the Treasurer, running our economy, who is a doctor and has got a PhD—I assumed it was in economics, and I've been under that assumption for a little while. But then I did the research. The great thing is our histories are all there. The PhD is in political science. I was like, 'Wow.' I did an arts degree, majoring in politics, so there's nothing wrong with that, but I don't know whether it equips you— Ms Rishworth HWA Nothing wrong with that! Mr VIOLI 300147 There is nothing wrong at all with majoring in politics, but I was surprised by that. I was a little concerned that the PhD was actually on the former prime minister Paul Keating. I think every Australian will remember that former prime minister Paul Keating is the man who talked about 'the recession that we had to have'. He did oversee that terrible recession 'that we had to have'. It's a concern that the Treasurer's political idol is Paul Keating. The Treasurer has also, unfortunately, spent his whole career in this building. He bragged at the budget that he'd been in 17 budget lock-ups—more than anyone in this House. While he thinks that that's a great advantage, I think it's a great concern for the Australian people because I've already seen within six months in Parliament House that you can really lose perspective on what's happening out in the community. So we've got a prime minister and a treasurer who have never worked in business and have spent their whole life as advisers and chiefs of staff. It really does explain why this budget has no solutions for Australians and is full of politics and spin. Not only is this budget about politics and spin, but it abandons the people of Casey. Two weeks ago I received a phone call from the CEO of the Yarra Ranges council. She was deeply concerned. They'd just received an email saying that the Roads for Community project in Casey—a $150 million project that had bipartisan support in 2019, with $150 million over 10 years—that would seal much needed roads in Casey had been cut by this government. This government, in 2019, supported this project. Again, the internet is great, because everything is on the record and you can find it. So I went back and had a look. Who was the shadow minister at the time who made the commitment and talked about how important this investment was for the communities of Casey? Anthony Albanese was the shadow minister for infrastructure. He's now the Prime Minister signing off on every decision. In 2019 he supported sealing the roads, but today it's not important. And to make it worse, this is in comparison to the government's decision to support Suburban Rail Loop—a $2.2 billion investment to support his friend Daniel Andrews. It has not gone through Infrastructure Australia as a project. I don't mind the Suburban Rail Loop if it stacks up, but we don't know if it stacks up because the Auditor-General has said there are question marks. Infrastructure Australia has not looked at this project. The Roads for Communities project in Casey is delivering today. It is a partnership between the federal government, the Yarra Ranges council and the community that co-contribute to sealing these roads. There is already a track record over three years of delivering these projects on time and on budget. In many cases they're actually delivered earlier and under budget, and that's with COVID. So we were here and we heard the minister for infrastructure today talk about projects blowing out. Well, this one's not. It's being delivered and they've supported it. This project, as I said, was bipartisan. It's sealing dirt roads in the Yarra Valley, in the Dandenong Ranges in my electorate, that are much needed. This need has become worse because, like many electorates across the country, we have been significantly impacted by flooding. So those dirt roads that aren't sealed are in even worse condition today than they were when this project was signed. One of the great honours and privileges that we have in this House is to represent our constituents and be their voice in this House. I could talk more about the Roads for Community project, and I have been inundated with calls and emails from people in my electorate who are deeply concerned. I will read, with his permission, the email I received from Mark from Belgrave Heights about this very issue, and I quote: We have had federal funding promises to seal roads in my area for several years now. I have recently been told that the promised funding may be rescinded. This is absolutely devastating news for me, my family and all residents in my local area. The unsealed roads are not only damaging on cars but they are hazardous, especially with all the rain we've had recently. Potholes, eroded road edges, corrugations and large 'run-off' chasms routinely appear, with imminent danger that these pose. My youngest child is a P-plater and she almost rolled her car driving down the severely eroded Mt Morton Rd the other day. I am writing this to you with heavy rain (as I type!) hitting my window with the understanding that the recent grading of Mt Morton Rd will be effectively undone now. The only permanent solution is to keep the federal promises of funding for local council roads. I implore you to push for these federal promises to be upheld by the current Labor government. Thank you. Mark, I'm here fighting for you and fighting for the constituents and residents of Casey, because we have been abandoned by this government. They're prepared to support the Suburban Rail Loop, but they're not prepared to support a project that was needed in 2019 and is needed more now. It gets worse. The Victorian state government is responsible for delivering road projects, and, unfortunately, the fact is that the Victorian state government is not great at delivering projects. That brings me nicely to the Wellington Road upgrade, which again was committed to, with bipartisan support, in 2019. The Victorian Labor government has done nothing to deliver this project. In three years, the Victorian state Labor government has done nothing to deliver this project. Government senators interjecting— Mr VIOLI 300147 The state government is responsible for delivering roads; the federal government funds them—those across the aisle do know that. We provided the funding, and the Victorian Labor state government failed to deliver. This duplication is much needed for the safety of the residents in the Dandenongs, to get them out when bushfires come and to allow emergency services to get in. The local Country Fire Authority labelled Labor's decision to cancel this project as 'really distressing news for our community'. Our communities know they have been abandoned by the federal Labor government and the Daniel Andrews state Labor government. That's on top of the infrastructure commitments I made to Belgrave, Lilydale and Mooroolbark community centres that are not in this budget, all investments that would have improved women's sport and community safety. Another project that is important to me and our constituents is the Lilydale Youth Hub. This was funded in 2020 using a $4.1 million grant from the federal government. Funding for this project runs out in December this year. I met with the Lilydale Youth Hub and had the opportunity to see the great work they were doing during the campaign, and I committed $3.5 million at that time to extend the project for another three years. But, in the election, the results were the results, and Labor didn't match that commitment. We're not in government, so it can't be delivered. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that it was bipartisan, because the Labor candidate and Labor opposition at the time clearly had no regard for the mental health of the residents of Casey, even though it was the highest priority on the council's wish list. What is interesting is that the CEO of the Lilydale Youth Hub wanted to meet with the new minister to discuss the project, explain how important it was to our community and ask them to consider the funding now that they are in government. The minister would not even meet with the CEO. To make it worse, two meetings were arranged and then cancelled. The CEO was prepared to do these meetings over Zoom or in person. Those opposite will sit there and talk about how great this budget is, but the minister has had six months and doesn't even have the courtesy or time for a 15-minute conversation about the importance of mental health in the Lilydale Youth Hub. This is a project that is delivering for our community. I have one quick quote before my time runs out. This is from a parent: Our beautiful and brave young person is not only still alive because of this wonderful and all encompassing service, but also has many friends that they have met through Pet Therapy, Creative Arts and social connection programs. This is a program and a community hub that is saving lives in Casey, and the minister does not even have the time, courtesy or respect to meet with the organisation to understand their needs and how they can help. This budget is a disgrace. It does nothing for the residents of Casey. It leaves us abandoned. 16:19 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'm very pleased to rise to speak on the all important Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, the Labor government's first budget. It is a budget that has been crafted for a very difficult time—after profligate spending by those opposite with no real economic dividend. Nine years with not an economic dividend to show for their investment; a trillion dollars of debt with nothing long term to show for it. This is a budget that starts the all-important budget repair task but also, importantly, makes those investments that are so important at this time to start that building, that economic investment, that economic reform that's so desperately needed in this country. It is a difficult time when it comes to cost of living, and there were some politically easy things to do, but this government has had to take the responsible course and make cost-of-living support where it was responsible. It does deliver and it does start the building blocks for a better future, particularly delivering on many of our election commitments: our cheaper childcare plan, better access to healthcare and medicines, cheaper and cleaner energy, expanding paid parental leave to six months, more affordable housing, getting wages moving. I want to talk about Labor's cheaper childcare plan. This is an incredibly important reform that will make child care more affordable for around 1.26 million Australian families. Under these measures, which are going through the Senate right now, I hope—with the bells ringing—is indeed a package that will ensure that no family will be worse off. It is, importantly, investing in families and— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 1 6 :21 to 1 6 :40 16:40 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise also to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023. I had some great concerns in my previous role, when I looked after Safer Communities Fund projects, and also in the electorate of La Trobe, where we had what I can say was a severe hit when it came to infrastructure funding. One of the previous programs which was committed to back in 2019 was a $300 million roads package to seal unsealed roads throughout the Dandenong Ranges. This was strongly supported by the local councils, the Cardinia Shire Council and the Yarra Ranges Council. This was pretty much the No. 1 issue up in that area, in suburbs such as Emerald and, in particular, Cockatoo. It all started with a roads action group called craig21. They approached me about sealing Caroline Avenue, I think it was, behind the Cockatoo Primary School. They said how dangerous it was for parents picking up children in that area. Then we had other suburbs, such as Gembrook, Beaconsfield, Beaconsfield Upper, Avonsleigh, Mount Burnett, Guys Hill, Maryknoll, Clematis and even going over to Menzies Creek in the electorate of Casey, as well as, locally, Pakenham Upper. There are a number of reasons why this project is very important. As someone who lived on a dirt road many years ago—I actually lived on one for 17 years—I know that it's not only in summer, when there's dust and the annoyance of always having a dirty car or the potholes when you're driving in after a rainy patch. And, obviously, you can imagine how bad it is now, Mr Deputy Speaker Stevens. But there are also issues when it comes to road safety. My background is as a former police officer. If you have a car coming around a corner at speed and you want to get out of the way, it can actually be quite dangerous if, when you get out of the way, you have a gutter beside you. In particular, the big issue is when it came to bushfires, and this is a point that has been put to me by council and even by the CFA. In the event of needing to evacuate during a bushfire, if you have a road that is sealed, you will have the kerb and channels. At the moment, it has a gutter at each side. If it's smoky or conditions are bad and people are in a panic to get out of there, they will get stuck in the gutter, and this obviously becomes an issue. This actually happened a number of years ago. As an example, Yarra Ranges Council told me about what happened in Mount Evelyn on a dirt track. Fundamentally, Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, who was then the Labor opposition leader, and Simon Curtis, the Labor candidate for La Trobe, matched this funding. They came out and said, 'We will match this funding.' There was a big article in the Star. It was great news that there was bipartisan funding for the unsealed roads project. The other one which was also matched was Wellington Road. Wellington Road is one of the main thoroughfares if you're going up to, again, Cockatoo, Gembrook and Emerald and also if you're cutting off and going up into the hills and the Dandenong Ranges and into parts of Berwick in my electorate and Officer and Beaconsfield. This is part of the fastest-growing electorate in the country. That work on Wellington Road was vital; it was $110 million. I hear the Labor Party's made a song and dance, saying, 'Hang on, you didn't put enough money into it. It's blown out to $670 million.' The funding we committed was based on advice from, I believe, Cardinia shire, which said the total project would be $210 million. We put half that funding in that project. It is such a vital, dangerous road where we've had fatalities, particularly on the Harkaway Road-Wellington Road intersection, which is such a dangerous road. It's a project that I previously committed to back in 2007. Some residents ask, 'Why hasn't this been fixed before?' We actually did commit funding back in 2007, when we had nowhere near the population living in the electorate. It was a big issue at the time. I must say I was very annoyed with the Yarra Ranges shire, which diverted the funding after 2010, but it did so with the blessing of the then transport minister, who is now the Prime Minister. The last letter I wrote before I lost my seat in 2010 was to the transport minister at the time, Anthony Albanese, to say, 'Do not allow this funding to be diverted.' Sadly, that's what happened. It got spent elsewhere. There was another election commitment, of $110 million, back in 2019, which was matched. Now it's been scrapped, so we've lost $410 million in that area on what was a bipartisan approach on these two vital road projects. There is a state seat called Monbulk, which covers pretty much all those areas I've spoken about. It wasn't a seat we were targeting in the state election but, boy oh boy, I can tell you now it is right in the race because the residents are furious that they've had $410 million cut from them. The other project I spoke about earlier was the Safer Communities Fund. The first stream of the Safer Communities Fund was infrastructure funding brought in that awful terrorist attack in Christchurch in New Zealand. It was to make places of worship safer. The biggest beneficiaries in Australia, when I looked after this program were our Jewish community, for obvious reasons, and the Muslim community. There were a number of others, though, who missed out when they applied for funding—for example, Hindu and Buddhist temples and Sikh gurdwaras. I intervened in a number of these projects for the simple reason that if I hadn't intervened they would never have got their funding up. One in particular that greatly concerned me—they came to visit me two or three times in my electorate—was a temple in Tarneit. The abbreviation is SMVS, otherwise known as the Swaminarayan Mandir Vasna Sanstha. They had, sadly, been firebombed and had had amazing amounts of vandalism occur. I'm just going to quote from an online Indian newspaper. The article's heading is 'Jason Wood calls Joanne Ryan "Lazy Labor member (who) can't be bothered" to visit when Hindu temple attacked.' The member for Lalor made a statement in parliament about this article, when she said she actually visited the temple on two occasions. I make the point, and this will be very interesting for Labor members to listen to, that this is an article from an online Indian newspaper The Australia Today. The author is Jai Bharadwaj, who has written a further article in The Australia Today, in which he says: SMVS temple's management committee told The Australia Today, "Member for Lalor Ms Joanne Ryan has visited the Temple once 6 years ago and recently once for a Diwali function in the year 2021." The article states: The Australia Today is given to understand that Ms Ryan did not visit Swaminarayan Mandir Vasna Sanstha (SMVS) temple even once after more than 10 attacks in the years 2017, 2018 and 2019. Each time the attack happened on the temple local Member of the Victorian parliament and Member of the Federal Parliament Joanne Ryan's office was informed and help was sought. The Australia Today can also reveal that when the Temple management committee approached her for help as a local federal MP, Ms Ryan even refused to write a supporting letter for SMVS Temple's Safer Community Grant application. The one thing I cannot believe is, obviously, members of parliament not bothering to go to support their local constituents. But, worse still, when they were actually under attack—and they were under attack, as we've heard, 10 times—we had the new Labor government come in and scrap the next round of $50 million for the Safer Communities Fund. There was a second stream of funding, for early intervention for high-risk youth. Going back to my days in the police force, the most important thing to stop young people going down the wrong path is to either keep them in school or, if they've gone into incarceration, provide them with assistance and help when they get out. In round 6, we initially put $20 million on the table. Incredibly, we had 420 applications, of which I think 370 met the eligibility criteria, so we extended the program to $120 million worth of funding in total. What we were doing was going up the chain. After the first $20 million was used up, we looked at the next projects for $50 million until we got up to the $120 million mark. That program has been cut, and I make a very valid point. In the first round of this program—I think it was round 5 of the Safer Communities Fund, where we had the $20 million for high-risk youth and the $10 million for infrastructure—there was another $5 million for admin costs. So, when we extended the program by another $100 million, we didn't have to readvertise it. We didn't need to spend any more money on admin costs, because those costs were already covered. The new Labor government are saying they're going to have another program. There are two problems with that. It's going to take at least 12 months to develop and we're going to have to wait till the next budget to see what's in there. And, sadly, it's going to have all the extra admin costs incorporated in it. Sadly, when it comes to keeping places of worship safer and when it comes to supporting youngsters who've been involved in crime or are at high risk—and, can I say, at least 20 per cent of the funding went to Indigenous communities—those communities, in the future, will miss out until something else happens. Overall, the federal budget has been very disappointing for people of faith in particular multicultural communities when it comes to their temples. It could be a Sikh gurdwara; it could be a Buddhist temple; it could be a Jewish synagogue; it could be a Muslim mosque. They won't be getting any funding from the Safer Communities Fund. There's no funding they can access to make them safer if any sort of incident takes place. When it comes to the road funding, that $410 million of unsealed roads funding for the hills—when I say 'the hills', I mean the Dandenong Ranges in Melbourne's south-east—and the Wellington Road funding, I would like to let everyone know that the Liberal candidate for Monbulk, Gareth Ward, who's doing a mighty job out there, totally supports these projects. He's telling me that people are shocked that the Labor Party has cut this funding, specifically because it was a bipartisan commitment by the Labor Party and, obviously, the Liberal Party. It's devastating for residents, who are getting phone calls from the Yarra Ranges Council and the Cardinia Shire Council at the moment, saying, 'All those roadworks which were planned for sealing your road in January or February have now been abandoned, and all the construction teams are being put off.' It's devastating for the area. On that note, I'll leave it there. It wasn't a good budget at all for those two groups. For those who care about safety when it comes to road funding in the hills, it was devastating. 16:54 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston by leave—I was talking about Labor's cheaper child care plan and, of course, the great economic productivity that this would unleash. We've got women—mainly women—and men as well wanting to work more hours in a time of labour force shortages, but child care just is too expensive. So it's a really important budget there. Other targeted investments that are right for this time include an investment in education to build a stronger and more resilient economy and, of course, the fee-free TAFE places. It was really exciting to have the Minister for Skills and Training in Adelaide, where he struck the agreement last Friday to deliver these places to South Australia. But there are also 20,000 additional university places for disadvantaged Australians. We're investing in the National Reconstruction Fund for a future made in Australia and delivering on nation-building projects, and I will talk a bit more about that. We are supporting older Australians, whether that's through expanding the concessions card or our work bonus income bank top-up. These are all things that very much go to the heart of our Labor budget. In my portfolio, I was very, very pleased, as the Minister for Social Services, and very proud that we announced an extension of paid parental leave to 26 weeks. Labor introduced paid parental leave in 2011, and this budget delivers the biggest boost since its creation, giving every family with a new baby more choice, greater security and better support. Labor announced it will add an additional six weeks of paid parental leave for families, bumping up the total leave payable to 26 weeks—a full six months. Our plan will invest more than $530 million in progressively scaling up the scheme, reaching the six months paid leave in 2026. This will benefit mums and dads and is good for children, but, of course, it's a huge boost for the economy, ensuring that women in particular stay connected to the workplace and promoting shared care. Promoting shared care is a good economic dividend because it means that the unpaid caring responsibilities are more equally shared, and this was a big message coming from our Jobs and Skills Summit. On Friday, I was very pleased to launch the next steps of our Early Years Strategy—a commitment made by this government to have a whole-of-government approach to the first five years of life, ensuring that children of families get the support they need in those early years. It was wonderful to join the Minister for Early Childhood Education to launch our announcement of our summit and the process going forward. This budget provided the investment for developing that Early Years Strategy, which is critically important. We also, in this budget, delivered on our election commitments to provide $12.4 million over four years to increase support for playgroups and toy libraries. This will support increased access to community run and volunteer run playgroups nationally, with a focus on regional and remote locations and where we know that gaps exist. Playgroups support families in the early years and encourage improved early childhood development outcomes. They also provide support to many people, so this is really important. In addition, we also announced our commitment to toy libraries. Toy libraries are such a clever idea. Often run by volunteers, they are places where it is affordable to borrow toys. We know our children grow out of toys so quickly—they move onto the next thing—so a toy library enables that investment to happen so that people don't have to put up their own money but can borrow the toys. But it's a sustainable way as well. A lot of people have talked about the attraction of toy libraries, not only because of the cost-of-living aspect but also because of their important sustainability aspect. This budget delivers on that. I'm very proud to be part of a government that has made a commitment to end domestic, family and sexual violence in one generation. One woman dies every 10 days at the hands of her current or former partner. This is unacceptable and it has to stop, and it should not be seen as inevitable. I'm very pleased that, in this budget, we've been able to announce a record investment of $1.7 billion to support a whole range of activities in prevention, in early intervention and in response and recovery. Part of that was $100 million for up to 720 additional safe places for women and children leaving violent situations. In addition, we know that frontline workers are very important in supporting women in need, so we need to make sure that there is a greater investment in our frontline workforce. This was a commitment also made by Labor in the election, and I'm very pleased that in this most recent budget we made sure that there was a provision of $169.4 million over four years to fund 500 frontline workers. This is a crucial boost to this workforce and something we definitely need. We also had to prioritise new measures with close to $40 million in additional support for the escaping violence payment to ensure that we could adequately respond. Unfortunately, the previous government rushed this payment and, as a result, it needs some significant work done on it to make sure that it is working for women who want to access it. In addition, there was $25 million over five years to encourage innovative responses to address the behaviour of perpetrators and $12.6 million over two years to extend the program assisting temporary visa holders who are experiencing family and domestic violence. In total, $104.4 million will also be provided to continue and expand the role of Our Watch, a really important institution that is ensuring that we are properly researching and understanding prevention in many groups. I've talked about my portfolio, but there have been many very good investments in the seat of Kingston in this budget. Over the last nine years I have lamented so many times in this place the lack of investment in our health and hospital system. The previous government just completely ignored our primary health system and ignored our health and hospital system, so I was pleased that in this budget investing in our healthcare system is a high priority, with a $2.9 billion package to strengthen Medicare, driving an innovation to revamp Australia's primary healthcare network. In addition, cheaper medicines will result from this budget, something that's been very much welcomed. Many families are telling me the cost of medicines is really hurting them. There has also been an investment in the Flinders Medical Centre, which is the medical centre I was born in. As pressure has mounted on this medical centre, it has desperately needed investment. This budget delivers $200 million towards expanding our Flinders Medical Centre. We have also seen the commitment for a Medicare urgent care clinic in the southern suburbs of Adelaide, a critical investment to ensure that local residents can get timely health care. This is new investment in health care in our community, which people have been crying out for for so long. We will also be establishing a new facility at the Repat with 24 beds as part of an older persons care unit, ensuring that those in the southern suburbs have timely access to quality health care. In this budget, there has also been an important investment towards delivering an entry and exit ramp to the Southern Expressway at Majors Road. The former Liberal government, whether it was the state or the federal government, refused many, many times my request for this funding, despite the now state Liberal leader and local member saying it was his No. 1 priority. He actually took a video of himself driving down this road saying it was his No. 1 priority, but, unfortunately, he has not only abandoned that promise but also spread misinformation about the impact that this project will have on the local community. In fact, there will be minimal impact on Glenthorne National Park, Riding for the Disabled and all the other areas. It will not affect the current bike paths but will provide new and better bike paths. I think that the local member was trying to cover up for his lack of action after saying it was his No. 1 priority in a video. This is a good investment. It will better connect the southern suburbs to the North-South Motorway, which of course we will continue to see progress on. There were other facility upgrades in this budget across my electorate. There were really important commitments to local reserves and local parks but, importantly, also to our urban rivers. I think often the focus comes off our urban rivers, but they are critically important to the natural environment, particularly in outer suburban areas, so this is incredibly important. The investment in the Paul Murray Recreation Centre, home to the growing Hub Gymnastics, is a really important investment. This was a budget that not only delivered nationally but also delivered locally. It was a budget right for the times that was about economic productivity, growing our economy in a responsible way and not adding to that difficult problem of inflation that we are currently facing and that has made it difficult for families. This was responsible and it was right. I commend the budget to the House. 17:07 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman My constituents wanted two things from this budget. They wanted the government to honour commitments made to my community of the Redlands, and they wanted real action to address the cost-of-living crisis being felt right across Australia. Labor has failed on both of these counts. While the Treasurer fancies himself as an economic commentator—he fancies himself as the inheritor of the Hawke-Keating government's legacy of reform—this budget does nothing to address the challenges facing Australia's economy. It does even less for the communities that I represent in this place. This budget does nothing to assist household budgets. In fact, the spending contained in the budget will simply create more inflationary pressure at a time when we can least afford it. There is no credible plan to deal with the sources of inflation or to help families deal with immediate cost-of-living pressures. This budget confirms that your cost of living is going up, your electricity and gas bills are going up, your tax payments are going up, government spending is going up and employment will go down. Real wages, of course, are also forecast to go down. Just before the election, the Prime Minister told Australians that they would be better off under a Labor government. This appears to be just another broken promise. There's been a few of those in the very short life of the new government. They promised cheaper energy, but Labor's own budget numbers confirm that electricity and gas prices are expected to rise sharply over the next two years. Treasury has assumed that retail electricity prices will increase by 50 per cent. Retail gas prices are up some 40 per cent in 2022-23. They promised increasing real wages, but Labor's forecasts reveal that wages will fall over the coming years. They promised to bring down the cost of living, but there is not one measure in this budget which will help families struggling with the cost of living this year. This budget also shows that inflation will remain higher for longer, and Labor has no plan to address it. They promised to get quite a bit to my local area, too, which isn't forthcoming in this budget. The Albanese Labor opposition made $4.6 million in local sporting and community commitments in the electorate of Bowman during the recent federal election. Just to name a few of these commitments, there was $500,000 to expand the premises and provide more support for victims of domestic violence at the Centre for Women in Cleveland; there was $1.9 million for health infrastructure support, including an expansion of their facilities, at the Yulu-Burri-Ba clinic at Dunwich, North Stradbroke Island; and there was a myriad of different supporting club commitments as well. These clubs and associations were waiting anxiously for news on the budget to see how and when they would have these commitments honoured by the new government. The government was quick to point us in the direction of two different funding streams contained in the budget papers: $1 billion over five years from the 2022-23 Priority Community Infrastructure Program, which includes a closed grants program to deliver the government's election commitments; and $349.9 million over five years from the 2022-23 Investing in Our Communities Program to deliver small-scale community sport and infrastructure projects across Australia, which is also a closed grants program to deliver the government's election commitments. I note that those two funding streams are over five years, beyond the forward estimates. These were commitments that were made for this parliamentary term. Not only are they outside of this parliamentary term; they are outside of this budget cycle. They go beyond the forward estimates. Who knows what will happen? I think the last few years have taught us that we cannot predict what is happening in the next year or two, let alone the next five. Let's leave the issue of timing to one side for the moment and look at the quantum of funding. These figures give me a beautiful insight into how the government will be approaching this type of community funding, a government that has made such a virtue of how it doles out our public funding fairly and evenly across the country. The $4.9 million committed to Bowman projects represents a mere 0.341 per cent of the total funding within these two streams. When I attempted to calculate this using Microsoft Excel, it rounded down to zero. I had to adjust the number of decimal places to get it to show. As I stand here as one of 151 members of this chamber, my community should receive a 150th of the share of this funding. Instead, we are receiving just over a one in 293 share. So why does my community get about half of what we're due? Is it something to do with the fact that the Liberal Party has held the seat for 18 years? I think we all know the answer to that. Then we go to the big commitments made by the former coalition government for projects in my electorate, which the new government is required to honour in order to complete these projects. The first of those I'll mention is the Wellington Street and Panorama Drive intersection upgrades, which were announced back in January 2019. This is $15 million. There have been some delays from the Redland City Council in terms of getting this program shovel-ready, and, with the increase in costs and labour at the moment, it is certainly a challenge, but there is absolutely no clarity from the budget on the future of this project. We've also got the Redland Hospital stage 1 expansion project. Back in May 2019, the then federal Liberal-National government committed $30 million to this project. I understand that $13.2 million of that is yet to be paid and is expected to be payable by the state Labor government, at least, upon acceptance of a progress report for that project. There have been considerable Queensland government delays. I gave another speech in this chamber a few weeks back on the nature of those delays and how disappointing it's been that the state Labor government—despite the fact they have received federal funding for this project—have failed to deliver it so far. There's still a whole section of funding for that project that's still required to come from the federal government. There's no word from the new federal government on where the rest of the funding for this project will be coming from. Of course, there's one that's very close to my heart, and that is the Head to Health facility in Redland Bay. We are underserviced in a big way in terms of mental health facilities in the Redlands. The previous federal government announced $3.4 million over four years to deliver a new Head to Health facility in the new satellite hospital that's being built at Weinam Creek in Redland Bay. When I wrote to the minister to ask what's happening with this funding, I was informed that they're going back to the drawing board. They're going to go back and ask the state governments and the primary health networks to resubmit their proposals for this funding. There's no word and no clarity on the future of appropriation in this budget—certainly nothing that gives my community any peace of mind. Let's zoom back out to the national level. The Albanese government has again failed to limit taxes imposed on Australians. Under Labor, the tax paid by Australians will increase by $142 billion over the forward estimates. They have abandoned the 23.9 per cent of GDP tax cut, which the previous governments stuck to, and they have no plan to reduce spending. Of course this budget, and the media commentary many MPs engaged in in the lead-up to it, delivers no certainty for the 10 million Australians who are looking forward to their legislated tax relief due in July 2024. I note we have another federal budget between now and then, and I look forward eagerly to see where the government goes on that front. I think we all know where they're going with it. In fact, this budget is already adding new taxes. Despite ruling out these changes before the election, Labor will hit retirees and investors with a new $555 million tax, depriving investors of franking credits which they have previously relied on. Labor's sneaky new tax will slug people who have invested their own savings in superannuation. Despite tax increases, we have discovered there is already a $1 billion hole in Labor's budget. At the election, Labor promised a crackdown on multinational tax avoidance to the tune of $1.9 billion over the next four years, but, lo and behold, the budget confirms that this measure is now expected to generate only $950 million, resulting in a $1 billion black hole in Labor's first budget. Sadly, Labor have waved the white flag on productivity, and GDP growth has been downgraded significantly. That is of significant concern because one of the beauties that we have had as a nation for a very long period of time has been the strength of our GDP growth. The Treasurer may have written a PhD on Paul Keating, but that 1980s spirit of boosting productivity is completely missing from this budget. I want to go back and dwell on those local projects that we are still waiting for news on from the current government. I have outlined the fact that the Bowman electorate is going to receive half of what we should be entitled to when it comes to those local, small-scale election commitments the previous government made. Of course they are not going to be as ambitious in a seat they haven't held for 18 years. They're not going to be as generous. We didn't see as many then shadow ministers and now ministers coming to my electorate and making big promises, but I'd really encourage them to come. I would love to take a Labor minister around and show them some of the projects in my electorate that require funding, and projects that were funded by the previous government which have now had a cloud put over them by a complete lack of clarity about what the future holds for those projects. Unfortunately, they can rely on the state government being very slow in delivering a lot of these projects. That has become a feature of the Queensland Labor government. We have seen a lot of federal funding brought to the table for big projects, and unfortunately the state Labor government are becoming very tired and lazy in getting around to actually spending that money on the projects that we need in the Redlands. This budget fails Australian families at a time when they really need a plan to address cost-of-living pressures. I've been doing a lot of doorknocking in my electorate; it's one of the things I like to do most when I get there. There's beautiful weather in South-East Queensland at this time of year, and I've been making my way around the streets of Bowman and talking to families about issues of concern to them. They are talking about the erosion of the value of their dollar. That is the No. 1 concern for them, and this budget offers no hope on that front. They are talking about the increases in energy costs. They are talking about broken promises of the Labor Party in terms of the plans for $275 for household energy bills, which have now been abandoned. The government can't bring themselves to admit it. There is absolutely nothing in this budget that I can point to for them as to relief on cost of living. The appropriation bills will of course, as is appropriate, pass through the parliament. The budget is set in stone and it won't change. There is an opportunity for this government to reflect on what they have actually delivered with this budget—or what they haven't delivered in this budget. Take a look, as they prepare over the Christmas period to deliver a May budget, and reflect on what this country actually needs to get us ahead. What do we actually need to put downward pressure on inflation? It's not more government spending. That's the last thing we need. We need concrete action. We need action on energy prices and we need to make sure that we are not spending too much government money at a time when increasing cost pressures across projects are making it harder for the private sector to get things done, as well. I will finish by laying down a challenge for the Treasurer. Please stop commenting on the economic challenges facing our nation and start taking the steps necessary to address them. That's what the people of my electorate want to see. Yes, of course we want to see more funding for local projects. Yes, we want to see our hospital upgraded. Yes, we want to see the Redland Bay Head to Health facility delivered as promised by the previous government. Yes, we want to see the Wellington Street and Panorama Drive intersections upgraded. Yes, we want to see the car park at Redland hospital upgraded as well. But take the time to get this right in May. The Treasurer needs to change gears from PhD student to the head of the ministry of the Treasury, the person with chief responsibility for our national economy. I encourage him to get to work on a budget next May that actually delivers for Australians. 17:21 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand The Albanese government's first budget delivers for the people of Brand and will ensure that no one is left behind. The Albanese government will deliver cheaper child care for the people of Brand. Over the last eight years, childcare costs have increased by more than 40 per cent, which is a huge cost to families and a disincentive to parents, especially mums, to go out and do more paid work and continue their careers. Under the government's plans for cheaper child care, around 7,000 local families in Brand will be much better off. As an example, a family earning a combined income of $120,000 a year with one child in early education and care will be more than $1,700 better off. This plan is good for children, good for families and good for our economy. It's an important education and economic reform, and this government is taking action through offering cheaper child care to more families across Rockingham and Kwinana to address cost-of-living pressures. As outlined in the October budget, the Albanese government is investing $2.4 million to upgrade Thomas Oval in Medina. Keeping active and connected is so important for the local community. Participation in community sports contributes to physical wellness, creates strong social bonds and improves mental health. Upgrades to the facilities at Thomas Oval will pay benefits for years to come, especially for the very enthusiastic local rugby league players. The improvements will mean a great deal for sporting clubs like the Kwinana Titans rugby league and Kwinana Titans touch football clubs. The upgrades will mean local people in my electorate will have a better place to take their kids to play sport right there at home in Medina. The people of Brand have every right to expect that these kinds of flexibilities be of the same standard as those offered in other metropolitan cities. I think it will mean that in the future we will see more NRL sporting legends come out of Kwinana. I've got to admit I'm an Aussie Rules fan; I'm new to NRL. I'm slowly catching on, and I'm loving it more and more each time I see a game, so good luck to all those teams in Kwinana. The budget included $135 million to open 50 urgent-care clinics across Australia over the next four years. One of these clinics will be based in Rockingham near the Rockingham General Hospital. The clinic will be tailored to meet the needs of the Brand community and will help ease pressure on the local hospital's very busy emergency department. That's good for everyone across Rockingham and Kwinana who needs urgent care. It means that families will get to see a doctor sooner. The Albanese government's first budget also includes an investment of $46.7 million for 10 additional veterans and families hubs across the country. This investment more than doubles the size of the existing network. There will be $5 million going towards a new veterans centre in my electorate of Brand. This centre will be a one-stop shop for veterans and their families to access assistance from government, health services, ex-service organisations and community groups. My electorate encompasses Garden Island and HMAS Stirling naval base, the largest naval base in the country, and has a large defence population. Around 4,000 Defence personnel call Rockingham home, and their families do as well, of course. Over 5,000 veterans also live across Rockingham and Kwinana. This veterans hub will be of enormous importance to the local community, which welcomes the Defence Force and always has, ever since Stirling began its great part in our community of Rockingham. I would now like to take the time to acknowledge some of the magnificent work done by community organisations and individuals in my electorate over the last few months. Last month, the City of Rockingham hosted the Rockingham Seniors and Carers Expo. Just like in previous years, the expo was a huge success thanks to the enormous effort of everyone involved. It's an enormously popular expo, and, of course, it has not been happening because of COVID, so everyone was very pleased to be back in the Mike Barnett Sports Complex to see the expo. I want to congratulate all the stallholders who attended and thank everyone who took the time to come and talk to my team and me as I walked around the venue, to ask questions or even just say a nice hello. Seniors are an important and integral part of our community, and it's crucial that they have access to the most up to date information and the best care possible. The Rockingham Seniors and Carers Expo offers people the opportunity to ask questions in person and explore options about care and the many other services available to them. I attended the expo alongside my state colleagues—the member for Warnbro, Paul Papalia, and the member for Kwinana, Roger Cook—and both of their teams. Our stall provided information on Labor's plan to put the care back into aged care for the people in our communities as well as millions of people across the country. Across from our stall at the expo were representatives from the Southern Communities Advocacy Legal and Education Service, or SCALES. SCALES provides free legal advice, assistance and advocacy to people living in the City of Kwinana and the City of Rockingham who would otherwise be limited in their access to legal services. SCALES also provides vital support to women fleeing domestic violence. Last year, SCALES was the recipient of a grant facilitated through my office, which was used to renovate their family violence unit. Earlier this year, I had the chance to visit the clinic and catch up with some of the workers and volunteers. I was reminded of the vital importance of services like SCALES, and I was inspired by their unwavering commitment to the community. SCALES is just one of those many community groups right across the country, particularly in my electorate of Brand, that work so hard for the people of their community—of Rockingham and Kwinana. I'd like to acknowledge one of our community's outstanding volunteers, Mr Owen Farmer. Owen is a past winner of the City of Rockingham Community Citizen of the Year Award, and I have known Owen for many years. In fact, when I first got elected in 2016, he was one of my first volunteers. Aside from helping me to get elected, he has worked tirelessly—arguably much more importantly—to advocate for people in our community, particularly those impacted by homelessness. In October, he teamed up with the Salvation Army and the City of Rockingham's deputy mayor, Hayley Edwards, for the Rough it for Rockingham initiative. Rough it for Rockingham involved a sleep out held in conjunction with World Homeless Day and aimed to raise both awareness and funds for those in our community living rough. So far, Rough it for Rockingham has raised nearly $25,000. I really want to thank everyone involved not only for this initiative but for your ongoing commitment to those that are doing it tough in our community, particularly over the winter. Owen has supposedly announced his retirement from his advocacy and activism. I'm sure he doesn't mean it, and I'm sure he will be back out there. He is a tireless worker for the community. Thank you so much, Owen. At this year's Perth Airport WA Tourism Awards, two organisations in my electorate were recognised as some of the top tourism operators in Western Australia. The Rockingham Visitor Centre took home silver in the visitor information services category, and the Rotary Club of Palm Beach was also awarded silver in the festivals and events category for last year's Channel 7 Rockingham Beach Cup. The Rockingham Beach Cup is held every year and combines a day at the races with a day at one of Australia's most beautiful beaches—that is, Rockingham Beach. The 2022 beach cup took place last weekend. Unfortunately, I could not attend, as I was overseas, but I have been in the past, and it is a fantastic celebration of horses and racing but also of the local community. More than 20,000 people flocked to the beach in their best outfits and fanciest hats to watch on as jockey Kate Witten rode horse Decoy Noxious to victory. I'd like to congratulate the Rockingham Visitor Centre and the Rotary Club of Palm Beach for their tremendous achievements and also, of course, congratulate Kate Witten for winning what I think is one of the biggest events in Australia's racing calendar. I'll take no argument from those in Victoria! Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my friend and colleague the Hon. Alannah MacTiernan MLC, who is bringing her long parliamentary career to an end. Remarkably, and possibly uniquely in this country, and perhaps anywhere in the world—it's hard to know—Alannah has served at all levels of government in Australia. She first became a member of the WA Legislative Council in 1993 and then became a member of the WA Legislative Assembly from 1996 to 2010. She went on to become the mayor of the City of Vincent, in the metropolitan area of Perth, from 2011 to 2013. She then moved on from the City of Vincent and became the member for Perth in this place for a term from 2013 to 2016. After that she returned to state politics and again became an MLC at the 2017 Western Australian state election. It's hard to keep track of Alannah. Since that election she has been a minister in the highly successful McGowan government of WA. Anyone who knows or has met Alannah knows what a force she is. There are many members in this place now who worked with her while she was the member for Perth, and I'm very lucky to have worked with Alannah in her role as the current Minister for Regional Development; Agriculture and Food; Hydrogen Industry. She attended the Northern Australia Ministerial Forum recently in Darwin and, as always, had so much to contribute. In Western Australia, Alannah MacTiernan is a legend. For my community she literally changed the lives of many people. Some people might forget this, but as the minister responsible for infrastructure at the time she was responsible for the construction and ultimate opening of the Mandurah rail line, which travels about 70 kilometres from Mandurah, in the south, to the Perth CBD. This changed Rockingham and Warnbro and Kwinana and Wellard—four of the stations along the rail line. As someone who grew up in Rockingham, to get to Perth when I was a young person you had to sit on a bus from Rockingham to the city for at least two hours, so you kind of didn't go or you had to wait until someone turned 17 and got a drivers licence. Or you'd sit on a bus and get annoyed. You couldn't get out of town to go and visit other places. I bought my first home with my husband in Shoalwater Bay before the rail line was constructed and used to commute up to the University of Western Australia by car. It became one of the most depressing experiences. When you have to take long commutes on crowded roads with no public transport availability, it can really make a dent in your attitude to work and also to your home life. What Alannah did, and what the state government at the time did by investing in the southern suburbs railway, changed the lives of many. It made what was around a two-hour commute on a bus or an hour and a half by car into a 35-minute rail commute. To this day, I sometimes get on the train from Rockingham up to the city instead of driving to Perth. It's only when there are risks involved that I cannot do it, but it is certainly the easiest, most convenient way to get around. It allows easy transport, and it was delivered by Alannah on time and on budget. I've had the chance over three elections to campaign in the towns of Rockingham and Kwinana. Sometimes I campaign with Premier Mark McGowan who, some might be aware, is enormously popular in Western Australia. You'll go through shopping centres with him, and people come and say hello. But when I go to shopping centres and campaign with Alannah MacTiernan in my home town of Rockingham we are literally mobbed. People love that woman because she delivered so much for them—important infrastructure that changed their lives and enabled them to access affordable transport from their homes in the outer suburbs of the metropolitan area into the city. They didn't have to do the long car trips. I know people may think I'm over-egging the importance of public transport, but can I tell you that after spending a year driving in a car for an hour and a half, back and forth to Perth, the change that it made to my life and to others was enormous. Aside from that, she has done so much in other portfolios—in regional development and in agriculture. She has shown her enthusiasm for Western Australia and all of its potential. In regional development, she is an advocate for mining and resources, just like all Western Australia ministers are. She knows the value of that industry to our state and, therefore, our country. Alannah deserves a quiet retirement. I'm not sure her personality will permit that, but, in any event, I do wish her and her family a fun retirement. I thank you for your friendship, Alannah, and for all the great advice you gave me as I set out to become a member of this place, and I wish you well. 17:35 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee In my role as the shadow assistant minister for regional development and member for Mallee, I am passionate about regional Australia and I am passionate about my home electorate. Mallee is the largest division in Victoria, comprising over one-third of the state, with 83,412 square kilometres in my electorate. That is a lot of ground to cover, and a lot of infrastructure is required to meet the needs of Mallee residents. The 12 local councils in Mallee are committed to getting their local projects off the ground and ensuring residents and visitors alike benefit from them. Many of my fellow coalition MPs represent country areas too, with the same desire to see their electorates prosper. But, before a sod can be turned, before a switch can be flicked or before a contract can be signed, there needs to be one key thing, and that is funding—funding which turns a dream into reality. That word buys materials, pays wages and ensures projects get off paper and into bricks and mortar. Without funding, there are no projects and no progress. Labor's axing of the Building Better Regions Fund round 6 and the Community Development Grants Program in this year's budget robbed the regions of that funding that they desperately need. For Mallee, the removal of this funding was far reaching and hurts so many people. For example, it impacts family businesses which rely on tourists who would visit and stay at Beaufort, from funding applied for by the Pyrenees Shire Council. It takes away the opportunity for students to study medicine in Mildura at La Trobe University because their biomedical wet lab funding has been taken away. This is a crying shame. Time and time again, our best and brightest students with a goal to become a doctor or an allied health worker need to leave the regions and go to the city in order to study. And time and time again, we lose them permanently. They fall in love, find a good placement near the hustle and bustle of city life, and spread their wings. The problem for smaller regional towns is that most don't come back. Being able to train healthcare workers locally at La Trobe University in a wet lab would help solve that problem. No longer would all potential doctors and nurses leave the region to study in the city. They can choose to stay, to do their placements locally, and contribute significantly to solving the regional healthcare crisis. Minister King, the minister for infrastructure, paints all projects delivered to the regions under the Building Better Regions Fund and the Community Development Grants Program, as pork-barrelling—as favouring coalition seats. It is the ultimate hypocrisy, given what we know. Minister King's government will describe coalition funding for the regions as a rort, all the while granting $2.2 billion of funding to the state Labor government which is heading into an election next week. This funding is not for regional projects in Mallee but for Dan Andrews's suburban rail loop—a project the Victorian Auditor-General has stated he has yet to see the economic rationale for. While Labor like to say that Infrastructure Australia should approve large-scale projects such as the Suburban Rail Loop, they have not sighted it. Let's face it, the promise of the Suburban Rail Loop in Melbourne helps Labor's re-election in contested urban seats. I understand Minister King doesn't see it this way, but it cannot be seen as anything but politicisation, given her views on regional funding by the coalition. It is the role of every politician in this building to deliver for their electorate. The coalition delivered for Mallee, Wannon, Bendigo, Ballarat, Parkes, Maranoa, Durack and Grey—all regional seats—because we represent regional seats. Given the Liberal and National parties represent the majority of regional communities, they are therefore more likely to benefit from a regional grants program than the Labor Party, which unsurprisingly represents fewer regional electorates. The National Party supports our regions; we fight for our communities' interests. I have invited Minister King to visit and meet with stakeholders in my electorate and see how important the projects in Mallee are. She is welcome to drive up the Calder Highway, if she can get through, and tell people in Mallee why they don't deserve the funding. She can explain how the funding we have delivered or had promised in the election amounts to corrupt rorting of the system. History provides some salient evidence of the pot calling the kettle black. In 2013, under Labor and the prime ministership of Kevin Rudd, Minister King was the Minister for Regional Australia, Local Government and Territories. Labor had the Regional Development Australia Fund, with Minister King having the power to sign off on or scrap projects. It was a predecessor to the Building Better Regions Fund, designed to ensure regional Australia genuinely got its slice of the pie. It was in this period that the Australian National Audit Office highlighted some interesting facts. Fact No. 1 is that more than a quarter of all projects approved by Minister King under rounds 3 and 4 of that fund had not been recommended for funding by the advisory panel. Fact No. 2 is that 80 per cent of decisions Minister King made to not award funding, even though they had been approved by an advisory panel, were located in coalition held electorates. Fact No. 3 is that Minister King approved 23 projects worth almost $91 million that the advisory panel specifically recommended not to fund as they did not represent value for money or failed to achieve the objects of the program according to the Australian National Audit Office. These projects were of course in Labor seats. Fact No. 4 is that, in round 3 of the Regional Development Australia Fund alone, 93 per cent of recommended applications that were rejected were from coalition electorates. The Australian National Audit Office has already reported on the merits of the Building Better Regions Fund, despite what Minister King says. It acknowledged that Building Better Regions was well designed in a number of respects, and the last two rounds were structured to support communities through tough circumstances, including drought, bushfires, floods and the ongoing effects of COVID-19 in regional communities. We know the Audit Office is non-partisan; it gives a straight-down-the-line account and fair judgement, which is all that regional Australia should be expecting from their minister. Again, I call on Minister King to reflect on how she can ensure the regions get their fair share—and, by 'regions in Victoria', I do not mean Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong. When Australia was in the middle of the pandemic and cities looked like ghost towns, it was our regions that continued producing, and their reward has been only lip service from the Labor government's recent budget. But the coalition has given them the model to change this. We have a proud record when it comes to infrastructure spending in the regions. We delivered record investments across Australia, supporting 40,000 jobs. The coalition government increased the federal infrastructure investment pipeline in the March 2022-23 budget to $120 billion to create new jobs, keep people and freight moving and drive economic growth. The coalition's last budget also announced an additional $17.9 billion for road, rail and community infrastructure projects across Australia. We know that Australia relies on its regions, and the regions know they can rely on the coalition to deliver. Labor has a chance to show the regions that they can rely on them, too. If they do so, I would be the first to congratulate them. They may not have started well with the cuts to regional infrastructure funding, including to projects such as the $6.4 million Sawyer Park pavilion upgrade applied for by the Horsham Rural City Council, or the cut to the $3.5 million re-imagining Robinvale project applied for by Swan Hill Rural City Council, or the $845,000 Dunmunkle child care applied for by the Yarriambiack Shire Council. The good news with that particular application is that the state government, both sides, have approved that funding. I heartily congratulate the Yarriambiack Shire Council on their persistence and their diligence in fighting for this childcare centre. There's the $1 million Beaufort Lakeside Tourism Park development applied for by the Pyrenees Shire Council, also applied for in the Building Better Regions funding; there's the Mildura Clay Target Club's $1.6 million upgrade, which was applied for by the company Green Range; and there's the $5.1 million Nexus Accommodation project applied for by the Birchip Cropping Group. The Birchip Cropping Group is outstanding in its innovation in drawing scientists to a regional area to look at agriculture for the future. It desperately needs accommodation and has had its extensive business case and the plans drawn up. It's now waiting for potentially another program to rise. These projects were all projects under the Building Better Regions round 6 funding. As for the Community Development Grants Program, Labor cuts have affected the Mildura Tracks and Trails—13½ million. It's an incredibly important project for tourism to link the Murray from one end to the other to improve healthy lifestyles for everyone who wants to travel to the regions. La Trobe University and Cann Group in Mildura lose out on $5 million for research between medical cannabis growth and La Trobe University, a fantastic project that would again see scientists rise in our regional areas. Davis Park in Nhill is set back $1.6 million that it will not be receiving from the current government. La Trobe University Biomedical Wet Lab I've already spoken about. Deledio Reserve in Dunnolly, $3.6 million. Karinie Street reconstruction project in Swan Hill, $2½ million. And upgrades to Castle Crossing Road in Nangiloc, currently dealing with major floods, will desperately need even more funding than the $290,000 promised in the Community Development Grants Program. Despite the current poor outcome for regional communities in Mallee, they are typically quite understanding. They don't hold grudges and work on solutions. It's time for Labor to assure country people that they will not abandon the regions. Help our Mallee towns build childcare centres to get their children looked after and give parents the option to get back to work. Help the Mallee tourism industry get visitors back to our beautiful pristine Mallee country, particularly once the floods have dispersed. Help regional education to train our next workforce and to keep our local brightest sparkling in the regions. Do these things and Labor will be giving people in Mallee the infrastructure funding they deserve. I am calling on Labor to show respect to the regions. I will always fight for the people of Mallee and for regional communities across Australia, but I call on Labor to step up and do the same. 17:49 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle In May this year, the people of Newcastle joined voters from across this vast continent who went to the polls to elect a new government, a Labor government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. I am so very grateful to the people of Newcastle for the faith they have entrusted in me to represent them once again, giving me this opportunity to stand on their behalf in this Australian parliament. I have never stopped standing up for Newcastle since my election in 2013, though at times it was incredibly challenging to push from the opposition benches for progress from a coalition government that never really understood us Novocastrians and never really understood our region. But I'll admit that it is much, much better to be in government, although I am very conscious of never taking a single day or moment of this for granted. We have a big agenda and we are getting stuck in. I'm thrilled to be part of a Labor government determined to build a better future for Newcastle. Newcastle has always been a forward-thinking and progressive city, and Novocastrians are smart, full of initiative, gritty, determined and incredibly engaged. In fact, in my first speech in this parliament, back in 2013, I paid tribute to Sharon Grierson, my predecessor as the federal member for Newcastle, and to her vision of Newcastle as a centre of excellence for clean energy research and innovation. I thank those former Rudd and Gillard Labor governments for believing in Newcastle and investing in our future. Now Labor has once again returned to government, we're building on that vision and ensuring that Newcastle remains at the forefront of opportunity and progress in all forms of energy, as well as in education, health care, aged care and infrastructure. We're making sure that women's equality is at the heart of all our policies, because what's good for women is good for everyone. It's good for our economy. It's good for our society. This government understands that if you have a big tent and include everyone in it, there is actually more to be gained than by leaving people excluded. Newcastle was overlooked by the former coalition government for nearly a decade. Now Labor is getting on with the big reforms that will change lives and the local projects that will help shape Newcastle's future. We're delivering on commitments that we made to the Australian people, including cheaper child care. More than 7,300 families in Newcastle stand to benefit directly from those changes. We're expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks and remedying gross anomalies that, perversely, have disincentivised some parents from being able to take leave because they haven't fitted the traditional model of a family unit. We have now made massive investments into social and affordable housing. There is perhaps no issue that concentrates the minds of people in my community more than the fact that we are seeing generations of Novocastrians being priced out of homeownership and increased levels of homelessness, particularly amongst vulnerable people in our communities. We are delivering on long-overdue climate action and we are delivering cheaper medicines and accessible health services. We are less than six months into government and we are not wasting a second. I now turn to some of the very localised commitments that we made during the election and that I am enormously proud of delivering. The first—and I note that the member for Hunter joins me in the chamber right now—is the saving of the GP Access After Hours service in our region. The GP Access After Hours service at my local Calvary Mater Newcastle hospital was forced to close its doors on Christmas Eve after years of cuts from the coalition government. At the same time, the operating hours were reduced at the four remaining clinics at the Belmont Hospital, Maitland Hospital, John Hunter Hospital and the Toronto Polyclinic, which sits in the member for Hunter's electorate. All of this was at a time when we were in the midst of a global pandemic and people needed access to quality health care more than ever. It has been a vital service not just during pandemics; I can assure everybody in this house there is not a single family in my electorate that has not made use of this service. It has been vital for every family in our region, but the Liberals turned off the lights and stripped away access to affordable and accessible health services in our region. That was the thanks. The Christmas present to Newcastle was to close the Calvary Mater clinic doors on Christmas Eve. Labor is restoring that funding as a priority and is making sure that the GP access after-hours service is sustainable long into the future. This funding will mean patients are able to access face-to-face and telehealth primary-care services outside of usual business hours because—guess what!—kids don't get sick conveniently between 9 am and 5 pm. These services will be bulk-billed and delivered by local GPs and registered nurses and will significantly reduce the pressure on our emergency departments. What you earn or where you live should never determine your access to affordable health care. We have also helped the Kaden Centre in my electorate. Last year I was told that the Kaden Centre exercise clinic for cancer patients was being forced to close its doors. The Kaden Centre provides affordable, individualised exercise programs for oncology patients, some of whom travel long distances to access the support that this centre provides. There is nowhere else in our region that provides the kinds of oncology exercise programs that are provided through the Kaden Centre. I knew we could not afford to lose this vital service, so Labor has provided $1 million to reopen the Kaden Centre and keep it functioning as an integral part of cancer care in our region and beyond. Let's think about climate change. Our Labor government is taking climate change seriously, and that is why we have delivered on our election promise to set a 43 per cent target to reduce emissions by 2030. This is a baseline. If we can do better we will do better, but to keep us on track we've reinstated the Climate Change Authority, stocked with leading scientists and experts to monitor the targets and provide specialist advice to government. We're investing in solar banks, electric vehicle infrastructure, upgrading Australia's electricity grid, rolling out 10,000 new-energy apprenticeships and skilling the clean energy workforce. That's not all, but it's a very good start. With our highly skilled workforce, our abundant resources, our industrial expertise and our superb rail and port infrastructure, Newcastle is poised to take full advantage of the new-energy industries. That's why we are investing $16 million for a new-energy skill centre at the University of Newcastle to train the workforce of the future. We're also investing $100 million in a green hydrogen hub at the port of Newcastle. Newcastle, our region, has powered Australia for generations, and investments like these mean that our region will continue to drive forward the next generation of growth and become a new-energy superpower in our region. This new facility will test and invent solutions to global challenges when it comes the use of hydrogen and other new-energy industries. The skills, the techniques and the technologies developed by this project will enable local industry to grow to its fullest potential. We are thinking ahead and we are planning for the future, because that's what Labor governments do. The Australian Labor Party has always known the value of access to education, which is why we have created almost 1,000 additional new places at the University of Newcastle and we have committed to fee-free TAFE for skills-shortage sectors. I think former Labor prime minister Gough Whitlam put it best when he said: Everybody in Australia is entitled … to the same educational facilities, whether it be in respect of education at the kindergarten or tertiary stage or the post-graduate stage. I note we are soon to mark the 50th anniversary of Gough Whitlam as our Prime Minister. His vision and the work of successive Labor governments mean that we now have close to half of all students who complete high school going on to receive a tertiary education, whether that is at university or TAFE. Whether you are in Newcastle or Sydney or Wilcannia, everyone should have the same educational opportunities from the very start. I know that in regions like ours there are people who have really struggled to gain access to tertiary education. Those 937 additional Commonwealth supported places at university are going to open the doors to a whole lot of kids who might otherwise not have had the opportunity to benefit from a quality tertiary education. At a time when so many of our communities are undergoing massive change, a quality education is never more important. When we look at schools in these past few years, it's been especially difficult for a lot of Australian kids in school, which is why our government is investing $474.5 million over two years to help students bounce back. All schools will benefit from the $203.7 million Student Wellbeing Boost. A new voluntary mental health check tool will also assist schools to identify students who are struggling so they can get the help they need. The Schools Upgrade Fund will provide $270.8 million to support improvements in ventilation and air quality as well as larger refurbishments to public schools. The government will also deliver on our commitment to help tackle the teacher shortage, investing in bursaries worth up to $40,000 each, and expanding the High Achieving Teachers program to attract our very best to what is the most important of professions. We are investing in transport infrastructure, and rail in particular plays a significant role in connecting people to their families and employment opportunities and improving accessibility and liveability of regional communities like Newcastle. We have committed $500 million for early works for high-speed rail between Sydney and Newcastle, and in the meantime we are working on faster rail. No more talking about it; we're making it happen. Labor's National Rail Manufacturing Plan will ensure that more trains are built right here in Australia by local manufacturing workers. Every dollar of federal funding spent on rail projects will go towards creating local jobs and providing a sustainable industry. Newcastle Olympic Football Club is one of the many sporting organisations that were dudded in the government's infamous sports rorts—cheated by almost half a million dollars despite their hard work and excellent submission, which an independent assessment gave a higher score than other projects in then government-held seats which did receive funding. That's why Labor has righted this wrong and returned funding to the Hamilton Olympic sporting club. We have invested $4.7 million to begin the process of restoring sand to Stockton Beach. We will also fund feasibility studies to identify additional sources of sand to fix what has been a terrible oversight and a critical need in that community. This critical funding would not have happened without strong advocacy and activism of the Stockton community. Their role in the fight to save Stockton Beach has been crucial, and I thank them for their courage, determination and commitment. This victory is yours. I am committed to the people of Newcastle in representing them in this parliament and delivering for our city. 18:04 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls This budget is really a missed opportunity for rural and regional Australians. It's missing programs for rural and regional Australians and missing projects for rural and regional Australians. If regional Australia were a dartboard, the walls around it would be full of holes. The government isn't spending less, but it is spending less in regional and rural Australia. The regions, including my electorate of Nicholls, are suffering the same cost-of-living pressures as the rest of Australia. The median weekly family income is $1,682 according to the 2021 census data collected by the ABS, and that is significantly less than the median of $2,136 for Victoria and $2,120 nationally, so the people in my electorate are doing it particular tough. For 30 per cent of renters in Nicholls, their weekly rent payments are greater than 30 per cent of their weekly household income, and for those who are in their own home with a mortgage, at the time of the census, 11.5 per cent had monthly payments equal to, or greater than, 30 per cent of their household income. But of course this has got worse because, since the census, interest rates have gone up and up and up, in a bid to curb rapidly rising inflation. The proportion spending more than a third of their income to cover their mortgage will have surely risen significantly, and more rate rises are being flagged. These families in Nicholls are under pressure on multiple fronts. More of their income is going to just keep a roof over their heads, while at the same time they are paying more to put food on the table and put fuel in the family car. The budget, which enshrines ambitious emissions targets and a rapid transition to renewable energy, places even more pressure on families. Under this budget, the cost of living of many Australians—most Australians, but particularly people in my electorate of Nicholls—is going up. Power prices are going up by more than 50 per cent, and gas prices are going up by more than 40 per cent. Taxes are going up, with $142 billion more in receipts to be collected. Unemployment is forced to go up. Real wages, despite the rhetoric of this government, are forced to go down, and interest rates, as I have already said, are continuing to go up. It's a high-taxing and high-spending budget that does nothing to help families get ahead. Families in Nicholls needed a budget with a clear plan to tackle cost-of-living pressures on families. Instead there has been a commitment that: 'We'll try.' I think the government is out of its depth on energy policy. It has a plan but, as the budget forecasts clearly show, it is a plan to heap greater cost on families while it recklessly pursues its emissions agenda. We need to respond to climate change and we need to reduce emissions, but we don't need to put a wrecking ball through the economy to get there. We don't need to burden families with the soaring costs of energy that are forecast in this budget. For Nicholls, the budget was not without merit. Two very important projects committed to by the coalition when it was in government were confirmed in the budget. There is $3.3 million under the Community Development Grants Program towards the construction of a new multisports stadium in Yarrawonga—a necessary project that has the backing of the Moira Shire Council, the community, user groups and the Victorian government. The second project, also under the Community Development Grants Program is for $600,000 for Shepparton Foodshare. Foodshare is an amazing volunteer based community organisation that does such important work, including offering relief to families during the recent floods in my electorate. When we had the COVID lockdowns last year, I was part of the volunteer effort that went around taking food to families that couldn't leave their houses because they were locked down. Supermarkets couldn't deliver because so many people were locked down, so Foodshare organised an army of volunteers to take necessary food supplies around to locked down families. This organisation, Foodshare, has never had a permanent home. It has relied instead on the generosity of commercial property owners, but, of course, they keep being bounced around. Their temporary base was actually flooded during the recent crisis. They relocated to another shed and continued their important work, but Foodshare needs a permanent home, and the $600,000 community development grant will give them one. Those grants were finally confirmed by Labor after they had already flagged their intention to scrap the community development grants. I mourn the loss of the community development program because it did so many really good things in my electorate and in others, but I'm pleased that those two necessary projects were funded. I think that the program has fallen foul of the mistaken view of this government that any non-competitive grant scheme is simply a slush fund for pork-barrelling. It's a politically convenient view, but it ignores the fact that local members are part of their communities—and never is this more true than in regional areas—and are better placed than isolated bureaucracies in Canberra to make sensible determinations about community priorities and needs. Who could argue that grants supporting children to participate in organised sport and stay healthy and socially connected in a regional town, or funding to provide a dedicated base for a community organisation like Shepparton Foodshare, which in turn provides basic food parcels to those in need, are not merit based? I want to make the point, too, that there was a third community development grant project supported and really driven hard by my predecessor, Damian Drum, in the seat of Nicholls. The Nationals backed a multimillion dollar grant and worked with the community to upgrade the terminal at the Bendigo Airport. That airport is in the Bendigo electorate, which was held by Labor for many years, and is still held by Labor, but this project was supported on merit because of the potential to attract commercial airline services to operate from the Bendigo Airport. Those services would benefit the constituents of Nicholls but also, mainly, the constituents of Bendigo. The flawed premise that any money hard won by the Nationals and dedicated to supporting regional Australia is somehow inappropriate or open to abuse underpins the attitude in this anti-bush budget, and I think that Bendigo effort by my predecessor really underlines that. The Regional Accelerator Program, a grant program intended to administer over $2 billion over five years across a range of sectors, was scrapped in this budget. Broadly, the program was to target support for regional businesses and communities to access funding for local priorities in infrastructure, manufacturing, industry development, skills training, research and development, and education. We had tranches of funding: regionalisation; modern manufacturing; the critical minerals accelerator; supply chain resilience; Australian apprenticeships initiatives; the Trailblazer Universities Program and education infrastructure; a centre for digital agriculture, innovation and adoption hubs; recycling modernisation; and export market development. How did this look in Nicholls? I was advocating for a lot of projects as a community leader and a community member before I entered parliament. In an apolitical way, I wanted to work with whichever government was in, whether it was here in Canberra or the Victorian state government. One of the worst things that besets our community is the long-term, critical shortage of health, aged-care and community care workers at our local hospital, Goulburn Valley Health, which is the major regional health facility in Nicholls. Double the current number of workers is required for the future. Acute shortages already exist in nursing, midwifery and allied health. Often, the best solutions are the solutions that communities come up with themselves, not those that come as a thought bubble from one of the very good workers here in the bureaucracy in Canberra. To improve the recruitment and retention of these workforce groups, La Trobe University, Goulburn Ovens TAFE and Goulburn Valley Health, the hospital, proposed a purpose-built centre of excellence in rural nursing, midwifery and allied health education in the Goulburn Valley. It's called the GV Rural Clinical School, and it's designed to service the mission of each of these organisations that we need to grow our own health workforce. Through the provision of place based, state-of-the-art learning, teaching and research facilities designed for professional development of student and qualified rural nurses, midwives and allied health clinicians, the partnership would offer flexible undergraduate and postgraduate nursing and midwifery programs. I'm such a big believer in the fact—and I've seen the proof of it—that regionally based tertiary education is what helps develop people in regional areas and what helps a workforce train and work in regional areas. I'm a beneficiary of it. I did a bachelor of applied science in agriculture at the Dookie campus of the University of Melbourne, and I did an MBA at the Shepparton campus of La Trobe University. I'm an example—whether you think I'm a good example or not—of what regional tertiary education can do. That's why I want to come up to this place and work constructively to see it funded. There's also what's referred to as the magnet effect from increasing opportunities for professional development and models that encourage a culture of learning. It improves recruitment and, importantly, in the health sector it improves the retention of clinicians. The $19 million that the Nationals committed to spend to launch this joint initiative between La Trobe University, Goulburn Valley Health and GOTAFE, which would have seen significantly more young people from the regions trained and go to work in aged care and hospitals where we need nurses—that's gone with the scrapping of this program. It's a really disappointing outcome. Another disappointing outcome is a plan to fund the Seymour Community Wellbeing Hub, as another great initiative that came out of regional accelerator. It's a plan to address disadvantage in that wonderful community of Seymour, by improving access for 10,000 people to integrated health and mental health support and other community services. When people come in, they're not just being treated for the symptoms of what they might have. They're treated in a holistic way: 'Can we help you with your education? Can we help you with a job? Can we help you with your health? Can we help you with your mental health? How are your kids going?' That's what the Seymour wellness hub was going to do. This is the reality of regional funding under the coalition—important projects that benefit regional communities and add to their wellbeing, prosperity and lifestyle. The wellness hub is another one that's gone as a result of regional accelerator going. There's a lot in this budget that was really disappointing for regional infrastructure. There are a lot of plans for investment in roads, rail, bridges, dams and community infrastructure facilities. I'm such a believer in the idea that Australia has got to—as I put it—be a bit more like Germany where we’ve got all these smaller, vibrant regional cities dotted around the place, linked together by rail, and we don't just expand the megacities in the way that some nations do. Interestingly, Germany has a population of 80 million and their biggest city, Berlin, is three million. The vibrancy of those manufacturing based towns—and we've got a manufacturing based town in Shepparton—really benefits, but it takes infrastructure, and it takes focusing on those regions. The member for Riverina is beside me, and as Deputy Prime Minister and minister for infrastructure, committed $400 million to the Shepparton rail corridor, which was going to mean that between Shepparton and Melbourne, we would have gone from 4½ return services a day—and the half is because one of them goes to Melbourne and doesn't come back—to nine services a day. That means that, on the hour at peak times, people will able to jump on one of those new velocity trains. The member for Riverina worked with the Victorian Labor government on that, and people in my part of the world were very impressed with that bipartisan approach. That's the sort of project that a federal government that cares about regions funds. It's going to have a significant improvement in the way that professional people are attracted to Shepparton and the surrounding regions, and that's the sort of visionary nation-building stuff that the member for Riverina, when he was the Deputy Prime Minister, funded. That's what I wanted to see in this budget, and I didn't see it. Instead, the programs and buckets of money that I was hoping to work with constructively up here, to develop regional Australia, I've seen them go and I haven't seen them replaced with anything. For me, that's the real disappointment. I also want to work constructively with businesses in the manufacturing sector in the Goulburn Valley who want to work constructively on new, lower-emissions energy sources, because I share the desire to reduce our emissions. There were businesses, such as SPC and others, who wanted to dip into the Regional Accelerator Program and look at taking some of their energy use off the grid and develop biogas. There were a whole suite of programs. It's gone now. I think it's a missed opportunity, and I hope we can reconsider and work together towards properly funded regional development. 18:19 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt The Australian government is committed to investing in a better future for defence personnel, veterans and families. In opposition, we stood with defence personnel, veterans and their families to call for a royal commission into defence and veteran suicide. In government, we took quick action in responding to important recommendations put forward by the royal commissioners in their interim report, making that report public as soon as we got it, and rolling up our sleeves and following through with our formal response a month after the report was released. This budget follows through on our commitment to take action on the recommendations of the royal commissioners' report and delivers on our commitments from the federal election. Our veterans have protected us, and in return we must look after them. Key investments made in this budget seek to improve the claims processes for veterans, simplify legislation and ultimately better support defence personnel, veterans and families as they not only need but deserve. In implementing the government's response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide interim report, the Australian government will invest $233.9 million to engage 500 new frontline staff at DVA to eliminate the compensation claims backlog, delivering on a key election commitment made by the government. Recruitment is already underway, with several hundred people already employed. We will invest $9.5 million to develop a pathway for simplification and harmonisation of veterans legislation and $87 million to modernise IT systems in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, improving claims processing. We are committing $24.3 million to provide increased support to veterans who are having their claims processed and to improve modelling capabilities needed to forecast and manage future demand for DVA's services. We've committed $15.5 million to support DVA's continued and timely engagement with the royal commission. The budget delivers on our election commitment to provide long-term benefits for defence personnel, veterans and families. We are committing to a better future for the veteran community with significant investments, including $46.7 million for 10 new veteran and family hubs across the country, more than doubling the size of the existing network, providing critical services to veterans and families in areas with significant defence and veteran communities. The veteran and family hubs will be established in regions, announced during the election campaign, which have the most significant defence and veteran populations. That is backed up with data from the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Bureau of Statistics from the census. We've allocated $24 million to deliver the Veterans' Employment Program, which will not only support veterans as they transition to civilian life but also champion veteran employment by raising awareness of the skills and experience veterans have to offer the civilian workforce. We know that veterans sometimes have difficulty in getting access to employment as they leave defence, but we also know that they represent a great capability to support our economy moving forward by being able to fill some of those skills gaps. For people that have left defence or are looking to leave defence, we want to make sure we smooth the pathway for them to be great contributors to our economy, bringing their skills to bear. We invest so much in our defence personnel, and, when they choose to leave, we want to make sure that they can provide the greatest benefit to businesses and that businesses understand the great benefit that our veterans can provide, whether it's in their leadership skills, their teamwork capacity, their analytical skills or their ability to work under pressure and to be agile. These are all critical skills in the modern economy for any business. We've committed $4.7 million for the development of the Operation Navigator app, working with the Oasis centre in Townsville to better support Australian Defence Force personnel as they transition to the civilian workforce, be that through employment support or through access to other services. In parliament, we've also been discussing our $97.9 million commitment for a $1,000-a-year increase to the totally and permanently incapacitated payments for veterans, providing additional financial support to around 27,000 of our most vulnerable veterans. We have allocated $46.2 million to boost homeownership among defence personnel and veterans. The Australian government recognises the important role ex-service and community organisations play in supporting defence personnel, veterans and families, and the budget commits $8.1 million to community focused programs that not only support but pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of our veterans. These commitments include marking war graves, supporting the Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway in Sydney and combating veteran homelessness, alongside a $3.6 million commitment to support the planning, design and construction of the Scott Palmer Services Centre in Darwin. The government is committed to providing practical services and supports to defence personnel, veterans and families to ensure a better future for our veteran community. Our government is committed to delivering for local communities, like the electorate of Burt, the community I represent in Perth's south-eastern suburbs. The Albanese government has hit the ground running, and the October budget is an important part of that. We focused on cleaning up the mess the previous government left behind, helping Australians with cost-of-living pressures and building a better future. We've been upfront with the people about the challenges facing the economy and the budget. After a decade of wasted opportunities and wrong priorities, the Liberals left us with a trillion dollars of debt without the economic dividend to show for it. These are difficult times, and hard choices are required to get the economy and the budget back on track. We can't clean up that mess overnight, but we are working every day to build a better future for Australia. That starts at home. We've announced the biggest boost to paid parental leave since it was introduced—an additional six weeks of leave for families, expanding the total leave payable up to a full six months. It brings with it flexibility to split the leave between parents so responsibilities can be shared more equally to best suit your family. That brings me to our other massive win for local families. I'm proud that around 6,100 families in Burt will benefit from our cheaper childcare policy. Childcare costs have skyrocketed recently, with a 41 per cent increase in the past eight years. It's a big cost to families and a massive disincentive for parents, especially mums, to do more paid work. Some parents can only afford to do three days a week of work because any more than that ends up costing them more in childcare costs. They go backwards. This commitment will mean that parents who want to work more can, not only supporting family finances but benefiting our economy and easing our skills shortages at the same time. These new laws mean that around 96 per cent of local families with children in early education and care will be better off. We all know that cost-of-living pressures are really biting in our community. That's why it's so exciting that, for the first time in its 75-year history, the maximum cost of general scripts under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, will fall. From the beginning of next year, no-one will pay more than $30 for their PBS medications on a script. That's a decrease of $12.50. We're also working on delivering more secure, well-paid jobs and delivering the pipeline of skills that the country needs to drive future economic growth. Our government is delivering $9.6 billion in nation-building infrastructure projects, including right at home in Burt. Investments in Burt include removing the William Street level crossing in Beckenham, upgrading the train station and making people's journeys faster and safer, and upgrading the Nicholson Road-Garden Street intersection, which is a massive bottleneck, not to mention a headache for many people in our community. The member for Tangney and I share a goal in getting this problem fixed. We've committed $4 million towards building the new Langford Indoor Netball Centre so that our amazing athletes can train right in their backyard, closer to home, and have a pathway to elite sport. We've contributed $14.9 million to protect the Swan and Canning rivers. We're supporting the Armadale Community Family Centre Toy Library with $50,000 to build a new shed. We've put $40,000 towards a new community bus for the Australian Arab Association, based in Thornlie. I am so proud that our community has chosen to elect me for another term as their representative and this time as a minister in the Albanese Labor government. Thank you for putting your faith in me. I will not let you down. I would like to just briefly also mention that a big part of our agenda in government includes education. Our government will give Australians studying in areas of skills shortage access to free TAFE. We'll also deliver over 3,000 additional university places in WA to train more teachers, nurses and engineers. We also know that the housing market is, frankly, mental at the moment. There's no point beating about the bush; it is completely insane. Too many Australians struggle for safe, secure and affordable housing, which is why we are committed to making meaningful, life-changing investments to help build new homes for those who need them most. We'll deliver 40,000 new social and affordable homes across the country. We're also working on implementing the Help to Buy Scheme, which will support Australians on low incomes to buy their own homes. These are just some of the measures from our budget that we've delivered since coming into government. They show how committed the Albanese Labor government is to delivering a better future for our nation. These are measures that will help responsibly address cost-of-living pressure. They are measures that go to the heart of making sure we can get access to more skilled workers to support our businesses, to allow people to earn more and to make sure that our economy can move on from the suffering that it has undergone under the previous decade of government, where we saw, frankly, anaemic wage growth. We need to see wages grow. We need to see jobs be more secure. We saw no action on that under the previous government, and now is the time to act. We now have the opportunity to solve this problem and we need support in the Senate to make sure that our laws to provide secure work, better jobs and better pay are passed. I call on the support of all parliamentarians to do just that. 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 order of the day for the next sitting. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 111 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Youth Voice in Parliament Week, International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People 111 18:30 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith I rise now to deliver a speech written for me by Araminta Crocombe, a 15-year-old constituent from Griffith for the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign, which asks young people around Australia what they think our new parliament should accomplish. Araminta writes: I would like the new government of Australia to focus on ending offshore processing. I'm 15, and for my whole life offshore processing has played a major part in Australia's approach to deter people from seeking asylum by boat. Rather than saving lives offshore processing and detention centres ruined them. I would like the new Australian government to follow international protocols around asylum seekers and refugees by recognising that under article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone "has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution". All asylum seekers should be processed quickly in Australia regardless of how or where they arrive. The Australian government has failed to uphold these international agreements, and as of 31 August 2022; 111 people are Stranded in Papua New Guinea. 105 people are stranded in Nauru. These people are living within the community as they are not able to get Visas or Citizenship's due to the Australian government. Offshore processing and detention centres are fully funded by the Australian government, the Australian government spent $957 million (up from a projected cost of $812 million) in the 2021-2022 financial year. The Australian government's expenditure on this Offshore system consistently exceeds the amount originally budgeted. Offshore processing should be brought to a formal end by providing everyone who has been subject to the policy since 2012 with settlement in Australia or countries like New Zealand who have offered to take Asylum Seekers. Shut down offshore processing and Detentions Centres because everyone should be given fair chances and opportunities. On 29 November it will be the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people. The United Nations has just appointed independent human rights experts to oversee specific issues around the world. There are currently over 50 special rapporteurs serving in this capacity. The special rapporteur on the situation on human rights in the Palestinian territories is Italian lawyer and academic Francesca Albanese—I assume no relation. She has just presented a report to the General Assembly of the United Nations. In her 23-page report she systematically records the current reality in the occupied Palestinian territories and says the only conclusion is that the Israeli state is undertaking a settler-colonial regime, including implementing apartheid policies. The term 'apartheid' applies, according to international law, when serious human rights violations are committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, with the intention of maintaining that regime. It is clear apartheid applies here when violations include discriminatory laws and policies, denial of equal nationality and status, harsh movement restrictions, massive seizures of Palestinian land and property, restrictions on the right to political participation and popular resistance, discriminatory underinvestment in Palestinian communities in Israel and restrictions on the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel and the occupied territories. In her report, the special rapporteur says that we cannot ignore the fact that the Israeli state has been an intentionally acquisitive, segregationist and repressive regime which has for 55 years enabled the disenfranchisement of the Palestinians. She notes these policies pursue the ultimate goal of consolidating minority rule over a native majority on lands usurped through force. She suggests a fundamental readjustment of the international community's approach to this situation, which is that we must, as we have with other processes of decolonisation around the world, focus on the self-determination of the colonised. She says that, instead, the international community has looked to peace processes based on negotiations. However, she says, this whole framework is problematic. Israel's project over Palestinians has been a series of gross human rights violations. She goes on to say: … a breach of international law should not be subjected to negotiations, as this would legitimize what is illegal. Therefore, because of the illegality of the Israeli occupation, owing to its prolonged, acquisitive and bad-faith nature, the obligation of cessation of the occupation cannot in any way be conditioned on negotiations. There is also a practical reason, as well as an ideological one, why the Middle East peace process and subsequent bilateral peacemaking attempts have proven ineffective. Politically mandated peace negotiations cannot succeed without resolving the Palestinians' enduring subordinate status. If we do not challenge Israeli settler colonial endeavours, we cannot provide a basis for which Palestinian self-determination can be realised. I commend to the Australian government steps recommended by the special rapporteur: (1) for Australia to condemn all intentional violations by Israel of the Palestinians' right to self-determination, including a call for an immediate end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and a return of Palestinian resources that have been appropriated by Israel; (2) acting to ensure Israel has international accountability, including an International Criminal Court—that we review any business operating in Australia to ensure they are not complicit in the human rights abuses of Palestinians. To support this end, she recommends that the High Commissioner for Human Rights release, without delay, the updated database of businesses involved in illegal settlements. 18:36 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell My grievance tonight is on the issue of access to GPs in my electorate, the material workforce shortages we're experiencing, and the large decline in bulk-billing access. This issue is especially important to me because there is no historical ambiguity when it comes to public health policy in this country—that is, Labor built Medicare and will always protect it. As we've all seen in communities right across Australia, after nine long years of cuts to Medicare by the former coalition government, it's never been harder or more expensive to see doctors than it is now. The former government froze the Medicare rebate for six years, ripping billions of dollars out of primary care and causing gap fees to skyrocket. We're seeing the impact of material workforce shortages in my electorate, where doctors are walking away from general practice in droves. The Tullamarine-Broadmeadows catchment, which takes in other suburbs across my electorate, is experiencing a severe GP shortage. A true count of GPs in the area by one of the largest players in the catchment shows a 0.71 GP full-time equivalent per 1,000 residents—that's less than one GP per 1,000 residents. I'm aware that there are measures that speak to a 1.1 benchmark, but the reality on the ground in my electorate is that we're experiencing something very, very different. There's also another concerning consequence of the almost decade-long neglect from those opposite, and that is the large decline in bulk-billing access within our community. The workforce shortage combined with funding models has caused a supply-demand imbalance in the area. It's my understanding that, in the last three months, seven clinics representing around 30 per cent of all GPs in the Tullamarine-Broadmeadows catchment switched from bulk billing to mixed or private billing. It is also my understanding that all major bulk-billing clinics in Craigieburn, which is in the 33rd percentile on the index of relative socioeconomic disadvantage, have now switched to mixed billing. As this trend continues, it is likely to soon impact suburbs such as Broadmeadows, one of the most disadvantaged areas in Australia. For context, Broadmeadows is in the 2nd percentile of the index of relative socioeconomic disadvantage. Most recently, a nine-person GP clinic switched from bulk billing to private billing in Broadmeadows. I'm deeply concerned that the remaining bulk-billing clinics, as well as bulk-billing GPs in mixed-billing practices, will increasingly switch to charging fees. My electorate can't afford this, and the health of our community generally—and also locally in my area—cannot afford this, which is why I'm calling for an urgent review of the distribution priority access status for the Tullamarine-Broadmeadows catchment and request it be granted full DPA status. While I recognise that DPA is only a short-term measure and it will take a long time to secure GPs, I believe the area urgently requires this change. The Australian Labor Party is the party of Medicare. The previous Morrison government abandoned GPs and primary care and decided that dealing with the crisis they helped create was all too hard. Speaking to the crisis in general practice in Australia, the Australian Medical Association stated during the term of the previous government: 'This is the product of deliberate government policy over many years that has taken general practice for granted.' And in reference to the Morrison government's failed budgets, the AMA said that the budgets those opposite put forward to the Australian people were all rhetoric and no funding, with more of the same. I would say that the attitude of those opposite to general practice and to the health and lives of the Australian people can be summed up by a word that comes up time and time again when it comes to their record of achievement in this area, and that word is 'neglect'. Neglect has caused so much damage to the wellbeing of Australians across nearly a decade and to many in my electorate. So I'm pleased that such a difficult issue in my electorate is, at least, being addressed by this government, and I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Mark Butler, for hitting the ground running and tackling the day-to-day concerns of Australians especially in health. The minister for health is speaking of real investment into Medicare to start to deal with the real crisis in general practice which he has described as probably the most terrifying of a range of real pressures in the health system. This is a marker of a government that explains the reality as it is and of a minister who is aware of the real state of crisis that general practice is in at this very moment. Contrast this with what I can only describe as the near decade of generalised neglect from those opposite. We've committed to investing in general practice and to strengthening Medicare with almost $1 billion of investment. Our Strengthening Medicare Taskforce has already started to identify the best ways to boost affordability, improve access and deliver better support for patients with ongoing and chronic illness, and this work is backed by the $750 million Strengthening Medicare fund. Our 50 Medicare urgent care clinics will take pressure off our overwhelmed hospital emergency departments and make it easier for people to see a doctor when they need to see one. After they have worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic, we'll give our doctors the resources to invest in their GP practices with our $220 million Strengthening Medicare GP Grants Program. Of added importance to the people of my electorate is that, through Labor's cheaper medicine policy, we've made the biggest reduction to PBS medicine prices since the scheme was established. I acknowledge that there's no easy fix here. These are problems that were created and compounded over a decade, and have been over a decade in the making. A constituent of mine, a resident of Craigieburn in my electorate, notes: Most bulk billing clinics around Craigieburn & surroundings are not entertaining new patients and even applications like HotDoc don't allow appointments to be booked to see GPs, which is really bad and taking away the rights of a patient to consult a doctor. Most bulk billing clinics have changed to mixed billing in the last few months & now demanding more money from patients. It's just not acceptable and is a serious issue which requires our attention. Another local resident highlights that, with the increased cost-of-living crisis, we cannot have patient access to medical care become another cost-of-living issue. It is these voices of grievance that I want to raise in this parliament, because their contribution to the debate is one that is most grounded in reality. While acknowledging the abandonment of the primary healthcare space by the former coalition government, I do believe that clinics also have a responsibility to their patients. First and foremost, they must factor in the realities of the people and the communities in which they operate. The easy option of switching to mixed or private billing cannot be the immediate fallback position. We must all carry responsibility, in the interests of patient care, and this responsibility must also be carried by our primary healthcare providers, because every person in my electorate deserves access to universal, prompt and world-class medical care. It's almost an established fact that general practitioners aren't being drawn to work in what are described as 'peri-urban' areas. This reality is a social justice issue for the people of my electorate. It's a reflection of a shared reality from lived experience. What makes this even more damning is the number of overseas trained doctors who live in my electorate who, if not for the difficulties associated with having their skills recognised, would otherwise help fill our shortages. Australia's medical bodies need to take a closer look at this. It's an issue which must be addressed because it's an issue that means we are missing out on the possibility of addressing our workforce shortage. The disparity in health outcomes between wealthier areas and areas of socioeconomic disadvantage is a reality, but we must be determined to address the fact that just because something is a current reality doesn't mean it is a given or must be allowed to continue. Disparities and determinants of health must be addressed, and addressed in a way that draws a line between the near decade of neglect from those opposite and a Labor government that invests in the health of everyday Australians. The universality of Medicare is one of the Australian Labor Party's greatest contributions to Australia. Our fundamental believe is that it's your Medicare card, not your credit card, that should determine your access to health care in Australia. Just as every new Labor government in Australia has had to do, I am confident that cleaning up the mess left by the former coalition government in this area will be among of this government's greatest works and one of its greatest ongoing contributions to the people of my electorate and this country. Murray-Darling Basin 113 18:45 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I would like to speak tonight about the Murray-Darling Basin and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I'm prompted to do this by comments from the Minister for the Environment and Water, who said that she plans to deliver the plan in full, and then referenced the 450 gigalitres that was promised to South Australia. In two days time I will have been in this place for 15 years. When you've been here for a while you have a memory of what has gone on before. Just to clarify, when the Basin Plan was introduced I voted for it. Not all of my colleagues did. I think the member for Riverina and maybe the member for Hume at the time did. There were a couple of coalition members who did not support it. I supported the Basin Plan. The 450 gigalitres was not part of the plan. It was a political announcement made by the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, with the then water minister, Mr Burke, to gain votes in South Australia. The figure is not based on science. It is not based on anything other than gaining political support in South Australia. The problem with doing things like that, without doing the science and the research to understand the system, is that they are very difficult to deliver. Part of the safeguards for that was the triple bottom line that it couldn't have any negative social, economic or environmental impacts. What has been shown is that it's pretty well impossible to deliver that 450 gigalitres without affecting one of those three bottom-line impacts. This gained a lot of traction during the drought. What is coming to light now is that the Basin Plan may extend the flow in the rivers a little bit further into a drought but, basically, nature is still in command. When the drought really hit and there was no rain and no more water to come down, whether there was a Basin Plan or no Basin Plan or an extra 450 gigalitres or not made no impact. The frustrating thing was that at that time, members of this place and of the Senate—knowing that the northern basin is an ephemeral system that for millennia has gone from flooding to dry and everything in between—aided by the ABC and others, made political mileage of the dry river and created a myth that the drought was man-made and that the water had been sold to National Party donors and corporates. It was a nonsense story. Now we are having major flooding. I can tell you in my electorate now there are about three peaks coming down the system. I am very concerned about South Australia because they are dealing with flooding in the Murray now, and there is a lot of water coming down the Darling system from the northern basin. All the storage dams are full, and basically, mankind does not have the ability to stop this flood. While we are tinkering around the edges, Mother Nature is clearly in command. I represent a third of the basin, and every square inch of it is in flood at the moment. The storage dams and some of that did help at the start, but once everything is full, it is full, and, with the La Nina season, we are seeing a very wet time. With man in his vanity wanting to control everything, we've actually seen some very negative things happen. I'll go back to the last time the Labor Party were in government. Senator Wong, who was the minister, made some large purchases of water, taking it from productive use and putting it back to the environment. Now, I guess that in theoretical terms that's fair enough, but it wasn't strategic, and, of course, there are always willing sellers, because the government is in there with a lot of money. I'll give you a couple of examples. When she purchased the water from the Kahlbetzer family's Twynam Pastoral Company—from memory it was over $300 million at the time—basically, the biggest and pretty well the only employer in the town of Collarenebri ceased to exist. I think over 100 jobs went out of the Collarenebri region with the water going from Collymongle station. At the same time, the water that was purchased from Twynam Pastoral Company in the Macquarie Valley had a severely negative impact on Warren. It's not just the water that goes; the cotton gin at Collarenebri has now been dismantled, moved and sold somewhere else. Similarly, a lot of the businesses in Warren have had a negative impact. When Senator Wong purchased Toorale station, 10 per cent of the rates base of Bourke shire was removed, as well as the jobs that went with it. The irony of all of that is that it was found that the dams that were to be decommissioned were actually habitat for native fish and waterbirds and actually had environmental benefit. There's still some frustration in the western part of the Darling region that the Toorale infrastructure hasn't been decommissioned. I'm not saying that everything that happened at that time was bad. A good example of what was instigated at that time under Minister Burke was the reconfiguration of the irrigation systems in the Macquarie Valley. There were three irrigation systems that were reconfigured. They weren't effective in the way they were delivering water; there was too much wastage. Some of the farms that were more distant from the source of the water went onto poly pipe for stock. Money was allocated to put in trickle irrigation, centre pivots and the like. The productivity and the sustainability of that region is now much improved through those processes. I'm a firm believer in improving efficiency. In our term in government we funded a program that helped deepen farm dams so that irrigation losses were lessened. Money went into helping improve efficiency, whether that was lateral move systems, centre pivots or over-bank irrigation. There was some work to re-engineer irrigation farms, so there were some real water savings made without impacting the productivity of the region. What concerns me now is that, with indiscriminate buying of water, we will see the cotton gins not being viable and the like. I wish we could just take the politics out of this. I think the minister has been given a job to do of ticking the box to say that we're protecting the environment and saving the basin. I think that, through lack of knowledge and understanding, we are ultimately going to see very, very negative impacts with this. There are some projects that I'm in support of, and I've been supportive of purchasing some of the licences along the interconnecting streams that come from Queensland into the Darling-Barwon system in northern New South Wales, which would help some of that connectivity of water that's already been purchased. But they need to be very strategic, with the idea of not cruelling entire communities by indiscriminate water buying just to tick the box on this. So please be careful because decisions now will impact these communities for now and evermore for, I believe, very negligible impact on the environment. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 114 18:55 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Listening to our First Peoples about what they want and crafting programs with their input is apparently a revolutionary concept that has not been tried. The Voice is about putting our First Peoples at the centre of decision-making. In medicine, we call this person centred care. In government, then, it must be person centred policy, and we need more of it across the board. The days of top-down policymaking are over. How does it start? With listening. I did plenty of listening as a doctor. As I said in my maiden speech, we need to listen to those on the front line, at the coalface—in this case, our First Peoples and their communities, who know the problems and also know the solutions. The top-down approach of the past has not delivered the results, but, worse, it has increased the mistrust between our First Peoples and government. My constituents in Higgins rightly ask: what is the Voice? The Voice will be a permanent advisory body to parliament that aims to make a practical difference by putting our First Peoples at the centre of decision-making. It is about ending a long legacy of well-intentioned but ultimately futile programs and policies that have not delivered for First Peoples, nor met the expectations of the wider community. Entities have been formed, then dissolved, only to be re-formed in another guise. In the past 30 years, at a national level, there have been at least seven representative organisations. Let's go through them. They include the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee from 1972 to 1977; the National Aboriginal Conference from 1977 to 1985; ATSIC from 1989 to 2005; the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation from 1991 to 2000; the National Indigenous Council from 2005 to 2007; the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples from 2009 to 2019; and the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council from 2013 to 2019. This list does not include representative organisations at the state and territory level. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent, but the results speak for themselves—statistics on education, housing, domestic violence and health that are a national disgrace. To paraphrase Einstein, we can keep doing the same thing over and over again, but don't expect a different result. So how do we repair trust and end the stagnation? Our First Peoples have shown us the way. It has been a long and arduous journey towards implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It was over 14 years ago, in 2007, that Prime Minister John Howard promised Indigenous recognition in the Constitution. It is 12 years since Prime Minister Gillard established a panel to guide discussions on constitutional recognition; and it is six years since First Nations people explained what they wanted that to look like, through the Uluru Statement from the Heart. 'Voice, treaty, truth,' they cried. And it starts with listening, as it should. This process has been going on for 12 years. How much longer should they wait? The Uluru Statement from the Heart is imbued with cultural authority. It emerged from a series of meetings of Indigenous Australians, community organisations and key stakeholders between December 2016 and May 2017. This process, known as the dialogues, involving thousands of people from across the nation, discussed the structural problems facing our Indigenous communities, from health to housing, education, suicide, youth detention and domestic violence. The business of reaching consensus was messy; it always is. Not everyone who participated in the dialogues was happy. Some people walked away and now opine from the sidelines. Others, by virtue of their election to the House falsely claim legitimacy on behalf of all First Peoples when, like myself, they only represent their constituents. I don't profess to speak for all Australians; I represent the people of Higgins. The people who rolled up their sleeves and got this herculean task done deserve more than our respect; they deserve follow-through. At the moment, parliament does not have a systematic process for our First Peoples to provide input, meaning that policy is often made for them rather than with them. The Albanese government seeks a new spirit of partnership between parliament and First Nations people. Empowering First Nations people is at the heart of our approach to closing the gap and aligns with our common values as Australians of fairness and decency. Rather than speculating on improvements we are likely to see with the Voice, let's look at what has happened in its absence. Sadly there is no shortage of examples. The campaign to raise the age of criminal responsibility is one example. Juvenile detention is the purview of state and territory governments, but they can be influenced by public sentiment driven by a national conversation. Right now in juvenile detention centres right across Australia, children, some as young as 10, are incarcerated. Our First Peoples children are over-represented. According to campaigners, it has not been expedient for politicians to deal with this blight, which is why this problem has been kicked down the road for years. Those children are growing up. Do you think we have helped them as a society to find their better selves? With a Voice, there can be no averting our eyes, no turning away from these inconvenient truths. Then there is the merit of giving our lawmakers—people like me—some help. There will be occasions when First Peoples communities disagree, for example, over the management of a parcel of land that may be on the crosshairs of development. At present it would fall to the minister of the day to arbitrate. Does that sound ideal? Wouldn't it be preferable to have a democratically elected body that is constitutionally enshrined to turn to for advice? A two-way flow of information is what the Voice will deliver. It may also take the heat out of some of these testy discussions. There has been very little discussion about the spillover effects of the Voice to Parliament. The focus has been on the practical difference it will make to the lives of First Peoples, but what about the impact on the wider community? As someone who has been on the receiving end of racism, I suspect it will do more for fighting racism than any program we have implemented to date. Do you know what the most powerful debiasing force is? It's actually contact—contact with people from different backgrounds in our schools, workplaces, sporting clubs and neighbourhoods. In my electorate, our sporting clubs are like the United Nations. However at 3.2 per cent, our First Peoples, as Noel Pearson said, are an extreme minority. Many of us will never cross paths with them, so how are we to really understand their lived experience? By relying on the news? No thanks. A voice to parliament short-circuits all of this and gives us an opportunity to hear directly from our First Peoples without any filter. In July this year our Prime Minister proposed the following additions to the Constitution. The words are simply a starting point: There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. It will be democratically elected, and it will have regional and national representation, according to the Indigenous Voice co-design report of the previous government, and it will communicate to the parliament through a parliamentary joint standing committee. There are some details to be worked through by the working and engagement groups, but the broad brush strokes are there, and the details will be filled in later. Why? Because we are running out of time. Justice delayed is justice denied. Will be asked in a referendum whether we support a modification to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. To be successful, a 'yes' vote must be supported by a majority of Australian voters and a majority of voters in at least four states. I believe that Higgins will vote yes. There is a groundswell of goodwill amongst my constituents. They understand that a voice is not a third chamber of parliament. They understand that it does not have the power of veto. They understand that elected representatives like me will continue to make the laws. They understand that those laws are best crafted in collaboration with the people they affect. They see demands for more detail as running interference for the detractors. They understand that the Voice is above politics because it came from the people. They also understand that the people it will most affect are falling further behind at an alarming rate. My constituents are riled at injustice and will fight it on the beaches, in the corridors and in the streets. Surrendering to more of the same is not something they aspire to. The call of history is rising in our chests. Rather than divide us, the Voice will bring us closer together. Why? Because if you believe, like I do, that reconciliation is the pathway to a more perfect Commonwealth, then the Voice is that gateway. Let's walk through it together. Indonesia: Travel 116 19:05 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Every year thousands of families travel from Perth to Bali. Bali is a wonderful destination. Only four hours flight from Perth, it's Bintangs, boardies and a week in the sun. It's no wonder it's a holiday hotspot for many of my constituents and many people in Western Australia. But it's the lousy conduct of DFAT employees and insurance providers that has recently come to my attention. They have let down one of my constituents, Mr Wayne Weller, who I met with some time ago about this subject. It's important that I put this on the public record to bring this to the attention of the government and Australians and also to give Wayne a voice in this place. A few months ago, Wayne contacted my office in urgent need of assistance. It was his last port of call after reaching out to DFAT and his insurance provider to no avail. While on a family holiday to Bali, Wayne's son suddenly fell ill and was admitted into hospital with life-threatening complications. Wayne immediately contacted his insurance provider, Sydney based InsureandGo—I want to note that name in this House—only to be told that all procedures required approvals before funds could be released. It meant that critical treatments, including blood tests, pain medication, X-rays and surgery, all of which you would expect under comprehensive travel insurance, would not be covered until the provider granted approval in a process that could take anywhere between eight and 36 hours—crucial hours, time that could make the difference between life and death. Wayne and his family had to wait a dangerously long time for approval for those procedures. This isn't good enough, and it's not the standard that Australians expect. At the same time, Wayne and his family's 30-day tourist visas were close to expiring. The penalty for overstaying visas in Bali is a fee of $300 per person per day, with the risk of imprisonment for those who breach their visa conditions. Desperate for assistance, Wayne contacted the Australian Consulate-General in Bali. Any Australian travelling overseas has the right to access consular assistance, and they have every right to expect it to be good and timely. I don't think it's much at all to expect correct, up-to-date information from our officials abroad. Instead, Wayne says he was met with untimely and unhelpful advice from DFAT. Wayne was told to show up at the airport, cash in hand, and expect to pay a fine unless he was lucky enough to find a sympathetic immigration official who would help him out and let him off the hook. This was lousy advice from Australian officials who should have known better. I can't begin to imagine the distress Wayne must have felt upon receiving this advice, let alone in these circumstances. It was very, very expensive with the health care and also potentially having to pay his way for additional time in Bali to be with his son. It was this troubling encounter that led Wayne to my office. My staff suggested that Wayne contact the Indonesian consulate in Perth to seek further advice about visa extensions. The Indonesian consulate responded promptly, advising that extensions were easy to obtain and only $150. While my team was happy to assist Wayne and relieved that the matter was resolved, it raises the question: how did it get to this stage? How is it that the Indonesian consulate could assist Wayne from Perth but the Australian consulate in Bali was incapable of providing the same simple yet crucial advice, at a time of great distress for the Weller family, when they needed it? It's important to note that the Wellers did everything right before travelling. They invested in comprehensive travel insurance, and they were let down. When they hit trouble they contacted the Australian consulate, who also let them down. All Wayne wanted at the end of this was his voice recorded in this House. In the words of Wayne himself: 'Every Australian agency that could have possibly helped failed—and my family was left on its own and abandoned.' Thousands of Australians are travelling to, and continue to travel to, Bali. According to the Perth based Indonesia Institute, more than 1.2 million Australians travelled to Bali pre pandemic in 2019. I'm sure most believe the Australian consulate would do the right thing when they need it most, but, sadly, this does not seem to be the case. Thankfully, Adam has been transported to Brisbane for further treatment, but he still faces a long road to recovery, and I wish him all the very best. No Australian should feel abandoned by representatives from their own country in a time of need, so my message today from this House, on behalf of Wayne, and proudly as his representative, is: DFAT, do your jobs. There are many who do their jobs, but, to those who failed on that day: do your jobs and look after Australians when they're in need. I want to acknowledge the Indonesian consulate in Perth. They're great friends. They did their job, they acted promptly and they helped the family in distress. On behalf of Wayne, we are grateful for your assistance. Finally, to insurance companies: if you let Australians down, we will name you in this place, as I have done. Wayne, I hope you feel satisfied that I have raised your voice in this place and warned other Australians who are travelling to Bali to make sure that they get their affairs in order before they go and that they know who to contact if they find themselves in a similar situation. Hawke Electorate: Community Events, Hawke Electorate: Health Care 117 19:12 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke It's always a pleasure to stand in this chamber—a little bit higher than the other one in the building—for the airing of grievances. I'm always reminded of Frank Costanza's great line: 'I've got a lot of problems with you people, and now you're going to hear about them!' In the past few weeks, my electorate of Hawke has played host to a number of outstanding community events. Just two weeks ago I informed the chamber of the tremendous return of Melton's Djerriwarrh Festival. Since then, more communities across Hawke have got in on the action. The weekend before last, my hometown of Ballan welcomed the return of the Ballan Autumn Festival, hosted this time, of course, in spring. The township was so keen to come together again that we simply couldn't wait until the leaves turn brown. Inglis Street was alive and bustling with activity as almost 10,000 people enjoyed live music, art and even a bit of magic. There were pony rides for the kids and, of course, the traditional woodchopping competition. I didn't win. Traders and community groups cooked up a storm, feeding the hungry locals while talented craftspeople showed off their wares. The highlight, however, was no doubt the Bloomin' Marvellous Grand Street Parade. I was honoured to be a member of the judging panel alongside the local state member for Eureka, Michaela Settle, and I would like to congratulate some of the winners: Myrniong Primary School, who won the mayor's trophy; the Community Bank Ballan branch, for best commercial entry; and St Patrick's Primary School, for best school entry. There were many others. The Ballan Autumn Festival wouldn't be possible without a dedicated team of volunteers, led by President Kevin Harper. I would like to extend my thanks to Kevin and the whole team, as well as the schools and community groups for their enthusiastic participation in the street parade and the local business sponsors who made the event possible. Despite the raging success in spring, the Ballan Autumn Festival will resume regular programming in March next year, and I know that our community can't wait for another fantastic event. The Bacchus Marsh Strawberry and Cherry Festival returned for the first time since 2019 as our community marked the start of the strawberry and cherry season. The festival kicked off on Friday night with local families enjoying carnival rides and food trucks before 150 market stalls set up shop along Main Street on Saturday, selling their incredible local goods and produce. I joined the state member for Eureka, Michaela Settle, at those markets, chatting to locals, who were thrilled to see the return of this great festival. Despite the recent cooler and much wetter weather, strawberries and cherries were also available at the festival from local growers, while local cafes, restaurants, food trucks and stalls provided much-needed sustenance for festival-goers. The festival featured fantastic entertainment, with the live music hub hosting some incredibly talented local musicians, and the kids were thrilled to see face painters and the petting zoo. The highlight of the festival was of course the fireworks spectacular on Saturday night—a wonderful celebration of the return of such a significant community event. Thank you to the hundreds of local businesses and traders who contributed to the event and to the event organisers for putting together such an outstanding festival. The success of the Bacchus Marsh Strawberry and Cherry Festival demonstrates the strength of community spirit across our electorate of Hawke and makes me incredibly proud to represent them in this place. I recently had the privilege of attending the Sikh Sports Day at Khalsa Shaouni in Plumpton in my electorate of Hawke. Hosted every year on the anniversary of the birth of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the family sports event brings together the very strong Sikh community in the area to celebrate this significant occasion. This year, the festival featured a huge range of activities, including traditional sports and a demonstration of gatka, a form of martial arts long practised by Sikh people, as well as athletics, tug of war and a push-up and pull-up challenge. The kids participated in competitions to tie the best patka and dastar, the two forms of Sikh turbans, as well as hotly contested trivia on the legacy of Guru Nanak. I was honoured to be invited to this important and impressive celebration of Sikh culture. My thanks go to Avtar, Gurdashan, Simar and all those who contributed to the organisation on the day. I look forward to joining them all again soon. With my remaining time, I'd like to discuss the issue of GP shortages affecting the people in my electorate of Hawke. Unfortunately, many people in my electorate face significant challenges in accessing bulk-billed or affordable GP appointments. In fact, after nine long years of cuts and neglect of Medicare by the former Liberal government, it has never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor than it is now. The former government froze the Medicare rebate for six years, ripping billions of dollars out of primary health care and causing gap fees to skyrocket. Recently, in Melton, one of the largest bulk-billing GP clinics had to end bulk-billing and begin charging patients for GP appointments. This was a product not of greed but rather of necessity in order to maintain some form of primary health care in that facility. Unfortunately, as costs have risen and the Medicare rebate has remained frozen, operating bulk-billing clinics has become increasingly unworkable without some kind of other external subsidy. Whilst the cause of this issue is a prolonged lack of financial support from the previous Liberal government, the impact is far more personal than merely financial. The inaccessibility of primary health care can have long-term, significant impacts on the personal wellbeing of people in communities like mine. It puts more pressure on our hospital and ambulance systems and results in worse health outcomes by denying people the chance of earlier medical intervention. It denies people access to preventive medicine and exposes them to an increased risk of developing both chronic and acute medical conditions. Sadly, there is no quick fix to address such a prolonged period of mismanagement. People in Hawke and indeed across the country will continue to pay the price for the Liberals' healthcare freeze for a time to come. However, like the great Labor governments of the past, the Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job of cleaning up the mess left to us by those opposite. This started with the appointment of the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce, which has several key objectives, including improved patient access to general practice and greater patient affordability. The task force is backed by the $750 million Strengthening Medicare Fund to enable the delivery of the task force's highest priority improvements. The Albanese Labor government is also committed to delivering 50 new urgent-care clinics, including one in Sunbury in our community in Hawke. The clinics will provide high-quality care for urgent but non-life-threatening health issues and will be open with extended business hours seven days a week to provide the care people need with no out-of-pocket costs. Like many other sectors of our economy, health care is facing a skills shortage, particularly in primary health care. That's why the Albanese Labor government will work to ensure that GP clinics can attract and retain qualified healthcare workers. That's also why I will fight for Hawke specifically to see improvements in this space. Whilst I would like to see an immediate improvement in the accessibility of primary healthcare for our community in Hawke, it is important that the government ensures the longevity and sustainability of our improvements by taking considered and well-thought-out action. I welcome and commend the efforts of Minister Mark Butler in fixing the healthcare system that was crippled by the neglect of the former Liberal government. Labor built Medicare and we will always protect it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:22