COMMITTEES

2022-11-24 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 24 November 2022

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

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Northern Australia Joint Standing Committee 1 Government Response to Report 1 09:01 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I ask leave of the House to make a ministerial statement relating to the government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia's reports on the destruction of cultural heritage at Juukan Gorge. Leave granted. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I begin by recognising that this parliament meets on the home of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land and pay my respects to their elders past and present. This is, was, and will always be Aboriginal land. Today, the Australian government is formally tabling our response to the interim and final report by the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia into the destruction of Juukan Gorge, on 24 May 2020. I want to thank all the members of parliament, from different political parties, who worked through these very thoughtful reports. I particularly want to thank Senator Dodson for his role in guiding the reports. Most of all, I want to give my deepest thanks to the traditional owners who participated in this inquiry. A particular gratitude is owed to the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people, who are the traditional owners of Juukan Gorge. I can only imagine how painful it was to give your testimony. And I know how unfair it must have felt that it was us—as envoys from the state that allowed this destruction—who were asking you to relive your pain in public. I also understand why First Nations peoples don't always trust the intentions of government, or have much faith in our ability to listen and to learn. But please know that your testimony was received as the gift that it was. The only way we can honour that gift is to listen to you, to work with you, and to reform our laws to make sure this never happens again. As the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people wrote in their submission to this inquiry: The Juukan Gorge disaster is a tragedy not only for the PKKP People. It is also a tragedy for the heritage of all Australians and indeed humanity as a whole. We can feel the scale of this loss when we hear the way traditional owners described it in their testimony. This place was an 'an anchor of our culture'. It was a 'museum of heritage'. It was a site of 'profound', 'sacred', 'unique' and 'ancient' power. The Juukan Gorge is one of the oldest sites of human habitation in Australia—with 46,000 years of continuous culture, traditions, practices and stories. When the site was excavated back in 2014, archaeologists were amazed at what they found: a 4,000-year-old hair belt, a 28,000-year-old bone tool—one of the oldest of its kind ever found in Australia—and a whole collection of ancient grinders and stone tools, some of the oldest that have ever been seen on this continent. That's the scope of history we're dealing with here. It is unthinkable that we would ever knowingly destroy Stonehenge, or the Egyptian pyramids, or the Lascaux caves in France. When the Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed in Afghanistan, the world was rightly outraged. But that's precisely what occurred at the Juukan Gorge. And what made it even more insulting—that this happened in the days before Reconciliation Week, when elders were planning to take their young people to the sacred caves, to teach them about their culture and their ancestors. These reports explain how we reached that shameful moment. They make for difficult, infuriating, often shocking reading. But it's important that Australians understand what happened. Because we have to remember—this was legal desecration. No laws were broken here. Instead, we had an entire system frustrating the interests of Indigenous history and culture. These reports tell the story of the Juukan Gorge. But they also tell the much bigger story of our national failure on Indigenous cultural heritage. There were partnership agreements signed under gross inequalities of power, and that were only ever really understood by one party. There were gag clauses, meaning traditional owners were not allowed to speak out publicly without permission from Rio Tinto. There was a corporate culture that never took the company's obligations seriously. There was poor communication. There were weak state laws. And there was federal legislation that was only ever designed as a last resort—and that was confusing, difficult to access, and ultimately ineffective. This was not an isolated mistake, or an example of one company going rogue. What's clear from this report is that our system is not working. Which is why, at the election, the Labor Party promised to reform the system, with a standalone piece of Indigenous cultural heritage legislation, co-designed with First Nations. That was our commitment—and today is the first major step in that journey. This morning, our government signed an agreement with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance. This partnership will guide the reform process—to ensure that Indigenous voices are present at every stage, in every room, and in every decision we make. Members of the alliance are here in the gallery today—and I want to thank them for their ongoing work and dedication. I also want to thank the members of my own Indigenous advisory group who have come to be with us today. The committee report identified eight recommendations for reforming Australia's cultural heritage. We have accepted seven of them, and we are working through the final recommendation with the alliance, which is whether ultimate responsibility for cultural heritage protection should sit with the Indigenous affairs minister or the environment minister. As I said, these are thorough and considerate reports—and the recommendations speak to the principles and priorities that will shape our legislation. Free, prior, and informed consent. Truth telling and open dialogue. Genuine partnership—the kind that can only be entered into by equals. And wrapped around it all, a new respect for Indigenous culture and history, enshrined in our national law, honoured by business and civil society, and celebrated in communities right across this country. The alliance and I are working closely with Minister Burney and Senator Dodson to make sure we get these laws right. Just like we are working closely with the states and territories, to make sure our rules are harmonised across the Commonwealth. And we will work closely with business—who have already shown a great willingness to learn from past experience and to grow. These reforms are not about stopping development, or halting progress. They're about redressing an imbalance—our oldest imbalance. We're protecting Indigenous cultural heritage for the same reason we're supporting the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Voice to Parliament. We are always a better country, more unified and confident and secure in ourselves, when we give everyone a seat at the table, and when we listen to all voices. There's never been a better moment to take this step. As the Prime Minister said in his speech to Garma earlier this year, in our lifetime: … there has been an extraordinary and joyous change in the way Australians from all walks of life have embraced the privilege we have to share this island continent with the world's oldest continuous culture. We've got the momentum behind us—and with it, I truly believe, the goodwill of the Australian people. We are so lucky to live in this country, with an endlessly rich culture to draw on, to learn from, to love and to value and to cherish. That's why I'm so proud to table our response to the inquiry into the destruction of Juukan Gorge today. We acknowledge we have to do better. We are committed to doing so, in true partnership with First Nations Australians. I present the government's response to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia's reports into the destruction of cultural heritage at the Juukan Gorge. 09:11 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper On behalf of the coalition I welcome the opportunity to respond to the ministerial statement. Firstly, I too acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Ngunnawal peoples past, present and emerging, and I also acknowledge members of the alliance. Thank you for your detailed work and working with the government. On behalf of our shadow environment minister, Senator Jonno Duniam, I would like to express our gratitude to the minister and her office for providing us with notice yesterday that she would be making the statement. I also commend the minister on the depth and the sincerity of her address. Clearly, the issues canvassed in the statement are extremely important and they command very serious attention and consideration. As the minister noted, Juukan Gorge is one of the oldest sites of human occupation in Australia, and it is home to many forms of profound and sacred Indigenous heritage. It has always been the coalition's view that the events at Juukan Gorge on 24 May 2020 represented a tragic failure in Rio's interaction with the Traditional owners. More broadly, they drew into very sharp focus the wider need for the modernisation of Indigenous heritage protection laws here in Australia. Accordingly there are a number of points in relation to these on which the coalition resoundingly agrees with the minister. Indeed—and I'll return to the point later—we are very pleased that the minister has now made clear that she will be continuing the work that had already begun in this area during the years of the coalition government and particularly through our then environment minister, Sussan Ley, and Indigenous affairs minister, Ken Wyatt. That work was underpinned by funding in the 2021-22 budget that was specifically devoted to developing an engagement process to identify the best ideas, frameworks and models for reform. As we also said throughout that time, we always considered that it was vital that this process be centred on the views and the experience of the traditional owners. In meetings at the time between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, there was a very clear and collective view that the Juukan Gorge disaster should serve as a launchpad for reviewing and modernising Indigenous cultural heritage laws, and we were very pleased to instigate that process. The coalition would also like to pay special tribute today to the work of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia. It is their work more than anyone's that is continuing to serve as the foundation for the policy development in this field. That committee worked in a very considered, sensitive, bipartisan fashion under the outstanding leadership of the member for Leichardt, Warren Entsch. As the minister said in her statement today, the committee also drew on a range of very powerful and compelling evidence from Indigenous Australians. All of that led to a series of seminal conclusions and recommendations. It is also very pleasing to see a bipartisan approach in adopting so many coalition policies going forward. Further, I note the minister's very important commitment today that the approach to Indigenous cultural prediction is, 'not about stopping development or halting progress'. Any work that is aimed at improving cultural heritage law should not be transformed into an exercise that demonises industry or imposes unacceptable risk to sensible, sustainable economic development across Australia. On the matter of the government's decision to accept the first seven recommendations of the joint standing committee's 2021 report, the coalition will take that commitment at face value. We're also comfortable that the government will continue to at least explore the potential merit of transferring responsibilities for Indigenous cultural protection from the environment minister to the Indigenous affairs minister. We look forward to seeing the outcomes of all of that work. That said, it does become apparent, from listening to the minister's statement today and from reading the accompanying document, that these outcomes may not be reached for many years. That creates some concern. As does the intensifying sense of unease across the business community, in the resources industry in particular, about Labor's broader agenda in the environment portfolio. There has been considerable shock and dismay in response to the Albanese government's decision to hand nearly $10 million in funding in the recent budget to radical environmental activists. The effect of the decision to review 18 coal and gas projects approved by the previous federal environment ministers has also been concerning. Through the IPA's detailed analysis, we now know that this action alone could cost 174,000 Australians their jobs and cause the loss of $100 billion worth of investment in our country. In turn, there is also growing disquiet about the government's imminent release of its response to the Samuel review of the EPBC Act and its looming creation of an environmental protection authority. However, in the meantime, we again thank the minister for her statement today. We also pay tribute to the traditional owners of Juukan Gorge for their ongoing determination to preserve and honour their beautiful and phenomenal cultural heritage. We thank all of the many people who have been involved in the past two and a half years in trying to turn an environmental tragedy into a much more positive and inspiring future. The SPEAKER 53517 I just want to remind the member for Cowper, when responding to a minister's statement it is about the statement and not to bring other material into the statement. Mr Conaghan 279991 Thank you, Mr Speaker. 09:18 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That the House take note of the document. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 3 09:19 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney By leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 3 BILLS National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022 3

National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022

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

Second Reading 3 09:19 The SPEAKER 53517 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Kooyong moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Clark moved an amendment to that amendment adding words. The honourable member for Warringah moved a further amendment. So the immediate question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Warringah be disagreed to. Question agreed to. The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Clark be disagreed to. Question agreed to. The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be disagreed to. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 09:22 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That consideration in detail of the bills be made orders of the day for a later hour this day. Question agreed to. National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 4

National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022

Consideration in Detail 4 09:23 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and—by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (36) on sheet TT149 as circulated together: (1) Clause 7, page 10 (after line 1), after the definition of magistrate, insert: medical practitioner means a person registered or licensed as a medical practitioner under a law of a State or Territory that provides for the registration or licensing of medical practitioners. (2) Clause 7, page 12 (after line 2), after the definition of protected suspect, insert: psychologist means a person registered or licensed as a psychologist under a law of a State or Territory that provides for the registration or licensing of psychologists. (3) Clause 8, page 14 (line 20), omit "official;", substitute "official.". (4) Clause 8, page 14 (lines 21 to 23), omit paragraph (1)(e). (5) Clause 31, page 39 (lines 15 to 18), omit subclause (2), substitute: Protection of informant's identity (2) None of the following is required to do anything under this Act that would disclose the identity of the informant or enable that identity to be ascertained: (a) the journalist; (b) the journalist's employer; (c) a person assisting the journalist who is employed or engaged by the journalist's employer; (d) a person assisting the journalist in the person's professional capacity. (6) Clause 40, page 46 (line 4), before "The", insert "(1)". (7) Clause 40, page 46 (after line 6), at the end of the clause, add: (2) To avoid doubt, the Commissioner may deal with a corruption issue on the Commissioner's own initiative. (8) Clause 63, page 64 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add: (8) The Commissioner must give to the Inspector, within 3 business days after the summons is issued: (a) a copy of the summons; and (b) a copy of the record made under subsection (5). (9) A summons is not invalid merely because the Commissioner does not comply with subsection (8). (9) Clause 74, page 69 (line 15), omit subparagraph (b)(i), substitute: (i) legal advice that is protected against disclosure by legal professional privilege; (10) Clause 82, page 74 (lines 3 to 5), omit paragraph (e). (11) Clause 91, page 80 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add: (4) The Commissionermust give to the Inspector, within 3 business days after the warrant is issued: (a) a copy of the warrant; and (b) a copy of the application for the warrant; and (c) if the information given under subsection 90(2) is given in writing—a copy of the document recording that information. (5) A warrant is not invalid merely because the Commissioner does not comply with subsection (4). (12) Clause 96, page 83 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add: Vulnerable persons and persons with disabilities (4) If the Commissioner is aware that a non-disclosure notation will apply to a person who has a disability or vulnerability that could affect the person's ability to comply with the notice or summons concerned, the Commissioner must consider including permission in the notation for the disclosure of information to enable the person to obtain assistance in: (a) complying with the notice or summons; or (b) otherwise engaging with the processes of the NACC. (13) Clause 98, page 84 (after line 26), after paragraph (3)(c), insert: (ca) to a medical practitioner or psychologist for the purpose of obtaining medical or psychiatric care, treatment or counselling (including psychological counselling); or (14) Clause 100, page 87 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add: Vulnerable persons and persons with disabiliti es (4) If the Commissioner is aware that the direction will apply to a person who has a disability or vulnerability that could affect the person's ability to comply with the direction, the Commissioner must consider directing that investigation material may be disclosed to enable the person to obtain assistance in: (a) complying with the direction; or (b) otherwise engaging with the processes of the NACC. (15) Clause 101, page 87 (after line 16), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the disclosure of investigation material by the witness: (a) to a legal practitioner for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or representation in relation to the corruption investigation to which the investigation material relates; or (b) to a legal aid officer for the purpose of seeking assistance in relation to the investigation; or (c) to a medical practitioner or psychologist for the purpose of obtaining medical or psychiatric care, treatment or counselling (including psychological counselling). Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (2A): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code. (2B) Subsection (1) does not apply to the use or disclosure of investigation material by a legal practitioner for the purpose of: (a) obtaining the agreement of a person as mentioned in subsection 115(3) to the legal practitioner disclosing advice or a communication; or (b) giving legal advice to, or making representations on behalf of, the witness. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (2B): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code. (16) Clause 124, page 107 (lines 17 to 27), omit subclause (2A), substitute: (2A) Subsection (2B) applies if the warrant is to search: (a) a person (the journalist) who works in a professional capacity as a journalist; or (b) the employer of the journalist (working in that capacity); or (c) premises occupied or controlled by the journalist or the employer (in the capacities covered by paragraphs (a) and (b)). (17) Clause 159, page 130 (lines 10 to 22), omit subclauses (1) and (2), substitute: (1) The Commissioner must advise a person of the outcome of a corruption investigation if the Commissioner investigates a corruption issue concerning the conduct of the person. (18) Clause 159, page 130 (line 23), omit "or (2)". (19) Clause 159, page 130 (line 27), omit "or (2)". (20) Clause 159, page 131 (line 4), omit "or (2)". (21) Clause 159, page 131 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add: (7) However, subsection (1) does not apply if advising the person of the outcome of the investigation: (a) is not reasonably practicable; or (b) would be contrary to the public interest, including because it might prejudice: (i) a person's fair trial; or (ii) a NACC Act process; or (iii) any other investigation that is being undertaken by a Commonwealth agency or a State or Territory government entity; or (iv) any action taken as a result of a NACC Act process or an investigation covered by subparagraph (iii). (22) Clause 184, page 149 (after line 4), after paragraph (1)(e), insert: (ea) to review the conduct of, and determine the extent of compliance with the law by, the NACC in issuing summonses, and in applying for and executing warrants for arrest as mentioned in sections 90 and 91; (eb) to make recommendations to the NACC on the outcomes of such reviews; (23) Clause 185, page 149 (line 27), omit "(5)", substitute "(4)". (24) Page 164 (after line 15), at the end of Subdivision A, add: 214A In spector's powers to conduct reviews For the purposes of conducting a review as mentioned in paragraph 184(1)(ea), the Inspector: (a) may, at all reasonable times, enter and remain on any premises occupied by the NACC; and (b) is entitled to all reasonable facilities and assistance that the Commissioner is capable of providing; and (c) is entitled to full and free access at all reasonable times to any information, documents or other property of the NACC; and (d) may require a staff member of the NACC to provide any information the Inspector considers necessary, being information: (i) that is in the staff member's possession, or to which the staff member has access; and (ii) that is relevant to the review; and (e) may examine, make copies of or take extracts from any information or documents. (25) Clause 225, page 173 (lines 10 to 22), omit subclauses (1) and (2), substitute: (1) The Inspector must advise a person of the outcome of a NACC corruption investigation if the Inspector investigates a NACC corruption issue concerning the conduct of the person. (26) Clause 225, page 173 (line 23), omit "may", substitute "must". (27) Clause 225, page 173 (line 28), omit ", (2)". (28) Clause 225, page 173 (line 32), omit ", (2)". (29) Clause 225, page 174 (line 10), omit ", (2)". (30) Clause 225, page 174 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add: (8) However, neither subsection (1) nor (3) applies if advising the person of the outcome of the investigation: (a) is not reasonably practicable; or (b) would be contrary to the public interest, including because it might prejudice: (i) a person's fair trial; or (ii) a NACC Act process; or (iii) any other investigation that is being undertaken by a Commonwealth agency or a State or Territory government entity; or (iv) any action taken as a result of a NACC Act process or an investigation covered by subparagraph (iii). (31) Clause 241, page 198 (line 15), omit "(5)", substitute "(4)". (32) Clause 242, page 199 (line 15), omit "(5)", substitute "(4)". (33) Heading to clause 276, page 217 (line 2), omit the heading, substitute: 276 Delegation by the Commissioner (34) Heading to subclause 276(2), page 217 (line 11), omit the heading, substitute: Appointment of CEO and decision to take no action (35) Clause 276, page 218 (line 11), after "subsection (1)", insert "or paragraph (2)(b)". (36) Page 218 (after line 12), after clause 276, insert: 276A Delegation by the Inspector General delegations (1) The Inspector may delegate all or any of the Inspector's functions, powers or duties to a person assisting the Inspector who: (a) is an SES employee, or acting SES employee; or (b) holds, or is acting in, an Executive Level 2, or equivalent, position. Decision to take no action (2) Despite subsection (1), the Inspector may delegate the Inspector's powers under the following provisions to any person assisting the Inspector: (a) subsection 210(6) (decision to take no action in relation to a NACC corruption issue); (b) section 214A (Inspector's powers to conduct reviews). Limits on general delegations (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a function, power or duty under: (a) Subdivisions A to D of Division 3 (hearings) of Part 7 (as modified by section 214); or (b) paragraph 184(1)(eb) (recommendations on outcomes of reviews); or (c) Subdivision B of Division 4 of Part 10 (reporting on NACC corruption investigations and NACC complaint investigations); or (d) section 230 (disclosure by authorised discloser in public interest); or (e) in relation to making an arrangement mentioned in subsection 239(3) (arrangements for dealing with intelligence information); or (f) this section. Form of delegation (4) A delegation under this section must be in writing and signed by the Inspector. Complying with directions (5) In performing or exercising a function, power or duty delegated under subsection (1) or (2), the delegate must comply with any directions of the Inspector. The amendments on sheet TT149 implement recommendations made by the Joint Select Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation in their advisory report on the bill. They also implement recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in report No. 5 of 2022. And they implement three further amendments to address technical issues with the bill, including to permit the inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission to appropriately delegate their powers and functions to persons assisting the inspector. I'll now outline briefly the amendments on sheet TT149. Amendments (5) and (16) broaden safeguards for the protection of journalists in relation to search warrants and extend protections for their sources. Amendments (1), (2), (12), (13), (14) and (15) improve safeguards for the wellbeing of persons who may require assistance to comply with the summons or notice to produce and expressly permit people to disclose information to a medical professional. Amendments (17), (18), (19), (20), (21), (25), (26), (27), (28), (29) and (30) require the commissioner to advise a person whose conduct has been investigated of the outcome of the investigation. Amendments (3), (4), (6) and (7) amend the definition of corrupt conduct and clarify that the commission may deal with a corruption issue on their own initiative. Amendments (8), (11), (22) and (24) enhance the power of the National Anti-Corruption Commission inspector regarding witness statements and arrest warrants. Amendment (10) narrows the grounds for bringing contempt proceedings, and amendment (9) amends the requirement that all evidence which discloses legal advice be given in private. Amendments (23), (31) and (32) correct a typographical error in cross-references to clause 178 of the bill, which deals with the approval of the appointment of the commissioner, deputy commissioners and inspector by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Finally, amendments (33), (34), (35) and (36) make minor presentational changes to titles and headings to reflect the amendments to the commissioners' and the inspector's delegation powers. 09:26 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra The coalition supports the government's amendments here. We thank the government for these amendments. Many of the amendments deal with matters that were part of the joint select committee recommendations; in fact they implement the recommendations from the joint select committee. Many of those matters were things that the coalition has been particularly pushing for, including the deletion of clause 8(1)(e) from the definition of corruption and providing an exemption from gag orders for medical professionals and psychologists. That doesn't go quite as far as we would like, and we've got amendments that I'll speak to later. We're also pleased to see that a person subject to an inquiry will be advised of the outcome and to see an expansion of the powers of the inspector. We think that these are all good amendments, and the other amendments are of a technical nature, which we also support. 09:27 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I just rise to speak in support of these amendments and to thank the government for making these important amendments to what is an extremely important bill that is going through the House today. The work of the committee that I had the privilege of being part of and deputy chair of put forward many amendments, as did the human rights committee of this parliament. They're good amendments, and I thank the government for their consensus approach by implementing these amendments. 09:28 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith As the government amendments are being moved in a block, we will support them, but we will note some brief concerns and reserve our right to address these in the Senate. The majority of these changes come out of the inquiry process and improve the bill. A notable omission is removing the overly high bar from public hearings the exceptional circumstances test creates. This was not in the Labor election commitment on this and appears to have been created as the result of a deal between Labor and the coalition. In particular, clarifying that people in front of the NACC may disclose to a medical practitioner or psychologist that they have been called to appear allows them to receive appropriate support and health care. Likewise, additional supports to enable disabled and vulnerable people to comply with the non-disclosure requirement are entirely appropriate and respond to the evidence raised in the inquiry about the need for these. If a non-disclosure agreement is issued to someone who doesn't fully understand the requirements or penalties, then clearly that person requires additional support. The changes that require summons and warrants issued by the NACC to be given to the inspector empower that body further, as is appropriate. The inspector should not just be looking for corruption within the NACC but have the powers and resources to consider overreach by the body. The issue of better protecting journalist informants was raised by many stakeholders in the course of the inquiry. A strong and independent press is a key feature of democracy and is in itself an anticorruption feature, so limiting the impact of the NACC on journalism is important. Where a warrant is issued for journalist materials, amendment (16) applies the public interest test, which better balances the need for the NACC to do its job with the protection of journalist access. There are, however, some government amendments we oppose. Amendment (4) seeks to remove existing clause 8(1)(e) from the NACC Bill—and (3) is consequential on this. Clause 8(1)(e) reads as follows: 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. It is intended to function as a catch-all clause for the definition of 'corrupt conduct' for the matters not covered under (a) and (b), which relate to breaches of public trust, abuse of office or misuse of information, specifically. The primary concern is, if (e) is removed, there are potentially a class of matters where it is apparent that corruption has happened but the NACC is unable to investigate, at risk of serious legal challenges from cashed-up targets. Some of the actions the public would expect to be covered by the remit of the NACC could potentially be excluded following this amendment—for instance, the Morrison secret ministries, which the public sees as a deep abuse of process but it is possible they may not be seem to be covered by 8(a) to (d), and third parties trying to corrupt government through post-political employment, like Peter Reith with Tenix, and where political donations result in changed policy outcomes. The section is designed to futureproof the NACC's jurisdiction to catch changing and emerging activities that corrupt the federal government. The argument against keeping the provision is that it's too broad. This misses the point that to be captured under this provision the conduct must be serious or systematic corruption. That's a pretty clear set of boundaries that most people outside of parliament can understand. We need a broad definition of 'corruption' for the NACC because the political system keeps coming up with new ways to betray the public interest. If you told someone 12 months ago the Prime Minister would grant himself a bunch of secret powers and ministries, they would have laughed. But politics keeps surprising us in new and novel ways, and we need the NACC to have the jurisdiction to keep on top of this. 09:31 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I rise simply to say that I will be supporting the government's amendments. I thank the Attorney-General and his office for their engagement particularly on the issue of journalist and source protection. A free press is critical to our democracy. I believe there were some gaps in the original iteration of this bill which have been resolved with the government's amendments. This particularly goes to protection of journalists' sources. We do not want journalists to be caught up in investigations and penalised for doing their jobs, and I'm hopeful these amendments resolve those issues in part. I continue to be concerned about journalists potentially being caught up in legal action when they receive leaked documents; this is an issue I'm continuing to press with the government. I also thank the Attorney-General for resolving the issue of warrants. Having Federal Court judges being responsible for the issuing of warrants is an important safety net in this bill, particularly for media organisations which we have seen raided inappropriately in the past; that's something we don't want to see again. Question agreed to. 09:33 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi by leave—I move amendments (5) and (6), as circulated in my name, together: (5) Clause 73, page 68 (lines 10 to 14), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The Commissioner may decide to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in public if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. (6) Clause 73, page 68 (line 16), omit "may", substitute "must". I am a vocal supporter of this bill. I believe overall it's an exceptional model, an excellent model, and I applaud the government for prioritising the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation as top order in their agenda since they came to parliament. We've been waiting a long, long time to see legislation such as this. I thank in particular the Attorney-General for the way in which he has gone about putting this bill together, for the consensus approach he has adopted as best he can, for the many roundtable meetings and for the work of his department and of his staff. This will indeed establish a powerful anticorruption commission. The fact we have worked so hard together across the parliament to pull together what I hope will ultimately be a consensus bill is something I have long called for—that we can, together, bring about this extremely important change. But it could still be better, and I've long said that I won't finish until the absolute finish line, and we're getting close to that. This bill can be improved before we deliver to the Australian people the National Anti-Corruption Commission they truly deserve: an anticorruption commission that's fit for purpose and that fulfils its role not just now but into the future for many years to come. I urge all members of this House to think very carefully about what our nation has asked us to do and to consider my amendments on their merits. I ask you to support them so that we pass legislation for the best possible integrity body. Our nation desperately wants to restore its trust in us. I know it does. Part of that is people seeing how we deal with corruption when it comes before us. I would never ask for carte blanche public hearings—not at all. That is not what I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about is that the public get to see, when it's in the public interest, an inquiry of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Amendment (5) will strike out the unnecessary and alarming exceptional circumstances requirement. In my mind, this is the single most important change to this bill. My amendment will ensure that the commissioner may decide to hold public hearings if the commissioner is satisfied that it would be in the public interest—tested, simple and safe. As deputy chair on the committee examining this bill, I sat through almost 40 hours of evidence from integrity experts, former judges past and current, ICAC and IBAC commissioners, and transparency advocates. We heard little support from witnesses or submissions for the exceptional circumstances test and, in fact, an overwhelming amount of evidence against it. Sufficient protections are provided by requiring a hearing to be public only when it's in the public interest. Coalition committee members indeed cited fears about grave mental health impacts that may arise from appearing in public, when arguing to keep the exceptional circumstances test. But I would point members to the government amendments which will allow additional protections to seek mental health support, because it is an important concern, and I share it, but the exceptional circumstances clause is not the way to fix it. These concerns can be addressed in a way that enhances protections but does not hide the most critical corruption investigations away in the dark. That's why amendment (6) will 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 by a public hearing. This amendment boosts the protection of people who would be affected by the decision to hold a hearing in public. It was supported by the Law Council of Australia. It's already in place for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner and in some state anticorruption commissions, including in New South Wales. This amendment was supported by coalition committee members inquiring into the bill. The opposition—and I spoke to them about inserting 'must' instead of 'may'—decided not to proceed, so they have the opportunity to back this amendment. So, if you're concerned about protecting the mental health and reputations of people who may be subject to a public hearing, I urge you to vote for this amendment. 09:38 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith I understand that the member for Indi is intending to move amendments separately. I won't seek to speak on all the amendments but would like to express support for all of the member for Indi's amendments. These amendments all respond to the expert evidence received in the hearings and to the broad consensus on how to make the NACC independent and deliver on the mandate of the last election. Amendments to explicitly include pork-barrelling, collusive tendering and fraudulent appointments respond directly to revelations in the last few years. The public has been very clear that they think the NACC should be able to consider these matters. Removing the exceptional circumstances test is supported by the Greens and by the majority of the evidence heard during the inquiry into the bill. The alternative proposed definition for exceptional circumstances as 'circumstances in which it is preferable or appropriate for evidence to be given in public' likewise appropriately clarifies the clause instead of leaving it as a potentially insurmountable obstacle to public hearings. Amendment (8) changes the chair of the committee as being elected by the committee and not being a member of the government party, which removes the current government control of the oversight committee. You're setting a committee up to fail if you have it controlled by the government of the day whose actions regarding funding are likely to be one of the major things that has to be considered. Likewise, amendment (10) requires the minister to table a statement of reasons if the government deviates from the recommendations of the parliamentary committee on budgets. This provides an opportunity for the community to be informed if the NACC's budget is less or more than requested and why this might be. The need for the committee to oversight the budget is to stop criticism-sensitive governments from hacking into the budget and stopping the commission from doing its important work. Amendment (11) requires that for decisions about appointing the commissioner, deputy commissioner and inspector the decision to approve or reject must be made by a majority of the committee, including at least two government members and two non-government members. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments be disagreed to, and I give the call to the Attorney-General. 09:40 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I am speaking to the first two amendments moved by the member for Indi. I thank the member for Indi for her amendments and for her constructive engagement on this legislation throughout. On the exceptional-circumstances point, throughout this debate and indeed throughout the development of these bills and the joint select committee process we've heard differing views on the circumstances in which the commission should be able to hold public hearings. This is a matter on which reasonable minds may differ. The commissioner will have the discretion to hold public hearings if they're satisfied that it's in the public interest and exceptional circumstances justify doing so. This is an appropriate threshold which reflects the significant nature of the power to compel a person to answer questions at a public hearing and the sensitivities involved in holding public hearings—for example, the risk of prejudicing a future criminal investigation or trial and of course the risk of reputational harm that may arise. It will often be appropriate that hearings be conducted in private—for example, to avoid prejudicing an ongoing investigation or related criminal proceedings, to protect the privacy of witnesses or to ensure that national security information is protected from disclosure. It will be a matter for the commissioner to weigh up these considerations. The threshold involving exceptional circumstances and consideration of the public interest will enable the commissioner to effectively investigate corruption issues. The government will not be supporting this amendment. On the other amendment, which deals with mandatory considerations, the bill already sets out a number of factors which the commissioner may consider when determining whether to hold a hearing in public. The government does not consider that it is necessary or appropriate to require the commissioner to consider each of these factors in all cases. The commissioner will have the discretion to determine which factors are relevant to the question of whether or not it would be in the public interest to hold a public hearing and whether exceptional circumstances exist in the context of a specific investigation. There would be limited value in mandating consideration of a particular factor in circumstances where the factor is not relevant. The government does not support that proposed amendment. 09:42 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise to support the amendments moved by the member for Indi, and I speak because the exceptional circumstances have been set as a bar too high for public hearings. I'd like to address the examples the Attorney-General just raised in the chamber. The Attorney-General identified a number of exceptional circumstances where a public hearing would not be appropriate, with which I agree. There are absolutely circumstances, such as national security or where it could prejudice a criminal investigation, where a public hearing would not be appropriate. However, that doesn't actually cover the point, which is to say that no hearing should be public unless there are exceptional circumstances. I don't believe those examples actually go to the heart of this, which is that it's the prejudice to assume that it's only in exceptional circumstances—sorry: I think it goes to the opposite piece, where that's an argument to say, 'Well, under exceptional circumstances the hearing should be in private.' I 100 per cent agree. But that's not to assume that it's only exceptional circumstances where the hearings are in public. I come from New South Wales, and one of the most egregious examples of corruption in New South Wales is the Eddie Obeid case, where the former New South Wales ICAC commissioner said, 'The operations behind these cases could not have been undertaken without public hearings.' As I said, this is one of the most egregious examples of corruption in New South Wales. The people of New South Wales are deeply appreciative of the ability to actually get awareness of this corruption, but this would not be possible under the circumstances outlined in the act. The Victorian experience, when contrasted with the New South Wales experience, shows that there is a real difference in the operations of public hearings because of these exceptional circumstances. In the case of New South Wales, where there is a high bar to public hearings, we only get about five per cent of the hearings actually public. This is not something that is abused; this is something which is used extremely sparingly. So I agree with the member for Indi and I agree with the Law Reform Commission's example on this. Fundamentally, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and it is absolutely crucial that exceptional circumstances be removed from this legislation. I support the amendments from the member for Indi. 09:46 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I rise also to support the amendments from the member for Indi, and I acknowledge her tireless work on this issue, along with other Independents sitting on this crossbench and others who are no longer sitting on this crossbench who have worked hard to bring this legislation to the parliament. I believe this is defining legislation, which will define not only this government but this parliament, and it is a legacy that this government and this parliament will leave. In that context, I wonder why we would pass a weaker version of the legislation than we need to. I could guess at why we are doing so, and I think many of us know that conversations have been happening in the background to get us to where we are. But the government has the numbers, particularly with the members of this crossbench, to pass legislation that I believe is more workable than the bill that we are likely to put through this House today. On that basis, I endorse the amendments from the member for Indi, and I agree also with the member for Wentworth that the bar of exceptional circumstances is too high. If we are to put trust in the commissioner and commissioners to act in the public interest, I would argue that the checks and balances that are inherent within the legislation to protect safety, reputation, mental health and such are enough for those commissioners to make a decision in the public interest on public hearings. Like my crossbench colleagues, I don't argue for across-the-board public hearings. I agree that there are arguments for hearings to be held in private, but I also would reverse the onus to say that private hearings should be held in exceptional circumstances, not the other way around. On that basis, I commend the member's amendments to the House. 09:48 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I also commend the member for Indi for her amendment and all the members of the crossbench, and many in this parliament, who have been advocating for so long for sunlight to finally hit at federal level when it comes to integrity and anticorruption. We must have a strong national anticorruption commission, and throughout the last parliament and this parliament there has been much discussion about this. What we have now before the parliament is a good bill—I commend the Attorney-General for that—but it is not a great bill. This is not capturing that opportunity to genuinely, truly deliver to the Australian people what they asked for at the election, which is public integrity and accountability. The threshold test of the commissioner needing to be satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances and in the public interest means, as the Victorian IBAC submission to the inquiry identified, that on top of the normal circumstances of corruption and integrity questions that are being investigated, the circumstances must be, in addition to that, exceptional in nature to then justify a public hearing. It is really important for the public to understand the high bar of this threshold. What this also means, because it is not defined—the Attorney-General wants to leave this to the broad discretion of the commissioner—is that it is open to legal challenge. So what is likely to happen—and this is a broadly held view—is that in very few instances will a commissioner risk litigation by actually finding 'exceptional circumstances' and 'public interest' and going for public hearings. You can just see the simplicity of the route. The route will be: you keep it private, and an investigation can proceed, but the public will be in the dark. The public will not know what comes out of that investigation, and that is directly contradictory to what the public wants. In the circumstances of finding 'exceptional circumstances', you will then see litigation. That will be challenged in court. It will be held up. It will go all the way to the High Court, and the public, again, will not see the outcome of investigations. At the election in 2022, I don't think there could have been any clearer or louder call that the public has had enough. They have had enough of politicians at the federal level being held to a different standard than everyone else. They want to see integrity returned to this place. For that, we have an opportunity. This is a moment in time. It's a culmination of a lot of work, and I urge the Attorney-General to really consider stepping up to the plate at this moment in time to make this a great bill and to endorse this amendment. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that amendments (5) and (6), circulated in the name of the member for Indi, be disagreed to.

The House divided. [09:55]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

77 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Andrews, K. L. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Coker, E. A. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Conroy, P. M. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Hawke, A. G. Kearney, G. M. King, M. M. H. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leeser, J. Leigh, A. K. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, L. S. O'Neil, C. E. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Pearce, G. B. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Ramsey, R. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Swanson, M. J. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Wallace, A. B. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. Zappia, A. 14 NOES Archer, B. K. Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Katter, R. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:03 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi by leave—I move amendment (7) as circulated in my name. (1) Clause 8, page 14 (after line 20), after paragraph (1)(d), insert: (da) any conduct of a public official that involves the allocation of public funds or other resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes; (2) Clause 8, page 14 (after line 23), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Corrupt conduct is also any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that impairs, or that could impair, public confidence in public administration and which could involve any of the following matters: (a) collusive tendering; (b) fraud in relation to applications for licences, permits or other authorities under legislation designed to protect health and safety or the environment or designed to facilitate the management and commercial exploitation of resources; (c) dishonestly obtaining or assisting in obtaining, or dishonestly benefiting from, the payment or application of public funds for private advantage or the disposition of public assets for private advantage; (d) defrauding the public revenue; (e) fraudulently obtaining or retaining employment or appointment as a public official. (3) Clause 8, page 14 (line 24), omit "does not", substitute "and subsection (1A) do not". (4) Clause 8, page 15 (line 15), after "paragraph (1)(a)", insert "or subsection (1A)". (5) Clause 73, page 68 (lines 10 to 14), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The Commissioner may decide to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in public if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. (6) Clause 73, page 68 (line 16), omit "may", substitute "must". (7) Clause 73, page 69 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add: Meaning of exceptional circumstances (6) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), exceptional circumstances means circumstances in which it is preferable or appropriate for evidence to be given in public. (8) Clause 177, page 144 (line 19), before "to review", insert "at least once every 12 months,". (9) Clause 177, page 144 (after line 30), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) If: (a) in a report mentioned in paragraph (1)(g), the Committee makes a recommendation in relation to the NACC's finances and resources; and (b) the Minister decides not to follow the recommendation; then: (c) the Minister must prepare a written statement of reasons for the decision not to follow the recommendation; and (d) the Minister must cause a copy of the statement of reasons to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after making the decision. (10) Clause 178, page 146 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The decision to approve or reject a proposed recommendation is to be determined by a majority of all of the members of the Committee for the time being holding office. The majority must include: (a) at least 2 Government members; and (b) at least 2 non-Government members. (11) Clause 178, page 146 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The decision to approve a proposed recommendation must be supported by at least a two-thirds majority of all of the members of the Committee for the time being holding office. (2B) Paragraph 173(5)(b) does not apply in relation to a vote on a decision to approve or reject a proposed recommendation. If exceptional circumstances is to remain in this bill, 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 are not unreasonably increased due to the ambiguity of the phrase. This remedy was supported by the Australian Federal Police Association, the Community and Public Sector Union and Transparency International Australia. This aims to limit litigation on the meaning of the phrase and would ensure that the number private hearings are not unreasonably increased due to the ambiguity of the phrase 'exceptional circumstances'. I think it's really clear that those of us on the crossbench, my colleague from the coalition and the general public have incredible concern around the exceptional circumstances clause. I've just lost the division on the removal of the exceptional circumstances clause, but we have a second chance here to make sure that, if this is going to stay, we know exactly what it means. I would urge members of the House to think about that. It's a very sensible, very easy amendment to make, and it removes the ambiguity. I urge members of the House to have a look at that and think about this carefully. You can rescue the decision you just made by being clearer about this part. I commend this amendment, and I ask that colleagues across the House look at this carefully and make sure that they're on the right side of history here—that we make it clear both to the commissioner and, importantly, to the public what we mean by 'exceptional circumstances'. 10:05 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I'd like to support this amendment because it is clear that 'exceptional circumstances' is misunderstood, and, without definition, it raises great concerns. We know from the submission from the Victorian IBAC that it is about exceptional circumstances above and beyond the normal mill of integrity and anticorruption issues. So just what will qualify as exceptional circumstances? Interestingly enough, I watched the Attorney-General with Sarah Ferguson on 7.30 recently, and she put it to him very specifically: 'What will be exceptional circumstances?' With respect, he dodged the question, saying he 'will leave that to the commissioner to determine', because, I would say, it's not clear in the government's mind what will be the exceptional circumstances. It leads to an inference that it's such a high bar that, in fact, there is an unwillingness to actually say just what will be exceptional circumstances. It undermines this legislation. I think, for the public to genuinely have confidence that we have the best possible National Anti-Corruption Commission, if we're going to keep a test of 'exceptional circumstances', it does need definition. 10:07 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Let's clear this up right now. Through you, Speaker, I put the question to the Attorney-General. Attorney-General, please tell us what your understanding is of 'exceptional circumstances'? 10:07 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I would again thank the member for Indi for her constructive engagement on this legislation. As I have said previously, this matter of 'exceptional circumstances' is certainly a matter on which reasonable minds can differ. The commissioner will have the discretion to hold public hearings, if they are satisfied that it is in the public interest and exceptional circumstances justify doing so. It's the government's view that this is an appropriate threshold which reflects the significant nature of the power to compel a person to answer questions at a public hearing. It reflects the sensitivities involved in holding public hearings—for example, the risk of prejudicing a future criminal investigation or trial. And it reflects the issues of reputational harm which may arise. It's appropriate that this discretion rests with the commissioner. The government doesn't support this amendment. I just want to answer a comment that was made by the member for Wentworth. In her earlier remarks about public hearings, she quoted the late David Ipp, who provided such service to the people of New South Wales as the ICAC commissioner. It's very important that everybody understands that the bill does not ban public hearings. The comments of the late David Ipp that the member for Wentworth quoted were about whether or not to hold public hearings at all. The former government's proposal was not to hold public hearings at all. To the contrary, this bill leaves that question to the discretion of the commissioner. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that amendment (7), moved in the name of the member for Indi, be disagreed to.

The House divided. [10:13]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

54 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Birrell, S. J. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Chesters, L. M. Coker, E. A. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Hill, J. C. Howarth, L. R. Kearney, G. M. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Leigh, A. K. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, E. L. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Stevens, J. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Wallace, A. B. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 16 NOES Archer, B. K. Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Katter, R. C. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:20 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) as circulated in my name together: (1) Clause 8, page 14 (after line 20), after paragraph (1)(d), insert: (da) any conduct of a public official that involves the allocation of public funds or other resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes; (2) Clause 8, page 14 (after line 23), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Corrupt conduct is also any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that impairs, or that could impair, public confidence in public administration and which could involve any of the following matters: (a) collusive tendering; (b) fraud in relation to applications for licences, permits or other authorities under legislation designed to protect health and safety or the environment or designed to facilitate the management and commercial exploitation of resources; (c) dishonestly obtaining or assisting in obtaining, or dishonestly benefiting from, the payment or application of public funds for private advantage or the disposition of public assets for private advantage; (d) defrauding the public revenue; (e) fraudulently obtaining or retaining employment or appointment as a public official. (3) Clause 8, page 14 (line 24), omit "does not", substitute "and subsection (1A) do not". (4) Clause 8, page 15 (line 15), after "paragraph (1)(a)", insert "or subsection (1A)". These amendments are really important. They put beyond doubt that pork-barrelling falls within the definition of 'corrupt conduct' when it meets the threshold of being serious or systemic. Pork-barrelling under this amendment will be defined as any conduct 'that involves the allocation of public funds and resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes'. Let's call pork-barrelling out for what it is. It is buying votes with taxpayer money. It doesn't pass the pub test. My constituents are stumped as to why it still goes on. The public are sick and tired of it, because they know that every time a marginal electorate gets pork-barrelled important infrastructure in other electorates misses out. They are absolutely sick of it. In the last parliament, I heard the now Attorney-General standing in this place constantly—constantly!—calling out the then government on this. I heard the now Prime Minister do the same thing—constantly calling out pork-barrelling and constantly calling for an anticorruption commission that would fundamentally stop pork-barrelling. Now that we have this government's National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation, I want to make sure that there is not one element of doubt that the commissioner can, when they determine that this is serious or systemic, go ahead and undertake an investigation into this egregious practice that has been going on across this nation for way too long. There is significant and growing concern about the alleged misuse of billions of dollars of public grant funds, and there should be absolutely no ambiguity regarding the NACC's ability to investigate what is a really, really disgraceful practice. I want to be clear. This amendment does not force the commissioner to investigate all instances of pork-barrelling—though, I might say, it would be jolly good if there was some way that we could do that! The amendment doesn't do that at all. This amendment retains the discretion of the commissioner as to whether or not to commence an investigation, as it should be. These amendments also ensure that the conduct of any person—and, 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. These amendments on third-party involvement which impairs public confidence are really important. This is a tried and true provision in every single anticorruption body in Australia, apart from Western Australia and Tasmania, and it belongs in this body, too. These are two really important amendments. Members of this place, you haven't got much time left now to make this bill the very, very best it can be. If, like me, you get tired of constituents coming to you when something good does happen in your electorate—the member for Bass talked to me about this yesterday, and it's so true. Members of this place work really hard with government to advocate for excellent policies and excellent infrastructure to come into their electorate. When that happens, to feel like you're then part of this great big bad situation of pork-barrelling actually undermines the good work that happens here, and it doesn't do anything about the bad stuff. I say to you: if you want to regain the trust of the nation, if you want to walk out in your community and feel that, every time you work hard for them to get the infrastructure they need, it's going to be done in the right way, under clear guidelines and with real integrity, then you should be voting for this amendment, so we make this absolutely crystal clear. Members, think carefully about this one, and think carefully also about third parties and the erosion of public confidence in public officials. We can fix this now. I think the Attorney-General knows what I'm talking about. This is a real opportunity to get this bill as tight as we possibly can, to say to the public, 'We're here for you, right down to the wire, to make sure that we have an anticorruption commission that is absolutely fit for purpose and will restore your trust in us.' 10:25 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy In speaking to this bill, I personally of course have been on the receiving end. In one election, quite literally every newspaper that came out in the Kennedy electorate had a picture of Senator Boswell handing out cheques during the election campaign. John Anderson stood down soon after the inquiry into the fact that most of the development moneys had been spent in the two electorates targeted by the National Party, which were the electorate of New England and the electorate of Kennedy. Mr Beazley was then the Leader of the Opposition, and he led the attack, and I suppose the member for New England and I enjoyed the game. But it was the third case, and no-one blew the whistle on him, and he was told to fix up the account. I told him bluntly that he either fixed up the account or there would be another investigation and he'd be leaving this place. It gives me no joy to say—because I spent most of my life in the National Party—that, in that last case, it was a National Party leader; in the case before that, it was the National Party leader; and, in the case before that, it was the National Party leader. The last case did not politically involve Kennedy, but it concerned dairying, and I had probably the biggest dairying area in Australia. The dairy RAP money had gone to the minister's electorate and not to anyone else. So that was not politically motivated, just in his own personal interest. He thought it would be nice if he pork-barrelled for himself. But it is a very sorry record. Now, I live in the real world. I'm a realist. If you're working with people, and they're your friends, then you are more inclined to do things for them because you just know what they're doing. You're working with them. They're people that you trust. In Queensland the relationship between the Thiess brothers and Bjelke-Petersen enabled that state to create the tourism industry, to create the coal industry and also to create the minerals-processing industry, which came out of my own electorate. They were all created out of that extremely tight relationship. We don't want pork-barrelling to cover things that are good for the nation, where you're going to spit on them just because they happen to be friends or they happen to be political supporters. I want to make it perfectly clear that, whilst every one of us on the crossbench—and I'm not speaking for the crossbench, of course—want to go where Helen Haines is taking us in this debate and in this initiative, we must also understand that it can't punish people just because they happen to be friends and supporters of the Labor Party or the Liberal Party. I was at the CFMEU dinner last night. If there's a big construction job on and there's site coverage by the CFMEU, we're not going to allege—I hope that no-one in this place would allege—that therefore it's wrong because there's an association between the CFMEU and the ALP, which, of course, there is. They support them very substantially financially. I just want to make the point that, whilst we're trying to attack an evil, an endemic evil in our system—and I've pointed out where it has occurred again and again and again. There was Ros Kelly, going back before the National Party's transgressions. It was unbelievable what she did there. But a similar thing had been done by one of the National Party leaders, only much worse, actually. So it's been going on and on and on, and it will continue to go on. We just hope this legislation will stop it. But we don't want the legislation to become a killing ground for things that are good for the government of Australia. 10:30 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie In relation to these amendments, I find the member for Indi's amendments, quite frankly, offensive. I spoke about this last night in my own speech. I will leave it on the record there, but I certainly won't be supporting the amendments. 10:30 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I support the member for Indi's amendments, and I applaud the member for Indi for being such a principled member of this parliament and being prepared to tackle issues like this. I echo the member for Indi when she makes the distinction between, on the one hand, a member for parliament fighting for their electorate and the response of the government to those requests—that is, us fighting for our electorates and being successful—and, on the other hand, governments acting in corrupt ways with systemic pork-barrelling for political gains. I think it is undeniable that the previous government's sports rorts program was unconscionable and unethical. It should be illegal, and it meets every reasonable definition of corruption. So too does what happened before last year's Tasmanian state election, when the Tasmanian government rolled out $15 million of grants, including to a number of community groups linked to state politicians and their families—for example, a grant of $150,000 to a rowing club of which a family member of a candidate was a member. That is corruption. I echo the member for Indi's comments, and I also pick up on her point about her conversation with the member for Bass yesterday. I was a part of that conversation. The member for Bass does a really good job representing her community and fighting for her community, and it is quite offensive to the northern Tasmanian members personally when we talk about their electorates being pork-barrelled. I do talk about their electorates being pork-barrelled, and I criticise governments and political parties for pork-barrelling in those areas, but we've got to be careful to keep that as a completely separate matter to good members of parliament fighting for their groups and doing everything they possibly can to get federal funding for their community groups, for infrastructure et cetera. 10:32 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I rise in support of the member for Indi's amendments. I feel that by not including pork-barrelling in this bill we're operating at cross-purposes with our electorates. Certainly, during the election campaign, constituents in Goldstein primarily spoke to me about pork-barrelling. It so happens that Goldstein was the recipient of no fewer than six car parks—or should I call them car porks?—to the tune of roughly $100 million. Even though those commuter car parks were supposed assets for the electorate, there was deep recognition within the community of Goldstein that these were blatant examples of pork-barrelling by the former government. Those car parks have now been axed by the current government in the most recent budget, but it echoes for me, having now been elected, how deeply this issue ran during the election campaign. Therefore, I feel that to exclude this as an explicit element of the bill is a mistake, and from that perspective I endorse the remarks of my colleagues. I would also add that arguably some would say, 'Well, there's a difference between pork-barrelling and corruption,' but I don't think our constituents see it that way. Particularly in an environment of cost-of-living pressure—where people are struggling to pay for fuel for their cars, to pay their electricity bills and to pay their rent or mortgages—people find it deeply troubling and offensive that business cases are not stacked up for the way that taxpayers' money is spent. There should be transparent processes around the allocation of taxpayers' funds. So with that in mind I strongly support the member's amendment and I think my community would as well. 10:35 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I just want to speak briefly to echo the remarks made by my crossbench colleagues. One-third of Australians voted in May 2022 in favour of increased transparency and integrity in government. And, yes, we had carpark rorts, we had sports rorts, we had the Leppington Triangle and we had water rorts. It is only with the passage of time that we will understand the extent of the lack of integrity of the last government. These things are coming to light by the day. We have been like frogs being boiled. We have become inert to the extent to which integrity has been lost and that has been reflected in the fact that the Australian public has lost faith in the process. If we don't include pork-barrelling then something will remain rotten in the state of Victoria, in the state of Tasmania, in New South Wales. We have to uncover this corruption wherever it is. Without doing that we won't regain the trust of the Australian public, and I think it is really important we do everything in our power to do that. 10:36 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to strongly support this amendment. Pork-barrelling is the absolute scourge of government decision-making in Australia. I don't think there could have been a more audible gasp from the community when the previous Premier of New South Wales admitted on transcript that pork-barrelling is just the norm, that that is how you allocate public money. In circumstances when so many now communities have lost trust and faith in government and in government decision-making and when there is such a history of decisions of spending of public money where it has not been on a prevailing merit base or need of the community but for an ulterior purpose which is a political purpose, I do find it ironic because, traditionally, it has been the coalition that argued that decisions need to done on merit, that we couldn't possibly have quotas on other issues and things like that. But when it comes to spending public money, the merit case is subjugated to an ulterior purpose. Pork-barrelling is just corruption. It has been recognised as such, the public thinks it is that and it is absolutely a scourge on government decision-making. By explicitly excluding it from this National Anti-Corruption Commission, it flies in the face, I believe, of the expectations of our communities. I think the government will be judged on that, particularly for having provided cover for pork-barrelling. 10:38 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Indi for raising the issue of the commission's ability to investigate serious or systemic corruption in relation to discretionary grants programs, commonly referred to as pork-barrelling. As I've said previously, there is a point at which the making of discretionary grants can cross the line into corruption, where public money is being given away for private purposes and that is what are talking about. Can I assure the member for Indi and all of the other members of the crossbench who have spoken in support of her amendment that the bill would enable the commission to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct in relation to a discretionary grants program where that conduct may involve a breach of public trust, or dishonest or partial conduct. It is simply not correct, as the member for Warringah has just attempted to suggest, that it is excluded from the work of the commission. It is included in the work of the commission. These are very well-established concepts. They have been considered relatively recently by the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption in its Operation Jersey. If there are circumstances where grants are allocated dishonestly or for an improper purpose, the commission will be able to investigate if it is of the opinion that this could involve serious or systemic corruption. I now turn to the other matter that's raised by this group of amendments, which is the question of third parties and external fraud. The commission will be a specialist body focused on preventing, detecting and investigating corruption involving public officials. The commissioner will be able to fully investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct and transactions between public officials and third parties, as well as attempts by third parties to corrupt public officials. This includes the conduct referred to in the member for Indi's proposed amendment, where there is some involvement of a public official. Extending the commission's jurisdiction beyond matters involving corruption of a public official, to include external frauds against the Commonwealth that do not involve a public official, would divert the commission from its core purpose. The Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and other agencies are effectively dealing with these matters—sadly, by the hundreds every year. The Australian Federal Police, in particular, has specialist fraud investigating teams. It works with the Australian Taxation Office on these matters. They are specialist agencies, they are dealing effectively with these matters and it's not necessary to amend the bill to expressly cover conduct of this kind. The government does not support this amendment. The SPEAKE 53517 The question is the amendments (1) to (4), moved by the member for Indi, be disagreed to.

The House divided. [10:45]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

58 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Birrell, S. J. Burnell, M. P. Byrnes, A. J. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Hamilton, G. R. Hill, J. C. Howarth, L. R. Kearney, G. M. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Leigh, A. K. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Stevens, J. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 15 NOES Archer, B. K. Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Katter, R. C. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:51 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi by leave—I move amendments (8) and (9), as circulated in my name, together: (8) Clause 177, page 144 (line 19), before "to review", insert "at least once every 12 months,". (9) Clause 177, page 144 (after line 30), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) If: (a) in a report mentioned in paragraph (1)(g), the Committee makes a recommendation in relation to the NACC's finances and resources; and (b) the Minister decides not to follow the recommendation; then: (c) the Minister must prepare a written statement of reasons for the decision not to follow the recommendation; and (d) the Minister must cause a copy of the statement of reasons to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after making the decision. These amendments enhance budgetary transparency and oversight of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Around Australia, anticorruption commissions have been starved of adequate funding. Even the threat of funding cuts could have a silencing effect on anticorruption commissions' capacity to undertake investigations. This is incredibly important as we set up this National Anti-Corruption Commission to last into future. We want to ensure that governments to come absolutely must provide transparency about the funding required to run an effective anticorruption commission This amendment will also require the minister to table a statement of reasons if they deviate from the recommendations of the National Anti-Corruption Commission joint select oversight committee in relation to the budget. The amendment provides an additional layer of oversight and transparency over the National Anti-Corruption Commission's budget by requiring the government of the day to respond to a report regarding the adequacy of the NACC's budget. This not only is important for the corruption commission itself but, again, speaks to transparency and what the public needs to see. The public must have the opportunity to see whether the government is following its own oversight committee's recommendation regarding NACC funding and for the government to justify reasons if it chooses not to follow those recommendations. My amendments also require the parliamentary joint committee to review the Anti-Corruption Commission's budget every 12 months. This amendment will ensure regular review of the NACC's budgets and prevent the powerful budget oversight power from going unused. Again, I put these amendments forward in good faith for protection into the future. We may not always have a government who wishes to see a powerful anticorruption commission succeed. These amendments will ensure that the review function is used and will give the public and this parliament the chance to scrutinise the government's decisions in relation to funding requests. This is extremely important. We need to make sure that this National Anti-Corruption Commission is fully independent and powerful. Having adequate funding to undertake its work is absolutely central to that. Thank you. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Indi be disagreed to. The member for North Sydney was on her feet before the member for Kennedy, so I will give the call to the member for North Sydney—but rest assured, the member for Kennedy will get a fair go as well. 10:54 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I wanted to speak to these particular amendments because I think they send a very important message to the Australian community about the visibility of how this National Anti-Corruption Commission is going to be established and about how its integrity in the longer term will be protected and sustained. I would argue in this House that actually one of the key measures of success of the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be its longevity and sustainability. We know all too well from the experiences of the last 15 years here in this place how easy it is, with a change of government, for bodies to be set up with the best of intentions and then to subsequently be gutted and become powerless in the face of a new power in politics. I think the amendments the member for Indi has moved are infinitely reasonable. These are not things that require us as a parliament to go out of our way. They do not induce any level of discomfort for us. What they ask us to do is to ensure that all of us as parliamentarians remain transparent to the communities that we've been sent here to represent. I would also reflect on the fact that amendments very similar to this were recently introduced into the climate bills for exactly the same reason. Our democracy only becomes stronger when the people who send us here are given a very clear line of sight on the discussions we're having, the advice we're taking and what we are doing once we receive that advice. I commend the member for Indi for these amendments and support them very strongly. 10:56 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I'm very aware of the arguments against the initiatives that we are taking here. I saw so many totally innocent people completely destroyed in the Fitzgerald inquiry on police corruption in Queensland. I'll just give you one example. Any policeman that gave evidence against the corrupt police group that the Fitzgerald inquiry was investigating had child pornography put on their computers. There were, I think, something like 32 policemen and people who had done the right thing, who had the courage to do the right thing and who had their lives completely destroyed. They went to jail. Two of them committed suicide, I remember. I don't know how many ended up committing suicide. But they were the good guys. So I can see the inherent dangers here. I can also see the ineffectiveness of what has been done in Queensland. What we're doing here has been done in Queensland, and I'll come back to that. But the other side of the argument is that, if we had had in place what the honourable member is putting up here today, would we have got into that situation in Queensland? There was a member of parliament called Ray Jones, an ALP member in Cairns, and he said that there were allegations of cattle thieving and drug running in the police force. He got a lot of publicity out of it, and I subsequently found out that there were two murders associated with this group. I rang him up, and he said, 'I don't know what you're talking about—never heard of it. I don't know what you're talking about.' I said, 'You're the front page of the Cairns Post and the Courier-Mail!' He said, 'I never heard about it,' and he hung up on me. If we'd had a crime and corruption commission, he would not have had to fight that fight, and I would not have been charged. The police had me up on two charges—the corrupt police. I wouldn't have had to go through that trauma if we'd had the means to do something about it, which we did not have in Queensland and which is being put in place here today. There's just one other aspect of this that I would like to bring to the attention of the parliament. In Queensland, they have a criminal justice commission. They change the name fairly regularly, but the last time I looked it was called the Criminal Justice Commission, and it's a body similar to what we're setting up here. It was felt that that was inadequate, so they added an integrity commissioner as well. Now, in Queensland there were 17 applications for development, and nothing had happened with them. The front of the Sunday Mail, the second-highest circulation newspaper in Australia, had allegations that the minute a certain person left the ALP's set-up in the government of Queensland to become a lobbyist, all 17 of these proposals went through in the space of 13 months. The Queensland Integrity Commissioner was looking at this and got a very intimidating letter from the Premier of Queensland asking about her travel, and the Integrity Commissioner—it was quite excellent, what she did—immediately gave to the Criminal Justice Commission the letter from the Premier, which a lot of people would believe was intimidating. So then what happened was the Premier raided the Integrity Commissioner's office, took the computer which had all the information on what was going on—there was no-one in the office at the time—and sacked the entire staff of the Integrity Commissioner in Queensland. The Integrity Commissioner's contract was up a few weeks after that, so needless to say her commission was not renewed. So how effective was the CJC? Utterly ineffective. How effective was the Integrity Commissioner? Utterly ineffective. But I would still contend that if we'd had what is being proposed by the honourable member here today, we would not have had 42 murders— (Time expired) 11:02 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs These amendments that the member for Indi has put forward deal with budget matters, and I again thank the member for Indi for her amendments and for her constructive engagement on this legislation. The government has committed substantial funding of $262 million over four years for the establishment and ongoing operation of the commission. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission will have the function of reviewing the commission's budget and finances and reporting to the parliament on whether the commission's resources are sufficient to effectively perform its functions and whether the budget should be increased. The parliamentary joint committee will be able to review the commission's budget at any time, and the commission will be subject to the usual budget estimates process three times each year. The parliamentary joint committee will also be able to request advice from the commission on its budget requirements for future years. These arrangements will provide robust, powerful parliamentary oversight of the commission's budget. At some point you have to rely on the ability of the processes of this parliament, like establishing parliamentary oversight committees and having Senate estimates, and the effect that those processes can potentially have to impose political pressure by bringing this to public attention. The government's view is that the further amendments that the member for Indi is proposing would not meaningfully enhance the committee's role, and it doesn't support these amendments. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that amendments (8) and (9), moved by the member for Indi, be disagreed to.

The House divided. [11:08]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

49 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Boyce, C. E. Burnell, M. P. Byrnes, A. J. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Hastie, A. W. Hill, J. C. Hogan, K. J. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Neumann, S. K. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Pitt, K. J. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Stevens, J. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Willcox, A. J. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 16 NOES Archer, B. K. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. (Teller) Haines, H. M. Katter, R. C. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

11:12 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Many people in this place might be relieved to know that, depending on what happens in the Senate, these could be my final words on the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Honourable members interjecting— Dr HAINES 282335 I know, I know! I hope I'll be back by popular demand, with some fantastic amendments coming through from the Senate! I move amendment (10) as circulated in my name: (10) Clause 178, page 146 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The decision to approve or reject a proposed recommendation is to be determined by a majority of all of the members of the Committee for the time being holding office. The majority must include: (a) at least 2 Government members; and (b) at least 2 non-Government members. This is a very important amendment because it speaks to independence again—the separation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission from the executive arm of government in a way that brings full transparency and accountability to this incredibly important legislation. The independence of this Anti-Corruption Commission from the executive is fundamental to the functioning of this body. It's crucial. This is a powerful body, and it must be seen to be a powerful body, and it must be seen in every way to be independent from the executive of the government. This amendment will strengthen the all-important parliamentary oversight committee's role in keeping the NACC independent. This amendment requires that a majority of the parliamentary joint committee, when considering whether to approve or reject the appointment of a commissioner, a deputy commissioner or an inspector, must include at least two non-government members. The amendment will ensure that decision to approve or reject recommendations for the incredibly important appointment of the commissioner—the appointment of the commissioner is a make or break deal. We must make sure that it has the support of the whole parliament. So this amendment will ensure that that decision to approve or reject the recommendations for the appointment of the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector is a true consensus decision of this oversight committee, and not a government fait accompli. This amendment adopts the appointment clause from my own bill, the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill, and I believe it's a very fair amendment. It ensures that the appointment decision has multipartisan support. It prevents the government appointing the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector when the proposal is only supported by the government. It ensures that when that crucial decision is made that at least two non-government members form part of the majority in approving that decision. I think it's a very important amendment. I've considered the other proposals to amend this clause, including from the opposition—I had a very fruitful conversation with the shadow Attorney-General, and I thank him for that—and I believe the coalition also wish to see that we make sure this joint oversight committee has the capacity to keep the independence of this appointment of the commissioner and get a consensus appointment. Ultimately, though, I've determined that my approach is the one that strikes the right balance between independence and a functioning body, and avoids unacceptable deadlocks in the appointment of the commissioner. I know my crossbench colleagues have some other remedies to this issue as well because it is so important. So I do ask the parliament to think about this very carefully. Understand, if you're on the government side, you won't always be in government. I know that's a shocking thought for you! Likewise, on this side, you were in government last time. Who knows when you will be again? For us here in the middle, we work with whoever's in this place—by golly, we do, don't we? And we're here to make amendments to legislation, every time in good faith. So colleagues I say to you today: look at this amendment; don't just follow along what your party tells you to do. Think like an Independent and pass this amendment! 11:17 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Indi for her amendment and for her constructive engagement throughout on this legislation, including long debate and, most recently, participation as deputy chair of the joint select committee of both houses of this parliament considering this legislation. The appointments of the commissioner, the deputy commissioners and the inspector will be subject to approval by the parliamentary joint committee following a recommendation by the Attorney-General. The bill provides for multipartisan representation on the committee and ensures that the commission, including its key office holders have the confidence of the parliament. It is the government's intention and sincere hope that appointments to this commission will receive multipartisan support. Broad parliamentary support for appointments will be integral to the commission's credibility—a bit like broad parliamentary support for this legislation, which is also very important. Proposed recommendations for appointments will be subject to transparent and merit based processes and statutory eligibility criteria. This will ensure that appointments are subject to appropriate oversight and the recommended candidates for these very important roles have the confidence of the parliament. It's the government's view that a simple majority is sufficient to achieve this. This parliament works by majority vote. It does not work by giving a veto power to some sections of either house. The bill already includes appropriate safeguards in the appointment process, including by ensuring that a decision is made within a required time frame, generally 14 days, so there can be no unnecessary delay. It's appropriate that the government of the day, which has responsibility for government decisions regarding the commission, such as funding, hold the role of the chair and have the casting vote. For that reason, the government will be opposing this amendment. 11:19 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy This will be the last comment I make upon this. I was just reflecting upon the fact that Peter Costello, who for a large number of years was the Treasurer in this place and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, had a great-great-grandfather who was the Mayor of North Melbourne. He was jailed, and it was simply nothing more than bitter, brutal infighting inside the labour party. It was nothing except internal fights within the labour party, and he went to jail. That was the great-great-grandfather of Peter Costello. John Maitland, the head of my union, the CFMEU, and one of the great industrial leaders of this nation in recent years, went to jail for two years—again, just an internal fight within the Labor Party, and he got caught in the crossfire. I think probably the most telling case was that of Graham Richardson. I did disclosures in this place, and the information I disclosed was given to me by two Labor members of parliament. So, again, people are going to jail and being destroyed as a result of political machinations. I think the thing where the member for Indi's proposals bite deepest—and I will conclude on this note—is that, when I realised that the police were going to put me in jail, I rang up Premier Bjelke-Petersen, who I enjoyed a very close relationship with. Honourable members interjecting— Mr KATTER HX4 No, just listen. No, you know what you see in the media. You don't know what really happened. He hyperventilated in fear on the telephone, and I thought, 'If the Premier is terrified of this mob, where does that leave me?' Well, we didn't have a weapon to fight with. Even though we were a powerful, centralised government, under considerable brutality, we had no weapon to fight these people with. Here was the leader. He was scared, and my reaction was, 'If he's scared, what the hell is going to happen to me?' So I've just given case after case after case emphasising the necessity, for which I think the member for Indi will probably be pretty famous for the rest of her life. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that amendment (10), moved by the member for Indi, be disagreed to.

The House divided. [11:26]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

55 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Archer, B. K. Birrell, S. J. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Chester, D. J. Coker, E. A. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Kearney, G. M. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Leigh, A. K. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Pearce, G. B. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Thompson, P. Vamvakinou, M. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. Zappia, A. 14 NOES Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Katter, R. C. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed.

11:31 Ms LE 295676 Fowler by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 63, page 64 (line 10), at the end of subclause (4), add: ; and (c) include contact details for translator services. (2) Page 65 (after line 19), after clause 66, insert: 66A Services that must be provided to persons appearing at hearings (1) The Commissioner must cause the following to be provided to a person who appears at a hearing: (a) appropriate translation services during the hearing; (b) mental health counselling and support services, provided by an appropriately qualified social support worker or health care professional (the treatment provider). (2) If, under paragraph (1)(b), a person is provided with a counselling or support service by a treatment provider, neither the person nor the treatment provider is required to do anything under this Act that would disclose any statement made or any information given as part of the counselling or support service. (3) Clause 73, page 68 (line 30), at the end of subclause (3), add: ; (f) whether a person giving evidence has a reasonable level of English language proficiency; (g) the need for cultural sensitivity if the person giving evidence is from a non-English speaking background. I know I'm constantly harping on about multicultural Australia, since being elected. In my electorate of Fowler, 70 per cent of our population was born overseas and speaks English as a second language, and, therefore, on every decision we make in this House, I have to take into consideration that which actually goes to my community. First of all, I applaud the government for taking the necessary steps to end corruption and prevent future corruption. It is important to also note the tireless advocacy of crossbench members who have come before me, like the former member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, and those in other places. It is important to also give recognition to my colleague the current member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines. She has been a passionate driver of this bill. She holds herself to the highest standards not only in this House but in her community every day. She is a prime example of what it means to lead with integrity and transparency. The amendments I have risen to move will do the following: increase cooperation between the commission and individuals of multicultural backgrounds; and assist those with language barriers to be fully understood and also to clearly communicate with the commission. Amendment (1) will ensure translation and interpretation services are available to Australians who require them. It means the commission will need to provide contact details for translator services in a situation where there is a language barrier. This amendment will ensure that is followed through to summons and the commission's investigative processes. Amendments (2) and (3) will ensure the commission will provide individuals with appropriate mental health resources and support through the commission process. Being called in front of an integrity commission can be daunting, can be shocking and can lead to suicide—and it has led to suicides. I want to ensure that, when the commission is established, investigating corruption is not at the cost of life, especially a life who was not corrupt or may have never been found corrupt. I thank the government for making a note in the explanatory memorandum and for suggesting it will make sure the commission considers this important point in my amendments, but frankly I don't think that's enough. I understand the government believes all Commonwealth agencies should act with the highest standards and provide basic services like mental health support. But a suggestion is just that—a suggestion. It is not a mandate and it is not safeguarding the wellbeing of Australians or any individual that will appear before the commission. I made my arguments for these amendments clear in my speech on the second reading debate of the bill, and I stand by those arguments. English is my second language. I learnt it, I grew up here, and I know how daunting it is when you get up in front of any authority, even for myself at times. So I thank the opposition for their support and those on the crossbench who will support and protect Australians, especially those of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and, in fact, all communities across Australia. 11:35 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I want to thank the member for Fowler for moving these amendments. I think one of the things that is true of our society at the moment is that we are at a tipping point. We are going through a massive cultural change as a nation. While we proudly herald ourselves as an example of one of the strongest multinational countries in the world, all too frequently we still tend to lean towards one part of our history. I think that what the member for Fowler has done here is provide us as a parliament with an opportunity to recognise that we need to shepherd our parliament through this cultural change. To her point, putting instructions such as these into notes in a memorandum is not strong enough in this case. In my seat of North Sydney, nearly 50 per cent of the community were not born in Australia or have a parent who was not born in Australia. Thirty per cent of my community speak a language other than English at home. I believe it is essential, as we start to develop processes and procedures like this, that we are ensuring that they are not Anglo- and English-centric and that we are enabling our entire community to be protected and participatory in the process. The other point that I would make, as this National Anti-Corruption Commission comes into existence, is that we are actually living in a time of unprecedented mental distress across our community. People are already experiencing high degrees of stress as a result of COVID lockdowns, global tensions and climate pressure. Again, I commend the member for Fowler for identifying that this is a good safety net to bring into this process. I know that much has been made in this chamber about the fear of what would happen for people being brought in front of it. I think that this is an infinitely practical suggestion in terms of amendments that would make this legislation stronger. 11:37 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I just want to briefly add my support for these amendments from the member for Fowler, and just reflect on what makes Australia great. I think one of its key elements is its wonderful multicultural society. I believe that we are the most successful multicultural society in the world. But, as the child of a migrant and a grandchild of migrants, I'm very aware of the barriers that language can have for people, particularly when dealing with authorities. My grandmother never learnt to speak English, and that can be quite typical of communities. It's absolutely critical for those people to make sure that, in the very intimidating circumstances of an ICAC—which I think would intimidate any member of this House, let alone members of the community—we put safeguards in place to ensure that they have the best access to justice and the best ability to protect themselves. 11:38 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Just briefly, I've spoken about what we used to call new Australians. I want to speak about older Australians. There are a number of First Australians communities in the Cape York and Gulf Country where they still speak, as their language, the original language of that country, and they will also greet these amendments very favourably. 11:38 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Fowler for her amendments, and if I could simply say to her that it is not harping to express concern for multicultural Australia, to express concern about the need for translation services and to express concern about the need for support services for anyone that has any kind of disability being required to participate in this commission's activities. It is the government's expectation that the commission would make available appropriate translation, mental health and other support services to persons who require assistance to participate in a hearing. As the member for Fowler has noted, updates to the explanatory memorandum will ensure the commissioner must consider permitting a person to disclose information to obtain assistance, including from an interpreter, to enable a person to engage fairly with the commission's processes. More broadly, it is my strong expectation that the commission will put in place procedures to ensure that a person has access to an interpreter or a sign language interpreter where required. This would be consistent with the approach that's taken by federal courts and by federal tribunals, as well as other Commonwealth agencies with hearing and examination powers. It will be managed as part of the commission's operating procedures. Clause 73(3) of the bill sets out a range of factors that the commissioner may have regard to when deciding to hold a hearing or part of a hearing in public. This will include consideration of any unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing that would be likely to be caused if a hearing were held in public. The factors also include whether a person giving evidence has a particular vulnerability. The commissioner will be able to consider factors beyond these matters, as the list of factors at clause 73(3) is not intended to be exhaustive. The government agrees that it is important for those participating in the commission's processes to be able to access appropriate mental healthcare assistance. We have introduced amendments responding to the recommendation of the joint select committee that would expressly permit such disclosures. The government does not support this amendment. 11:41 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I applaud what the member for Fowler has put to us today with regard to her very deep and legitimate concerns for protections for people of non-English speaking backgrounds. I do have a problem though with the third amendment around the threshold for public hearings. I say to the member for Fowler that while I absolutely agree that all consideration must be given to ensure that people from non-English speaking backgrounds have every support enabled to them, I would agree with the Attorney-General on this point that the threshold for public hearings does allow for the commissioner to make special consideration of a person who may fall into this category. I would just like to put that on the record. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that amendments (1) to (3) moved by the member for Fowler be disagreed to.

The House divided. [11:46]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

73 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. 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. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 63 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bates, S. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. 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. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. Robert, S. R. Scamps, S. A. 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. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Watson-Brown, E. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

11:51 Ms LE 295676 Fowler by leave—I move amendments (4) and (5) as circulated in my name together: (4) Clause 73, page 69 (line 10), at the end of subclause (5), add: ; (c) the context in which the witness is appearing at the hearing; (d) the need for the public not to scrutinise a witness before the corruption investigation has been completed. (5) Clause 95, page 82 (lines 9 and 10), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The notation must permit disclosure of information to: (a) the spouse of the recipient of the notice to produce or private hearings summons (unless the spouse is a subject of the corruption investigation in relation to which the notice or summons is given); and (b) any mental health professional who is providing mental health care to the recipient of the notice to produce or private hearings summons. My fourth amendment will seek to ensure that, when the commissioner plans to make a public statement about an investigation, they must consider the need to, firstly, provide the context in which a witness is called; and, secondly, provide support against the onslaught of public scrutiny that may arise throughout the investigation. The fifth amendment aims to sure that those who are facing an inquiry will be able to at least share the fact that they have been summoned with their spouse, unless the spouse is also under investigation, to alleviate pressures and provide support during a time that is no doubt stressful and, in some cultures, tremendously humiliating. These amendments tie in with amendments (1) to (3) to ensure that individuals who are called in to an inquiry will have the support they need, especially those from non-English-speaking backgrounds. May I remind this House that one of our democratic cornerstones is the fact that people are innocent until found guilty. As I'm sure many in this House know, the 24/7 news cycle and social media can be the harshest of judges. They can be damaging to your reputation and mental health. Mental health awareness in Australia has been growing, particularly in the last few years due to COVID. However, for many CALD communities, mental health is often misunderstood and misrepresented due to language barriers. In my own language, the Vietnamese language, the direct translation of 'depression' is either 'mad' or 'sad'; there is not a word in the Vietnamese language that can properly convey the depths of despair one might feel if they were to go through a bad mental health spiral. For anyone caught in front of an inquiry, it's surely intimidating, but if English is not your first language— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order! The member is entitled to be heard in silence. Ms LE 295676 If English is not your first language and if your own experience with authorities has been in your home country with less democratic procedures, it would be terrifying. Such was the case for the deputy general manager of the company Wu International, who took his own life after being called as a witness for a New South Wales ICAC investigation. While he was named in the media, I have chosen to be respectful and not name him again, due to cultural sensitivity. In his suicide note to his wife and daughter he wrote that having ICAC officers fronting up at his doorstep to serve the summons reminded him of his father back in China when the CCP officers turned up at their home to arrest him. He was also informed by ICAC not to share that he had been summoned with any individuals, including family members. Yesterday I read an excerpt of his suicide note reported into the Sydney Morning Herald and today I will read another: I have decided to leave this world, which is also my last hardest attempt to prevent you and our daughter from becoming family members of a criminal; this is because I am still innocent at the time I wrote this letter he wrote in his suicide note, which was translated into English. Whether it is a private or a public hearing, it is clear that these investigations take a toll on an individual, especially if they're called as a witness and have not been found guilty yet. It takes a mental toll, even if they are called simply as a witness. Corrupt conduct must always be investigated, and perpetrators must always be held accountable. But this should not be at the expense of someone taking their own life. In the case I've just painted, had the director known he wasn't alone, had he known he didn't have to shoulder the burden alone and that he could have spoken to his wife and another mental health professional, then maybe he would still be alive today. Maybe his daughter would not be growing up without a father. It is our responsibility as lawmakers to ensure that legislation doesn't have adverse impacts on individuals and communities. It's my hope that this these amendments will protect those who may be called into a public or private hearing to provide an honest account without being unjustly scrutinised by the media and overall by the public. After all, we live in a democracy, and we have the right to have a fair trial before proven guilty. Thank you. 11:56 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra The coalition supports the amendments moved by the member for Fowler. Being called before the National Anti-Corruption Commission would be a very stressful process for individuals. I think, in the public mind, many people think that this commission will be dealing only with members of parliament. The truth is that it will be dealing with a very wide range of Australians. For anybody, being summonsed for questioning is an extremely stressful occasion. I note the good work of the joint committee on this point, extending the range of people you can consult to include psychologists and medical professionals. I think what the member for Fowler has done here in making it broader, to include any mental health professional, is a good thing, given the availability of psychologists in various parts of Australia; there is a real shortage. Many people who are feeling distraught would want to call an organisation like Lifeline or see a counsellor, and people should be able to do that. It's also particularly oppressive where you have a family member who is not the subject of an investigation and you can't even talk to them about this. In the context of thinking about the corruption commission and preparing the coalition's position on this I met with people who'd been bereaved by suicide as a result of having family members appear before the commission. I heard stories of people who were not able to tell their family member when they needed to travel interstate to appear before a corruption commission that they had to appear before the commission, for fear of breaching these gag orders. I think these gag orders that have existed at places and the potential for a gag order of this sort to exist at the federal level is oppressive to people. I commend the member for Fowler for these very good amendments, which the coalition supports. 11:58 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Fowler for her amendments. Just to deal with the existing provisions of the bill: where the commissioner holds a public hearing, the bill already provides that the commissioner will be able to make a statement about the circumstances and capacity in which a witness is giving evidence if the commissioner thinks it's appropriate to do so. This is an important reputational safeguard and would, for example, enable the commissioner to make a statement that a witness is appearing voluntarily and is not the subject of the corruption investigation—in other words, that a witness before the commission is just a witness of fact, that the witness is not being investigated. Clear statements from the commissioner is what we have in mind. The commissioner could also make other public statements to avoid undue reputational damage. An example would be a statement that the investigation is not yet complete or, for example, making a statement that no finding of corruption has been made against a particular person. All of this will appropriately be left to the discretion of the commissioner and, in the view of the government, does not need to be specified in the legislation. On the other matter that's raised by the member for Fowler's amendment, the bill already provides for the commissioner to include nondisclosure notations in a notice to produce information or a private hearing summons in certain circumstances, such as where not doing so might prejudice a person's safety or reputation or a fair trial. The notation may specify circumstances in which the disclosure of information is permitted. This would allow the commissioner to permit a person to disclose information about their participation in a corruption investigation to a spouse or a family member in appropriate circumstances. This will be appropriately left to the discretion of the commissioner and does not need to be specified in the legislation. On the matter of disclosure to mental health professionals, the government does recognise the importance of ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the mental health and wellbeing of those who are the subject of, or otherwise involved in, corruption investigations. This includes ensuring that persons in that category are able to access support from a medical practitioner or psychologist or psychiatrist. The government has moved amendments to ensure that, where a person is issued a notice to produce or a summons with a nondisclosure notation, the person will be able to disclose information that's covered by the notation to a medical practitioner or a psychologist for the purpose of obtaining medical or psychiatric care, treatment or counselling, including psychological counselling. The government does not support this amendment. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that amendments (4) and (5) moved by the member for Fowler be disagreed.

The House divided. [12:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Dick)

79 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. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 56 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. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. Tudge, A. E. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:10 Ms LE 295676 Fowler () (): I would like to thank the Attorney-General for his comments and for making clear the government's position. I am disappointed and, as I said— The SPEAKER 53517 The member will resume her seat. The time for the debate for your amendments has concluded. 12:10 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah by leave—I move amendments (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) as circulated in my name together. (3) Clause 74, page 69 (lines 16 and 17), omit subparagraph (b)(ii). (4) Page 69 (after line 21), after clause 74, insert: 74A Evidence involving legal professional privilege The Commissioner may determine that evidence is to be given in private if giving the evidence would disclose a communication that is protected against disclosure by legal professional privilege. (5) Clause 149, page 122 (after line 6), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The investigation report must be completed and tabled in each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable, and in any event within 12 months, after: (a) if any public hearings are held in the course of the corruption investigation—the conclusion of the last public hearing that is held; or (b) otherwise—the conclusion of the last hearing that is held in the course of the corruption investigation. (6) Clause 155, page 128 (lines 5 to 7), omit all the words from and including "must" to the end of the clause, substitute: must, within 14 days after receiving the report: (c) table the report in each House of the Parliament; or (d) if a House is not sitting—present the report to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House. (7) Clause 157, page 128 (line 32), omit "a reasonable opportunity", substitute "the period of 3 months, or such longer period as is determined by the Commissioner,". Amendment (5) relates to setting a deadline for the tabling of reports from inquiries. Section 149 of the bill requires a commissioner to prepare a report on an investigation, and section 154 requires him or her to give a report to certain persons but provides no time frame in which that report should be provided. Parties subject to an investigation should have certainty around when a report will be released. This is so we don't have a situation such as the current one in New South Wales with the investigation into Gladys Berejiklian, where the report's release keeps getting delayed with no clear explanation, creating uncertainty for all sides. My proposal is that the report should be tabled within a year of the completion of public hearings or, where public hearings were not held, within a year of the last private hearing. This amendment will also require the tabling of reports to parliament to improve the transparency and accountability of the commission. Amendments (6) and (7) set a deadline for the opportunity to respond to findings. Section 157 of the bill provides for the opportunity for any persons who have an adverse finding against them in a report to have a reasonable opportunity to respond. I believe this should be replaced with a fixed time frame in which to respond. The amendment proposes changing a reasonable opportunity to three months or such longer period as determined by the commissioner. Again, it is all about trying to provide a timeliness framework to investigations and reporting so that we don't have parties with deep pockets and an ability to bring on successive challenges in the legal sense that would delay the provision of reports. It is also because it can be politicised—we know this—and reports left without a specific time frame means they can be delayed purposefully or from an unintended consequence relating to when elections and other issues might be arising. Amendments (3) and (4) relate to changing the threshold for the use of legal professional privilege so it cannot be so easily abused to avoid public hearings. The commissioner should have discretion in deciding whether or not to hear private evidence that may disclose legal advice or a communication protected by legal professional privilege. I agree with the Centre for Public Integrity to make this mandatory. The current legislation says it 'must be private in all circumstances', so to make it mandatory would be to leave it open to well-funded litigants to exploit this right, with the effect of delaying or disrupting the commission's work. Historically, this has been shown. The New South Wales ICAC has been able to call legal representatives to the stand, which was critical to the success of the Eddie Obeid case. At a critical moment, an Obeid solicitor was able to be put on the stand to say that the Obeids had instructed them to do something quickly before it became public knowledge. Now, this was a crucial element to proving that the Obeids were acting on private government knowledge prior to the public release of the information. Corruption is usually carefully planned. Lawyers and accountants are engaged early in the act of corruption to develop the plan and approach. Accountancy firms usually have legally trained people to assist them with the establishment of legal professional privilege at an early stage. I strongly support legal professional privilege. I know it is an important cornerstone of the profession, but it is open to abuse. To get behind this and expose the corruption, you need to abrogate legal professional privilege. The New South Wales ICAC does so. This amendment simply says that the commission should maintain that discretion. It should not be a compulsory private hearing. If the bill proceeds as it is, everybody except the witness would be sent out of the room during the private hearing and the evidence would be denied to the media and the public. So there would not be that accountability and transparency which I think is so central to a strong National Anti-Corruption Commission. 12:15 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith The Greens will be opposing these amendments. While we appreciate the intention of amendment (5), we're concerned that, as currently drafted, it may unnecessarily constrain the commission on longer-running investigations. We would support an alternative to this, requiring that an update to the investigations be provided. Likewise, we recognise that amendment (7) changes the period that must be given to an agency to respond before a critical finding is made against them from a 'reasonable opportunity' to three months, or a longer period, as determined by the commissioner. We appreciate what is being tried to be achieved here, but the existing drafting actually does provide a reasonable opportunity and is specific enough. 12:16 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Warringah for her amendments and for her engagement on this legislation. The government amendments to clause 74 substantially address the member's concerns about legal professional privilege. The government's amendment will ensure that the requirement for evidence to be given in private does not apply to legal advice where privilege has been waived, for example, by the Commonwealth or a witness in the interests of transparency, or if the advice is not privileged, for example, because the advice was provided in furtherance of any legal or improper purpose. Where evidence properly attracts legal professional privilege and the privilege has not been waived, it is appropriate that the privilege be maintained. Any further amendments to this clause are unnecessary. On the question of a deadline for the completion of investigation reports, the government does expect the commission to conduct investigations and finalise its reports in a timely manner. This is already reflected directly and expressly in the objects of the legislation, which include facilitating timely investigations. It would be inappropriate to require the commissioner to finalise an investigation within arbitrary time limits. It will be a matter for the commissioner to determine when an investigation is completed and when the subsequent report is to be prepared. On the requirements for tabling of investigation reports, where a public hearing has been held during the course of the investigation, reports will be required to be tabled in each House of parliament within 15 sitting days after it is received. This will allow the government sufficient time to consider the report and any findings and recommendations. The commissioner will also be able to publish reports at any time when satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. Finally, in relation to the procedural fairness aspect of the amendments moved by the member for Warringah, the commissioner will be required to provide procedural fairness by ensuring that those who are the subject of a critical finding, opinion or recommendation in a report are offered an opportunity to respond. This will ensure procedural fairness for persons and agencies who are investigated by the commission. It's appropriate that the commissioner determines what time period constitutes a 'reasonable opportunity' to respond, given that this will vary, depending on the circumstances. For example, a reasonable opportunity to comment on a single adverse opinion in a very short report will be different to what a reasonable opportunity would be in a case that involved a lengthy report and multiple interconnected adverse findings. The government does not support these amendments. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that amendments (3) to (7) moved together by the member for Warringah be disagreed to.

The House divided. [12:24]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

45 AYES Archer, B. K. Bates, S. J. Burnell, M. P. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Georganas, S. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. King, C. F. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Neumann, S. K. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Pearce, G. B. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watson-Brown, E. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 6 NOES Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:27 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I move amendment (1) circulated in my name: (1) Clause 178, page 146 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) If the proposed recommendation is for the appointment of the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner, or the Inspector: (a) the decision to approve or reject the recommendation is to be determined by a majority of all of the members of the Committee; and (b) despite paragraph 173(5)(b), if the votes are equal, the Chair of the Committee does not have a casting vote. Many of my colleagues have spoken in this debate about the loss of public trust in this place, and they have spoken about the corrosive impact that lack of integrity, accountability and transparency has had on our democracy. The National Anti-Corruption Commission is a crucial first step in re-invigorating our democracy and beginning to restore that trust. That's why I'm proud to support this bill and why I'm proud of the contribution of communities like mine in making this reform a reality. This is a good bill, but it is not perfect. Members on all sides have spoken about the importance of the NACC's independence and particularly the independence of the commissioner, deputy commissioner and inspectors who will each play a crucial role in rooting out corruption in public life. Their independence is crucial. But, as currently drafted, it is possible that appointments to all these positions could be politicised. This is because the government of the day will always have the majority on the parliamentary committee that oversees and confirms these appointments. Even if an appointment is opposed by all non-government members of the committee, it could be waved through regardless. This is not independence. When the Australian public voted in May for more integrity in politics, they did not vote for a captain's pick for the role of the NACC commissioner, but that is what this legislation currently provides for. And when people tell me that this kind of politicisation won't happen with the NACC, that this time it's different, I'm afraid my community wants more than verbal reassurance. I acknowledge the earlier words of the Attorney-General in relation to an amendment similar to this moved by the member for Indi. In that speech he noted that the parliament 'operates by a majority vote'. That is obviously how the parliament works; however, I also note that you have acknowledged and criticised the politicisation of key appointments made in this parliament by governments in the past. Twenty per cent of the AAT's 320 tribunal members have a direct political connection to the government that appointed them. Half the Productivity Commission's board members have a political connection to the coalition, and members on both sides of the House have called out the Fair Work Commission for being stacked in favour of one party or the other. We had verbal reassurances that all these bodies would be independent from government, but that is clearly not the case. It is clear that no-one can guarantee that the government of the day won't put the interests of the party ahead of the interests of the country. Politicisation damages public institutions and our democracy, and we cannot afford to undermine the NACC. My amendment addresses the risk of such politicisation without affecting the government's control over the parliamentary committee's other functions. It prevents the committee's chair from having the casting vote when it comes to appointing the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector. That means the majority of all committee members would be required to approve these appointments, including at least one crossbench or opposition member. My amendment will ensure that the people chosen for these critical roles enjoy multipartisan support and that they are truly independent from government. It is a commonsense way to ensure this commission delivers what the public expects. I call on the government to support it. 12:31 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Wentworth for her amendment. Perhaps by way of comment on what she has said about the nature of these very important positions under the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill, namely the positions of the commissioner, the deputy commissioners and the inspector: the independence of these officeholders is guaranteed by the provisions of this bill, which provides powers for the commissioner and other officeholders. It gives the commissioner and other officeholders clear duties. It directly describes the way in which those powers are to be exercised and makes it absolutely clear that those powers are theirs and theirs alone. As to the parliamentary approval process for the appointment of these officeholders, which is what the amendment goes to: the government has provided for multipartisan representation on the parliamentary joint committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission. There is an unusual membership for this parliamentary joint committee. It is to have 12 members—six senators and six members of the House of Representatives. Of those 12 members, there are to be six government members, four opposition members and two crossbench members, and, as the bill provides, there will be a casting vote which will belong to the government chair. Of course, the government intends and hopes that the appointments to this commission receive multipartisan support. As I said earlier in this debate, broad parliamentary support for appointments will be important for the commission's credibility. The proposed recommendations for appointments to these important positions will be subject to transparent and merit based processes and statutory eligibility criteria. It's the government's view that this will ensure that appointments are subject to appropriate oversight and that the recommended candidates for these roles will have the confidence of the parliament. It's appropriate that the government of the day, which has responsibility for government decisions regarding the commission such as funding, hold the role of chair and have the casting vote. The government does not support an amendment which would in essence give a veto to non-government members of both houses of parliament. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth in her name be disagreed to.

The House divided. [12:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

46 AYES Aly, A. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Garland, C. M. L. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Hill, J. C. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Neil, C. E. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 16 NOES Archer, B. K. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Katter, R. C. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:44 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together. (1) Clause 278, page 219 (after line 8), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider and report on the following: (a) the role of the NACC; (b) oversight of the NACC; (c) the use and conduct of hearings; (d) emerging best practice. (2) Clause 278, page 219 (lines 27 to 29), omit subclause (6), substitute: (6) The Minister must, as soon as practicable, and in any event within 14 business days, after receiving a copy of the report of the review, cause a copy of the report to be: (a) laid before each House of the Parliament; or (b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House. I won't detain the House long; we have been here all morning on this bill. I'll just speak very briefly to these two amendments. The first really relates to the fact that I think it's important to provide as much clarity as possible with respect to what must be put into the review. I'm sure it is self-explanatory. You would expect these points—the role of the NACC, the oversight of the NACC, the use and conduct of hearings, and emerging best practice—to be in a review. But this is really to make sure that we don't assume that it is really quite plain and simple. Amendment (2) is to ensure that the minister—whoever the minister of the day is, for many parliaments to come—does provide to the parliament in a very timely manner a copy of the report of the review. What we have seen in the past—perhaps not in this parliament but in the past in parliaments gone by—is that sometimes ministers of the day have held on to reviews for a very long period of time and perhaps also released them at times when the rest of Australia is not paying attention. So this is really just about timeliness and about some detail of what is in that review. I would hope that the government would consider and support these two very simple amendments to provide some strength and some clarity. 12:47 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Mayo for her amendments. The bill does require a mandatory statutory review of the NACC legislation to be undertaken after five years of operation by a person or persons whom the minister considers possesses appropriate qualifications to undertake the review. The review would consider all aspects of the operation of the legislation, including the role of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, oversight and the use of hearings. Given this broad scope is already provided for in the bill, it's not necessary to prescribe additional matters to be considered. The bill requires the review to be tabled as soon as possible after it is received by the minister. The government expects this would be done in a timely matter. The government does not support these amendments. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that amendments (1) and (2) moved by the honourable member for Mayo be disagreed to.

The House divided. [12:52]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

70 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. 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. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 64 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bates, S. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. Tudge, A. E. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Watson-Brown, E. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:55 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Clause 8, page 16 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add: Journalist activities (14) To avoid doubt, conduct engaged in by a person who is an employee, contractor or agent of any Commonwealth agency (including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation) that is engaged in the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media does not constitute corrupt conduct if: (a) the person engaged in the conduct in the person's capacity as: (i) a person engaged in the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media; or (ii) a person engaged as part of the editorial staff for the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media; or (b) at the time of engaging in the conduct, the person: (i) was a member of the administrative or production staff of the Commonwealth agency or of a contractor or agent of the Commonwealth agency; and (ii) was acting under the direction of a journalist, editor or lawyer who was an employee, contractor or agent of the Commonwealth agency. This amendment goes to the leaking of documents and the potential for journalists, particularly from the public broadcasters, to be penalised for receiving such documents, the fear of which, I believe, can thwart investigative journalism and, by extension, damage democracy. In 2017, ABC reporters Dan Oakes and Sam Clark published a series of news items about allegations of unlawful killings by Australian special forces in Afghanistan. They were based on hundreds of pages of defence department documents which had been given to the reporters. Following their publication, Oakes and Clark were threatened with criminal prosecution, effectively for being in receipt of stolen property. Those charges hovered over the reporters for three years. Then, out of the blue and without warning, AFP officers raided the ABC's headquarters seeking to find the source of the documents. What is clear is that they wanted to find out who had been the whistleblower. As ABC managing director David Anderson said at the time: This … raises legitimate concerns over freedom of the press and proper scrutiny of national security and defence matters. ABC editorial director Craig McMurtrie declared the raid 'a very unwelcome and serious development'. Now to the NACC legislation. I am pleased that the Attorney-General has seen fit to raise the bar on applications for warrants to raid media organisations and their journalists, by agreeing that they should be scrutinised by a supreme court judge rather than a member of the AAT. The Attorney-General has also enhanced the protections for both reporters and whistleblowers. But I remain concerned about the effect of the meaning of 'corrupt conduct', with a section on reporters employed or engaged by public broadcasters, who are Public Service employees and are therefore captured under this section of the bill. As a former journalist, I would like to point out that investigative journalism is hard. There are roadblocks. There are obstructions, sometimes of a legal nature, and there is sometimes danger and risk to the safety of the reporters involved. Any further roadblocks that we put in place could potentially paralyse investigations that are much needed for the sake of our democracy and for the kind of transparency that the NACC is supposed to facilitate. Adding fear of prosecution makes these investigations even harder and will potentially dissuade journalists from putting in this work. The risk of an investigation into the legitimate work of ABC and SBS journalists potentially undermines the statutory independence of the public broadcasters. It could also hobble investigative journalism and media freedom. The government suggests that this won't happen and that, in any event, it would be addressed in prospective amendments to other legislation, including the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Respectfully, to the Attorney-General, I don't think that leaving a known gap, assuming some future change will occur, is appropriate. Therefore, I urge the House to support my amendment, which would put beyond doubt the exclusion of the possibility of its application to ABC and SBS journalists' use of leaked information or documents received in the normal course of their work. 12:59 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy With so many of the cases that are being referred to here, I cannot help but give reality to what the honourable member is proposing. The reality comes from arguably the most courageous journalist I've seen in my lifetime, Steve Austin, who was with the ABC in Brisbane. He did the expose which was one of the major lightning rods for the inquiry in Queensland which overcame the problem of continual murders by a group of policemen in that state. Steve did a 'Crooked Creek Cattle Company' series—which was the most startling and remarkable thing I'd ever heard on radio—with enormous courage, because he knew the number of people that had been murdered already, the number that had been set up on charges and the number of journalists that had been sacked. Yet he had the courage to go on and do the job. It's no secret that the centre of the corruption was a Detective Sergeant Murphy, who was running what they called 'the Joke' throughout Queensland, and he had a house at Hedges Avenue on the Gold Coast, which is the most expensive address in Australia. Steve had the camera there—this was the second thing that he did; and he called me in and showed me—and he interviewed him. Tony Murphy came out, and Steve said, 'Detective Sergeant Murphy, you have a house in the most expensive address in Australia and two top-of-the-range Mercedes-Benz in the garage. Could you explain how you do this on a take-home pay of 70 grand a year?' I said to Steve Austin, 'I'm not going near you. I'm going to get caught in a ricochet. You've got a life expectancy of days.' The point I want to make, in backing up the honourable member for Goldstein on this amendment, is that he was ordered not to use that tape exposing Tony Murphy. The ABC boss in Melbourne told him that not only was he not to use it but he was to send the reels down to Melbourne. Now, to show you the extraordinary courage of this man, he did send the tapes down to Melbourne, but he put copied tapes that night on national television. Whilst it was posthumous assistance for the 42 that were dead—of those 42, there were 21 burnt to death at Whisky Au Go Go. They hadn't paid their protection money, so their nightclub was burnt to the ground. But someone had locked the exit doors from the outside, and the people couldn't get out and were incinerated to death. In retrospect, I believe that these terrible happenings could have been avoided if people like Steve Austin had been given much greater licence and power to do the job that they wanted to do. So I very, very strongly back the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein. 13:03 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I rise to back this amendment. It's really vital that we have a frank and fearless media, and that's part of the work that we need to do to rebuild trust in government. The ABC and SBS are in a different position to other media outlets, in that they are both Commonwealth public servants and they are in the business of reporting the news and potentially exposing corruption. So I'm very supportive of this amendment. I don't think it's the intention of the government or of the legislation to put those journalists in a difficult position. There is at the moment a risk that they could be investigated for corrupt conduct for receiving documents in the course of doing their job in reporting the news. This amendment addresses that, for clarity, to ensure that it can't be used for that unintended purpose. The fundamental aim of the legislation is to strengthen our institutions, and this amendment is consistent with doing that for the purpose of ensuring that the public can see what's going on in government. 13:04 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Goldstein for her amendments and for her constructive engagement on this legislation. The bill contains safeguards to protect the identities of journalists' sources and uphold the public interest associated with a free press. Journalists and their employers would not be required to do anything under the bill that would disclose the identity of their source or enable that identity to be ascertained. In addition, the government has put forward amendments to further strengthen this protection in response to the recommendations of the joint select committee reviewing these bills and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendments broaden the safeguards for the protection of journalists in relation to search warrants issued under the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill and extend protections for journalists' sources to persons assisting the journalist who are employed or engaged by the journalist's employer and persons assisting the journalist in a professional capacity, for example camera operators or administrative staff. The government does not support the proposed amendment. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved in the name of the member for Goldstein be disagreed to.

The House divided. [13:09]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

34 AYES Archer, B. K. Burnell, M. P. Chesters, L. M. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Lawrence, T. N. Leeser, J. Leigh, A. K. McBain, K. L. McCormack, M. F. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Smith, D. P. B. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Templeman, S. R. Vamvakinou, M. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 14 NOES Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

13:12 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (8), (10) to (17) and (19) to (34), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 22 and 23), omit ", or that could adversely affect,". (2) Clause 7, page 10 (lines 21 to 24), omit the definition of official of a registered industrial organisation. (3) Clause 8, page 14 (line 6), omit "or that could adversely affect,". (4) Clause 9, page 16 (line 25), omit "conduct; or", substitute "conduct.". (5) Clause 9, page 16 (line 26), omit paragraph (1)(c). (6) Clause 12, page 24 (table item 2, column headed "Individual"), omit "(other than an official of a registered industrial organisation)". (7) Clause 14, page 27 (lines 2 and 3), omit "(other than an official of a registered industrial organisation)". (8) Page 45 (after line 10), at the end of Division 3, add: 39A Offence — vexatious referrals A person commits an offence if: (a) the person refers a corruption issue to the Commissioner; and (b) the Commissioner does not reasonably suspect that the conduct to which the issue relates has been, or is being, engaged in; and (c) there is no basis on which a reasonable person could suspect that the conduct to which the issue relates has been, or is being, engaged in; and (d) the referral is made with the intention of causing a detriment to another person. Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months. 39B Offence — disclosure of referrals A person commits an offence if: (a) a corruption issue is referred to the Commissioner; and (b) the person discloses to the public that the corruption issue has been referred to the Commissioner; and (c) the disclosure is not authorised by or under this Act. Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months. (10) Clause 40, page 46 (after line 6), at the end of the clause, add: (2) However, if the corruption issue could, in the Commissioner's opinion, involve corrupt conduct that occurred before the commencement of section 8, the Commissioner may deal with the corruption issue only if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. (11) Clause 45, page 50 (line 16), omit "is satisfied", substitute "and a Deputy Commissioner are satisfied". (12) Clause 45, page 50 (line 17), after "Commissioner", insert "and a Deputy Commissioner". (13) Clause 45, page 50 (line 23), omit "and the Commissioner considers", substitute "and the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner consider". (14) Clause 45, page 51 (line 7), after "Commissioner", insert "and a Deputy Commissioner". (15) Clause 73, page 68 (line 8), omit all the words from and including "decides" to the end of subclause (1), substitute "and a Deputy Commissioner decide that the hearing, or part of the hearing, is to be held in public". (16) Clause 73, page 68 (lines 10 and 11), omit all the words from and including "may decide" to and including "Commissioner is", substitute "and a Deputy Commissioner may decide that a hearing, or part of a hearing, is to be held in public if the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are". (17) Clause 73, page 68 (lines 15 and 16), omit all the words from and including "to hold" to and including "the Commissioner", substitute "a hearing, or part of a hearing, is to be held in public, the Commissioner and a Deputy Commissioner". (19) Clause 73, page 69 (line 2), after "Commissioner", insert "and a Deputy Commissioner". (20) Clause 81, page 72 (line 29), before "A person", insert "(1)". (21) Clause 81, page 73 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add: (2) Subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) does not apply if the person was not given a reasonable opportunity to answer the question. (22) Clause 82, page 73 (lines 23 to 26), omit paragraph (b). (23) Clause 95, page 82 (lines 9 and 10), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The notation: (a) must permit disclosure of information to: (i) the spouse of the recipient of the notice to produce or private hearings summons (unless the spouse is a subject of the corruption investigation in relation to which the notice or summons is given); and (ii) any mental health professional who is providing mental health care to the recipient of the notice to produce or private hearings summons; and (b) may permit disclosure of information in other specified circumstances. (24) Clause 98, page 84 (line 32) to page 85 (line 6), omit paragraph (3)(e), substitute: (e) by a legal practitioner for the purpose of giving legal advice to, or making representations on behalf of, the person on whom the notice or summons was served; or (25) Clause 113, page 98 (lines 3 to 6), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) If: (a) a person is required, by a notice to produce or at a hearing, to give an answer or information, or to produce a document or thing; and (b) all other coercive powers available to the Commissioner to obtain the information, document or thing have been exhausted; the person is not excused from giving the answer or information, or producing the document or thing, on the ground that doing so would tend to incriminate the person or expose the person to a penalty. (26) Clause 113, page 98 (lines 7 to 11), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) However: (a) the answer or information given, or the document or thing produced; and (b) any information, document or thing obtained as a direct consequence of the giving of the answer or information or the production of the document or thing; is not admissible in evidence against the person in: (c) a criminal proceeding; or (d) a proceeding for the imposition or recovery of a penalty; or (e) a confiscation proceeding. (27) Clause 113, page 98 (lines 17 to 20), omit subparagraph (3)(b)(i). (28) Clause 113, page 99 (lines 1 and 2), omit the note. (29) Page 99 (after line 5), after clause 113, insert: 113A Legal professional privilege This Act does not affect the law relating to legal professional privilege. (30) Clause 114, page 99 (lines 11 to 13), omit paragraphs (1)(a) and (b). (31) Clause 114, page 99 (line 17) to page 100 (line 2), omit subclauses (2) to (5). (32) Clause 115, page 100 (lines 12 to 28), omit the clause. (33) Clause 154, page 127 (after line 32), at the end of the clause, add: (7) The Commissioner must give an investigation report, or a protected investigation report, to a person in accordance with this section no later than 12 months (or such longer period as a court allows) after the earlier of the following: (a) the time when the corruption issue to which the report relates was referred to the Commissioner; (b) the time when the Commissioner became aware of the corruption issue to which the report relates. (34) Clause 178, page 146 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) If the proposed recommendation is for the appointment of the Commissioner or the Inspector, the decision to approve the recommendation must be supported by at least a three-quarters majority of all of the members of the Committee. (2B) Paragraph 173(5)(b) does not apply in relation to a vote on a decision to approve or reject a proposed recommendation. The coalition amendments are designed to improve the integrity, safeguards and operation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The National Anti-Corruption Commission has a very broad scope. It applies to parliamentarians and their staff, every Canberra public servant, our Defence Force, the Australian Federal Police, our diplomats and embassies around the world, and every contractor and every subcontractor who engages with the Commonwealth. 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—I think it was the member for Menzies—estimated that probably around one 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—that is, union officials exercising a power under a law of the Commonwealth. For two months, we've been asking the Labor Party for an explanation about this carve-out for union officials exercising a power under a law of the Commonwealth. It's not mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. When questioned at the joint committee, the Attorney-General's Department couldn't give a satisfactory answer on the reasons for the exemption. When asked on Insiders about the carve-out, the Attorney-General initially denied it and then justified it on other grounds. The Prime Minister gave two different answers about it on two consecutive days, and last night, a little after 9.30, we got another different answer from the Attorney-General. Regardless, the coalition still believes that these provisions have no place in this bill. Any integrity commission worthy of the name should not have a carve-out for the owners of the Australian Labor Party. Our amendments seek to remove this carve-out. Many of our other amendments are based on recommendations of the Law Council of Australia and other legal bodies. The words of the South Australia Bar Association capture the spirit of our amendments: 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. On public hearings, we believe the safeguards could be further strengthened by mandating the factors to be taken into account when determining whether to have a public hearing. Our amendments provide for a better way of enhancing public confidence in the decision to hold a public hearing by having the commissioner determine exceptional circumstances and weigh those public interest factors in conjunction with a deputy commissioner. A similar process should also be utilised when the commissioner is investigating a matter that has already been considered by another Commonwealth integrity agency. Our amendments also seek to further clarify the definition of corruption by amending section 8(1)(a) to remove the vague and superfluous phrase 'or that could adversely affect', consistent with the Law Council's submission, given that 'conspiracy' is included in section 8(10). We also seek to delete section 9(1)(c), which defines a corruption issue in relation to something that someone will do in the future. A person cannot be investigated and punished for actions they have not taken. On retrospective investigations, section 8(4) enables the commission 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. The Law Council suggested including an additional threshold that will allow the NACC to conduct investigations into past conduct only when there's an identifiable public interest in doing so, and our amendments give effect to this. Our amendments also adopt provisions from the coalition's Commonwealth Integrity Commission Bill to make it an offence to make vexatious referrals or to disclose that a person has been referred to the NACC. On the issue of privileges, our amendments seek to give effect to the Law Council's recommendation. Because the privilege against self-incrimination is waived, material that is elicited by the Anti-Corruption Commission in a scenario under which a person doesn't have the rights they would usually have in a criminal investigation process must not then be used either directly or derivatively in a criminal process. There are also good public policy reasons that a person should be able to consult with their lawyer in confidence. Our amendments also clarify that the bill does not affect the law relating to legal professional privilege. Our amendments also seek to apply time limits to investigations so that the commission is required to complete investigations within a definite period of 12 months. Those time limits could be extended by application to a court, but we need to see investigations not remaining open indefinitely, as they have done in some jurisdictions. Finally, we believe the appointments of the commissioner and inspector must be above politics, and, to that end, we believe that their appointment 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. This particular recommendation was canvassed in the work of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation, and I thank all members of the joint committee. In particular, I want to acknowledge Senator Scarr and the member for Menzies, who thought deeply about these issues, but I do thank all members, including the member for Indi and the many government members who participated in that joint committee. I commend these amendments to the House. 13:18 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Berowra for the opposition's amendments. I've addressed the substance of all of those amendments during the course of the debate. The government does not support the proposed amendments. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is opposition amendments (1) to (8), (10) to (17) and (19) to (34) moved by the member for Berowra be disagreed to. The House divided. [13:22] (The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

The House divided. [13:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

83 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. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Katter, R. C. 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) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 53 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. 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. McIntosh, M. I. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tudge, A. E. Vasta, R. X. 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.

13:26 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) together: (1) Clause 173, page 141 (lines 24 to 26), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) There must be a Chair of the Committee, who: (a) must be elected by the members of the Committee from time to time; and (b) must not be from a recognised political party that forms part of the Government. (2) Clause 178, page 146 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The decision to approve a proposed recommendation must be supported by at least a two-thirds majority of all of the members of the Committee. (2B) Paragraph 173(5)(b) does not apply in relation to a vote on a decision to approve or reject a proposed recommendation. The reality is there will always be powerful interests seeking to persuade the government of the day to downgrade the effectiveness of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We need to ensure that, as elected representatives, we have a mechanism to watch the watchdog. I believe there is an opportunity to do something truly unprecedented in this place through the establishment of an independent commission by appointing a majority of non-government members to the parliamentary joint committee overseeing the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Why? Because for an agency such as this to be beyond reproach it must stand for and hold itself accountable to that which is larger than the government of any day—that is, the entire parliament. I would like to see the bill amended on two elements, both of which would strengthen the National Anti-Corruption Commission's independence from the government of the day. The first of these is an amendment to ensure the chair of the committee is a non-government member of parliament. The second is an amendment to ensure the approval of the appointments to the commission is subject to a special majority. During this debate, I have been a fierce and consistent advocate for the establishment of a multipartisan, balanced parliamentary joint committee to perform the role of oversight of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. I commend the government for the inclusion of just such an independent committee in this bill. However, in its current form the committee's independence has been overly compromised. The requirement that the chair be a member of the government and for that chair to hold the casting vote over commission appointments is a serious limitation upon the committee's true independence. I note in the joint select committee's advisory report that the evidence provided by a range of expert witnesses supported just such a proposal. Witnesses at the inquiry argued that appointments should be subject to a vote requiring a special majority or a majority including either at least one member of the opposition or both Independents. I also note the coalition committee members indicated a super majority vote in these circumstances would be a desirable bipartisan confidence in the positions of commissioner and inspector to make it essential. Strengthening the commission's independence in this way would help limit any undue influence and ensure we are setting up an enduring legacy that will be in place long beyond any electoral cycle, both in the immediate future and over the longer term. If this government can bring itself to truly place faith in the institution it has helped create, then the departure from tradition is warranted and would be seen as a historic and courageous stance taken by a government which is prepared to lead, not control. I commend the amendments to the House. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments be disagreed to. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 43 13:29 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 43 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Berowra Electorate: Disability Organisations 43 13:30 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise today to acknowledge Studio ARTES, a wonderful organisation in my elaborate that encourages adults with disabilities to pursue the creative arts. Studio ARTES first opened its doors in Hornsby in 2000 and it's become a cornerstone of the Berowra community. This unique organisation serves more than 250 people with a disability through its creative arts and life skills programs. Earlier this year I was fortunate enough to receive an invitation to afternoon tea with the Studio ARTES independence program. Declan, Louise, Mark, Richard, Justin, Alan and Hannah put on an incredible spread, showcasing their culinary skills with a chocolate fondue and pina coladas. I want to thank Studio ARTES founder Wendy Escott for the absolutely generous invitation, and I extend my appreciation for her remarkable work and the work of the board, including Andrew Reeves, Simon Bryan, Dick Bryan and Doug Spencer. Another disability organisation in our community is Inala, which was founded in 1958 by families to provide great accommodation and improve the lives of people with disability every day. I went to their fair recently, and I want to acknowledge their incoming CEO, Alexandra Davis, as well as Amanda Long, Bill Best, Ian Copp, Jeremy Gibb, Kimberley Holden, Judith Howard, Kim Nicholas, John Wilshire, Caroline Jones, Sam Holden and all the members of the Inala team, who've created an outstanding community. I commend the great work of disability organisations in my electorate for what they do to bring out the best in people's lives. Victoria State Election 43 13:31 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce It's hard to imagine anything could be worse than the angry cookers who've turned Victoria's election into a Trump-like circus. There's the Angry Victorians Party, with Cath Cumming, an MP who called for the Premier to be turned into 'red mist'. There's the 'Sack Dan Andrews Party', the founder of whom said, 'I could have called it the "Wacko Crazy Lunatics Party" but I didn't.' Should have! There's the good old DLP, with extremist right-winger ex-Liberal MP Bernie Finn, and Adem Somyurek, the disgraced Labor MP exiled for corruption. But even more worrying for sensible Victorians is that the Liberal Party has been taken over by extremists. Liberal leader Matthew Guy has been desperately running away from them, but the word 'Liberal' will appear next to their name on the voting paper. Let's quote my community's Liberal candidate, Timothy Dragan, last week: 'This area doesn't care about climate change. I'll vote against it.' He wants nuclear waste in Alice Springs. He announced that abortion is being used by women as a form of contraception. He said: Why is the passage through the vagina the reason why you can or can't murder a human? What makes a vagina's trajectory so special? Does it give it a magical dignity or something like that, you know? He twice signed a petition claiming 'women may assist in decision-making, but the ultimate decision is for men'. He talks of 'bloody Aboriginals', contending: We won this land fair and square. It's like telling Britain to give the land back to the Vikings … This Saturday, vote Labor and spare our country from Matthew Guy's Trumpland circus. Albanese Government 43 13:33 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning It's a simple question but one the Prime Minister could not answer. When Labor's policies are driving up the cost of living for families, why has it signed up to a $2 trillion loss-and-damage climate fund that will send money overseas and beyond our region? Australian families want an answer to the question posed by the opposition leader on Monday. Prime Minister, why are you giving away their money instead of helping with the rise of cost of living? The refusal to answer, the theatre and outrage tells you everything you need to know about Labor's priorities. At time when your grocery prices, interest rates and power bills are rapidly increasing, at a time when people in Canning need an urgent fix for our struggling hospital, at a time when the government has slammed the brakes on the Pinjarra heavy haulage bypass, putting lives at risk, the Prime Minister's focus is on how much we can pay foreign governments, possibly big carbon emitters like China, compensation for our own carbon emissions. This is after Labor has admitted its energy policy will cause electricity prices to go up 56 per cent and gas to go up 44 per cent over the next two years. As the Albanese Labor government refuses to back future tax cuts locked into the budget by the former coalition government, this would be real money in the bank for families in Canning and across the nation. Everywhere you look, the Prime Minister refuses to put you first. You and your family are way down on the list. My mission is to make sure you're always first. We need a government that always puts Australian families, and our jobs in this country, first. Victoria State Election 44 13:35 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser This weekend the people of Victoria will make an extremely important decision. The Andrews government has achieved so much in relation to transport, climate change and service delivery over the last eight years. So much more needs to be done by this excellent government. The Andrews government has a strong record of getting people into work, creating jobs through the Big Build, through social procurement and through service delivery and health care. In an Australian first, Victorians in casual and insecure jobs will no longer be forced to choose between a day's pay and looking after their health, thanks to the Victorian Sick Pay Guarantee, which provides up to five days pay, a valuable safety net for vulnerable workers. There is the $3,000 appreciation payment for all staff employed in public health services, and I could go on and on about health care and other areas of service delivery. Melbourne's west is one of the fastest-growing areas of Australia, and the Andrews government has the runs on the board. The new $1.5 billion Footscray Hospital is one of the largest health infrastructure projects in Australia. More than $48 million is expected to be invested through Indigenous and social enterprises, including disability and disadvantaged businesses. There is also the investment in my electorate in the Joan Kirner Women's and Children's Hospital. And there have been so many schools upgraded, so many level crossings removed. It is an extremely important choice this weekend, between a party, an opposition, focused on internal and extremist politics, with a leader who hasn't changed after he was rejected, and a government with a track record and a plan for the future. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 44 13:36 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Today, as part of Raise Our Voice's Youth Voice in Parliament Week, I'm really proud to amplify the voice of Meabh Hennessey, a nine-year-old constituent of Kooyong. Meabh says: I want all those people working in essential jobs like midwives, teachers and social workers to be paid properly for the hard work that they do. My teachers work long hours and on weekends. My mother is paid very badly to do such important work delivering babies. Most midwives, teachers and social workers have families to attend to, so it's harder for them to juggle not great pay, longer hours like 7-5 and families. I want Parliament to recognise these people and the hard work they do to make our lives better. I agree with you, Meabh. People who care for and educate other people do deserve better pay. Recently the Fair Work Commission accepted that workers in the caring professions are undervalued. That's likely because they are largely women. This contributes significantly to the gender pay gap. I will take every opportunity as your representative for Kooyong to work for legislative solutions to improve the pay and conditions for your mum, for your teachers and for all those in caring, essential jobs. Thanks for your words, Meabh, and thanks for sharing them with the 47th Parliament of Australia. Victoria State Election 44 13:38 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm On Saturday Victorians will cast their votes in the state election, and I'm hopeful that a Labor government will be returned to continue the important work of delivering great outcomes across the state, and especially in the area I represent, in Chisholm, across the south-east and eastern suburbs of Melbourne. I've been proud to support the member for Box Hill, the member for Mount Waverley and candidate for Ashwood, the member for Oakleigh, the member for Mulgrave and the candidate for Glen Waverley in their campaigns. I also really want to commend our local volunteers for their dedication. Elections cannot be won without them. Thanks to a Labor government, we have the new Victorian Heart Hospital in our community in Clayton; upgrades to schools, ensuring our local area has excellent educational institutions; and investments in community projects and organisations. I really want to be able to continue to work in partnership with a Victorian Labor government. I know it's always Labor governments that deliver the vital infrastructure we need in our communities, whether that be at a state or federal level. Our continuing partnership will mean we get significant upgrades to facilities at City Oval in Box Hill; new pavilions and improvements at Mount Waverley Reserve and Mirrabooka Reserve; a suburban rail loop to connect to our region; and collaboration on other very important community led projects. I know just how hard all members and candidates have worked and how much they love and care for their communities. I wish them every success on Saturday. Petition: Pensions and Benefits 45 13:39 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane Today I rise to table this petition calling on the government to raise all income support payments above the Henderson poverty line. The petition read as follows— There are currently nearly 900,000 people relying on unemployment payments. After September indexation is applied, the base rate of the JobSeeker payment is 45% below the latest poverty line (as at March 2022) of $611 per week. Youth Allowance is 56% below the poverty line. No welfare payment is above the Henderson poverty line. In 2020, the Australian Council of Social Service found that even when JobSeeker was at the Henderson poverty line a third of people were regularly skipping meals. While still not adequate, the Henderson poverty line is the best measure of poverty we have. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data shows that the probability of someone in the lowest income quintile dying by suicide is nearly twice as high than those in the second lowest income quintile. Leading mental health researchers from Australia's Mental Health Think Tank argue that "the first and most decisive action the government could take" to address the alarming increase in mental distress is to return to 2020 welfare payment levels, when they were lifted to the poverty line. The government has also made much of its commitment to women's safety and equality, yet the welfare system is creating the conditions that can lead to family violence, and trapping people in violent homes. Anti-Poverty Week reported that 13% of women who left a violent partner returned because they did not have money or adequate financial support. We therefore ask the House to raise all income support payments to at least the Henderson poverty line. from 2,766 citizens (Petition No. EN4488) Mr BATES 300246 This petition has been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order. It features 2,766 signatures of people who are calling attention to the sad state of income support in this country, where the JobSeeker payment is 45 per cent below the latest poverty line and youth allowance is 56 per cent below the poverty line. Countries should be judged not on how they reward the wealthiest but on how they care for the poorest. Poverty is a political choice. It's a choice that governments make, and the ramifications of this choice are far-reaching and devastating, not just for individuals and families but for our society and economy as a whole. High rates of poverty mean more people struggling, higher rates of mental health issues and anxiety, less money to spend in local businesses and economies, and an unjust nation as a result. It is in the interests of all of us in this place and across this country, regardless of background or economic class, to eradicate poverty. In a wealthy nation like ours, nobody on income support should be regularly skipping meals because they cannot afford to eat. We need to work towards a guaranteed livable income, starting with raising the rate of JobSeeker and other income support payments to above the poverty line. Victoria State Election 45 13:40 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara Despite some poorly spelled late-night tweets from the former Premier Jeff Kennett, who shut down schools in Victoria, on this side of the House and in the Victorian Labor government we've turned the public schools in Macnamara into places of excellence. When walking into the halls of Elwood College, Albert Park college or even Glen Eira College, you can't help seeing the investment and the difference that a Labor government makes. To drive around Macnamara is to drive around without passing over level crossings, thanks to the Andrews Labor government, which got rid of level crossings and consigned them to the bin of history, where they belong. And, of course, the Andrews Labor government are going to bring back the State Electricity Commission, putting electricity back into public hands. Whereas those opposite shut down schools and were privatising electricity, the Andrews Labor government is going to lead not only Victoria but our nation and the world on renewable energies. It is a very, very big difference compared to the bigoted, antisemitic conspiracy theorists that those opposite and their mates in Victoria are hanging out with—and not just hanging with but preselecting, as well as preferencing them in the upper house. It has been a long and sorry line of people that the Liberal Party have been associating with. I wish the best to Nina Taylor in Albert Park, Lior Harel in Caulfield, Louise Crawford in Brighton and Wesa Chau in Prahran, four outstanding Labor candidates as part of an outstanding Labor team. I wish them all well for the re-election of the Andrews Labor government on Saturday. Munro, Ms Lisa, Page Electorate: Motorsport 46 13:42 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I'd like to acknowledge Lisa Munro from the Casino Rural Fire Brigade. Lisa has been named a life member of the brigade after 27 years of service. She is only the second person to receive this honour. Passionate about firefighting and fire safety, she has also fulfilled roles at the station such as acting captain, communications radio operator and coordinator, brigade secretary, treasurer and call-out officer. During the 2017 Lismore flood, she worked two weeks straight hosing down muddy roads and private property. When she isn't fighting fires, she's providing education about fire safety by visiting schools, preschools, day cares and community events such as Casino Beef Week. She also travels to the Sydney Royal Easter Show as part of the New South Wales Rural Fire Brigade's education stall. Congratulations and thank you, Lisa, for all your passionate work in our community. I'd like to acknowledge the Grafton and Lismore speedways as they start or have just begun their seasons. Good luck to Grafton Speedway promoters Mick and Cindy Corbett for the season opener this weekend, and also big thanks to Dave Mooney, Andrew Firth, Rex Green and Lee Harding. They put in many hours during the off-season to ensure the speedway is ready for another season. I also give a special shout-out to the Lismore Speedway, which has recently changed hands from David Lander to the new promoters, Mick and Kim Sauer. The track was severely damaged after the February flooding natural disaster. However, earlier this month, after months of hard work, the season opener attracted some of the biggest crowds ever seen. So congratulations to Mick and Kim and also big thanks to Tony Powell, Johnny Green and Steve Robinson for their tireless work in helping make that happen. Victoria State Election 46 13:44 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo There has never been a state Victorian government kinder and more the best friend of regional Victoria than the Andrews Labor government. Since they were elected they have worked to adjust the damage caused by the friends of those opposite in Victoria. They have rebuilt schools in regional Victoria. They have rebuilt and built hospitals in Victoria. My own area of Bendigo is home to the largest Vic hospital outside metro. They have built train lines, reopened train stations and built new train stations in regional Victoria, including in my own electorate. The Goornung train station reopened. We've got plans to reopen the Harcourt train station if re-elected. The Raywood station reopened. If regional Victoria want to see the rebuild continue, the Big Build, then they need to re-elect the Andrews government. They need to consider voting for Labor in the lower house and in the upper house. I am proud of my state Labor colleagues: Mary-Anne Thomas in the south, Maree Edwards in Bendigo West, and Jacinta Allen, our Deputy Premier. All three are outstanding women who serve the people of my community proudly in the Victorian government. Only Labor will deliver for the regions. Only Labor has a plan now and into the future for regional Victoria. Petrie Electorate: School Leavers 46 13:45 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie Across Australia, year 12s are celebrating the end of their high-school journey. In my home state of Queensland, over 20,000 school leavers converge on Surfers Paradise, on the Gold Coast, each year. I'd like to highlight the amazing work of the State Emergency Service and youth support and volunteer services like Red Frogs. Red Frogs has over 600 volunteers every year to safeguard the school leavers and to act as positive peer influencers in this period of critical transition. As the former Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services, I have personally witnessed the amazing work Red Frogs do, whether it's cooking pancakes for the schoolies or doing walk-homes for people after concerts. Over the last few weeks I've had the privilege of attending schools around my electorate to present the Petrie Shield. There were 123 recipients; 32 from year 12. Tips for year 12 after they leave: get into the workforce, find a part-time or full-time job. If you're studying, work part time for a bit of experience. Find a mentor in your field of choice. You can learn a lot from someone else's experience. And, if you're taking a gap year, stay busy—volunteer, travel, work part time. It's a great time to discover dreams and passions for your future. Congratulations to all the year 12 school leavers. Well done. Enjoy the moment. Victoria State Election 46 13:47 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Victorians go to the poll this Saturday. It's a clear choice between Labor's plan for doing what matters and more Liberal cuts. Dan Andrews and his team have worked hard every day, removing level crossings and building hospitals, schools and roads across the state, including in my electorate. State Labor have made TAFE free, created thousands of well-paid jobs, invested in renewables and helped families to install solar panels and batteries to keep power bills down. They've committed to invest even more in hospitals, to train thousands of nurses and paramedics and to make nursing courses free. In my area, Labor has a dynamic new team. Alison Marchant is standing in the Bellarine, with the retirement of Lisa Neville after a stellar career. Hutch Hussein stands an excellent chance of taking Polwarth from the Liberals. Hardworking local members Christine Couzens in Geelong and Darren Cheeseman in South Barwon deserve to be returned. State and federal Labor governments are working hand in glove to deliver important projects for my region. State Labor has committed to match federal Labor's $125 million for stage 2 of the Barwon Heads Road upgrade and to match $20 million of commitment to the indoor aquatic centre in Drysdale—funding local and community projects together. With the Commonwealth Games coming to our region, a unified state-federal partnership has never been more important. The Andrews Labor government has a clear plan for growth and jobs. The Liberals have just more cuts. The choice is clear. Albanese Government 47 13:48 Mr JOYCE e5d New England There's one thing the Labor Party always says, but it is just not the truth. The gross debt for our nation is not $1 trillion. In fact it wasn't even $900 billion. It was about $150 billion away from it when the Labor Party came into power. But don't worry; it's over $900 billion now! And when it gets to $1 trillion—and it will under the Labor Party—it will have happened on their watch. They are the government. And, if it cracks $1 trillion, it's the Australian Labor Party in government that created it. The second thing that is very important is that, unless the Labor Party clearly define exactly what the changes are to the Constitution to have the Voice to Parliament, we are going to have a real problem when doing any advocacy out in regional areas. People are asking: 'Exactly what does this entail? What exactly are the words?' We can't answer that question. And because we can't answer that question, it doesn't matter what happens in this chamber. The Australian people will vote it down. That will cause more problems than if we hadn't had it in the first place. That will create real divisions in areas. The next issue is the obvious one. Climate policy is absolutely destroying our country in the way it drives up power prices. If it's power prices you're worried about, climate policy is behind it. If it's fuel prices, it's climate policy; if it's food prices, it's climate policy. Victoria State Election 47 13:50 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I'm proud to rise today, surrounded by my federal Labor colleagues from Victoria, because Victorians go to the polls on Saturday. I want to say directly to the people of Lalor: you're going to the polls on Saturday, and you have an opportunity to be part of creating a great partnership between federal Labor and state Labor. We have waited nine long years to work together to deliver for our state, after being starved of funds by the previous government at the federal level. But despite that lack of funds, Victorian Labor has delivered for our area. I've got a long memory, and I remember the last Victorian state Liberal government. They did not build one school in four years in the fastest-growing area of Australia. Not one school! And since they've been turfed, we've had multiple—not single, but multiple—new schools every year under this state Labor government, because they know that in the outer west people care deeply about the aspirations of their children. They know that our children in the outer west deserve the best schools and the best teachers. They deserve to feel valued with the best facilities. And this government have delivered. They've delivered every day. They have spent $1.8 billion in roads in the west—$1.25 billion of that in the City of Wyndham. Bring back a Labor government for another term, and watch us work together. Moranbah Hospital 47 13:51 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia It was wonderful to see construction tenders open yesterday for the new Moranbah hospital. It will support 102 construction jobs and is scheduled for completion by June 2025, subject to tender negotiations. I have been a strong supporter of a new hospital in Moranbah for a long time, and I want to congratulate Isaac Regional Council on their years of successful lobbying for this project. It is a timely announcement, given the current Moranbah hospital has been falling into disrepair and neglect for years under the Queensland Labor government. In 2020, five miners were seriously injured after an explosion at Grosvenor mine. The men suffered severe burns to their upper bodies and airways and were taken to Moranbah hospital in a serious condition. It was a miracle they survived. I was told of reports that the lack of staffing and equipment at the hospital was severe, and it was pure chance there were off-duty paramedics in town for a conference who were available to help. Our nurses and doctors in CQ do amazing work in keeping the community healthy and safe. Labor's neglect of health services is disrespectful to them and to the communities they claim to represent. The wealth of the nation comes out of Central Queensland, and it seems like we must beg and borrow for every scrap of funding we can get from Brisbane and Canberra. Members in this place will be well reminded that Central Queensland is keeping the lights on for the nation. Ignore us at your own peril. The community uproar in Rockhampton over the funding delays to the Rocky Ring Road is a testament to that. Victoria State Election 48 13:53 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga Over the past eight years, we have seen time and time again that the Andrews Labor government has delivered for Victoria, and it's delivered for my communities in Jagajaga. Whether it's record investments in infrastructure, making the big social policy reforms, or supporting local facilities and organisations, the Andrews Labor government has been doing what matters. In my community, the strong advocacy of our local state MPs—Anthony Carbines, Colin Brooks and Vicki Ward—has led to important investments that benefit locals: the removal of the Rosanna level crossing and the commitment for the one at Macleod to go; the rebuilding of the public transport hub in Greensborough, including the train station and bus interchange; the Diamond Creek Trail extension; and, of course, countless upgrades to schools, kinders, sporting clubs and our community infrastructure. They aren't slowing down; they've got more to do. But, of course, we know there is—and there was—an alternative approach. We haven't forgotten the cuts we saw the last time the Liberals were in power in Victoria. In my community, this included trying to shut down the Greensborough TAFE. What a disgrace! From in this place, we remember the former Liberal government here with the former Treasurer who was from Victoria, but not for Victoria. Well, we've now got a Treasurer who wants to deliver for Victoria and deliver in partnership with the Labor government in Victoria. We need the Andrews government re-elected so that we can work together to deliver for Victoria. Cost of Living 48 13:54 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Australian families are struggling through significant and worsening cost-of-living pressures. Australians are feeling the pinch at the gas pump, at the checkout and in their mailbox when monthly power bills and mortgage repayment notices arrive. The price of everything is going up, and this Labor government continues to make a bad situation worse. The Prime Minister misled the Australian people at the last election. The Prime Minister promised 97 times before the last election that families and businesses would see a $275 cut to their power bills. But the government's own budget said that electricity prices will rise by 56 per cent and gas prices will rise by 44 per cent. At Labor's campaign launch in Perth, the Prime Minister promised that he would deliver cheaper mortgages, but, today, the typical mortgage costs $1,140 more a month than it did in May. Many Australians voted for Labor on the basis of these promises, and they are owed an apology for these very promises being so brazenly broken. Labor is now ramming radical industrial relations laws through this parliament, and the Minister for Small Business has confirmed that, of the millions of small businesses right across Australia, not a single one supports Labor's extreme agenda. This is a Prime Minister incapable of dealing with the significant challenges facing Australia— (Time expired) Victoria State Election 48 13:56 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Over the last eight years, the Andrews Labor government has delivered reform and infrastructure right across the state of Victoria. The big build has seen 67 level crossings removed while 69 new primary and secondary schools opened. Twenty-two hospitals have been built and upgraded, and more than 26,000 extra healthcare workers have been hired. The list goes on and on, but one thing is clear: only Labor is getting on with doing what matters. On Saturday, Victorians will go to the polls with an opportunity to re-elect this strong and ambitious Labor government. For months now, local Labor candidates have been working hard in their communities, listening to the priorities and concerns of their electorates. With the support of thousands of dedicated volunteers, and despite some unusually wet weather, these extraordinary candidates have knocked on doors, stood at local shopping strips and visited community groups in order to talk to Victorians about Labor's plan for our great state. I would like to particularly applaud my local Labor candidates: Steve McGhie in Melton, Michaela Settle in Eureka and Josh Bull in Sunbury. They have all served with dedication and passion as representatives of our community, and I look forward to continuing to work with them long into the future as we continue to deliver as state and federal Labor governments for our people in Hawke. Cost of Living 49 13:57 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay I rise to recognise every single person in my community who is doing it tough. They're feeling the pressure when they're at the petrol pump, when they turn on their lights, when they're cooking dinner for their families and when they're paying their mortgages. I particularly know this because so many small businesses—the cafe owners, the small manufacturers—have come to tell me that they are concerned about the threat of rolling down the shutters as the unions roll into town and as industrial relations laws get rammed through this parliament. When cafe owners are struggling to find workers, when trade is slowing because of the cost of living, when people can't afford to buy their lunches and pay for their dinners, and when buying the daily coffee is threatened, we have a problem. Manufacturers in my electorate of Lindsay, those Aussie manufacturers that we want to back and get behind, are paying 300 per cent more on their energy bills, and they're telling me that they're going to be out of business by Christmas. Opposition members: Shame! Mrs McINTOSH 281513 It is a shame. It is shameful that Aussie manufacturers are facing these costs. It will mean that 200 workers in one of my local manufacturers in Lindsay will potentially be out of a job next year. The government need to be listening, because my manufacturers and my small businesses don't think you are. Victoria State Election 49 13:59 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt This Saturday, my fellow Victorians will head to the polls for the state election. The only way we can ensure a positive future for our great state is to re-elect a Victorian Labor government. I am blessed to have four fantastic Labor MPs—Pauline, Gary, Jordan and Sonya—who represent our communities of Holt in our state parliament. Not only are they great individuals; they are great members who always go into bat for their communities. In Gary's electorate of Narre Warren South, I am pleased to see $13.6 million committed to upgrade and modernise Lyndhurst Secondary College. In Pauline's electorate of Cranbourne, Labor has committed $9 million to upgrade Cranbourne Secondary College facilities, including Cranbourne Community Theatre, to ensure students and staff are serviced well into the future. In Jordan's electorate of Bass, I'm overjoyed to see Victorian Labor commit $9.5 million to rebuild the Warneet north and south jetties, as well as $2.6 million to upgrade Tooradin's ramp and carpark. I am keen to see these three great Labor members get into parliament. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for statements by members has concluded. BUSINESS 49 BUSINESS Federation Chamber 49 14:00 The SPEAKER 53517 I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed 3:30 pm until 4 pm today for the next sitting of the Federation Chamber. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost Of Living, Industrial Relations 49 14:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised cheaper electricity prices, cheaper gas prices and cheaper mortgages. Since the election, the Prime Minister has mentioned nothing in relation to those promises. Instead, your actions have delivered the opposite. Now, to make a bad situation worse, you are imposing a job-destroying industrial relations system at exactly the wrong time for our economy. Why, like Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, does this Prime Minister get every economic call wrong? 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his first question in three days and congratulate him on getting that decision through his tactics committee. I know that Matthew Guy wants him to take a vow of silence. He's not welcome in Victoria, but I welcome the Leader of the Opposition here to ask a question about industrial relations. His deputy said yesterday—she said it a couple of times—'We think the entire bill is terrible.' That is their position on industrial relations: the entire bill is terrible. Let's have a look at what they say is terrible in the legislation: putting gender equity and job security at the heart of the Fair Work Commission's decision-making. Putting that in the objectives of the act—they say that's terrible. Banning pay secrecy clauses, a tool which has been used to hold down women's pay in particular—that is terrible as well. Giving the commission the expertise and the powers to end the historic inequality between the pay and conditions in the female dominated care and community sectors and the pay and conditions enjoyed by the rest of the workforce—they say that's terrible as well. Expanding access to flexible workplaces, particularly for women—they say that's terrible as well. Expressly prohibiting sexual harassment in the Fair Work Act—they say that's terrible as well. Placing new limits on rolling fixed-term contracts, so workers can't be effectively put on an endless probation period where they have no security whatsoever—that's terrible as well. Bolstering the ability of workers to recover unpaid entitlements—they say that's terrible as well. Banning job ads that advertise for below the relevant minimum pay rate—do they support that? No, they say that's terrible. Strengthening anti-sham-contracting laws—do they support that? No, they say—guess what?—that's terrible as well. Reforming the better off overall test so that it's simple, flexible and fairer for both workers and business—they say that's terrible as well. The same mob that said a $1 an hour pay increase for people on the minimum wage was reckless and dangerous are lecturing us about industrial relations. Well, we on this side of the House stand for increased productivity and stand for supporting business, but we also stand for supporting workers' wages. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 There is far too much noise in the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Longman will not speak while I am speaking. Public Sector Governance 50 14:04 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce My question is to the Minister for Government Services. In light of today's reports about previous contracting and tendering processes in Services Australia and the NDIS, what is the Albanese Labor government doing to ensure federal government contracts are allocated in a proper manner that will ensure transparency for the Australian people? Mr Fletcher L6B I rise on a point of order that goes to the proper content of the question. The minister can be asked about matters for which the minister is responsible in public administration but not about the practice of the previous government, which is expressly what this question went to. The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order: I don't know how this one could be out of order or how any of the questions asked by the opposition could ever be in order. This question refers to media reports of the day, which Practice specifically says can be referred to in questions, and then asked specifically about what actions the Albanese Labor government is taking. They are the terms of the question. The SPEAKER 53517 Practice does say on 557 regarding media reports that the minister can answer questions under standing order 98 regarding public affairs and administration. The question does contain his portfolio and how it impacts on his portfolio. It is in order, and I give him the call. 14:06 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald have today reported that the member for Fadden used his status as a federal MP in 2017 and 2018 to help the lobbying and consulting firm Synergy 360 sign up corporate clients with the promise of helping them navigate the federal Public Service and political cycle and meet key decision-makers, including senior coalition ministers. Specifically, it was reported that emails revealed that Synergy 360 would frequently update corporate clients as to the progress in lobbying and provide access to senior government figures for the allocating and rewarding of several multimillion-dollar contracts. Mr David Milo is Synergy 360's CEO. A major shareholder of Synergy 360 is Mr John Margerison. Mr Margerison is a former business partner of the member for Fadden. Mr Margerison has also run the member for Fadden's political fundraising vehicle. The member for Fadden has previously been a director of a separate business of Mr Margerison. Strangely, though, a search of the federal lobbyist register reveals, however, that Synergy 360 is not a registered lobbyist. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fadden will cease interjecting while I take a point of order from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Practice is very clear about personal reflections on other members of the House and it is also very clear on page 515 'that Members can only direct a charge against other Members or reflect upon their character or conduct upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House.' So Practice is very clear on this. What the minister is doing is out of order. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is setting context. I am going to ask him to relate the question regarding the part of his portfolio. He has set the context and I bring him back to the question. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The leaked emails reveal that Synergy 360 was lobbying corporations in relation to lucrative government contracts, including in the portfolios I am now responsible for; therefore, this morning I have asked the CEO of Services Australia and the CEO of the National Disability Insurance Agency to immediately and thoroughly investigate any of the contracts awarded to these companies and individuals named in these reports to assure me and the Australian people that the process was entirely above board and appropriate. In conclusion, I want to say to Australians listening to this: the Albanese government believes the job of an MP is to work for their constituents, not their former business partners. Further, we believe when there is clear lobbying, as revealed by the emails, companies are required to be on the lobbyist register; this is not an option. But most importantly, using public office as a politician to enrich your private friends and mates, including political donors, is not a shade of grey. Whether you are a backbencher or a frontbencher is not an offence. If and when public office is being used to enrich private mates; it is corruption. Workplace Relations 51 14:09 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, under Labor's extreme industrial relations changes, small and medium businesses will need to pay between $14,000 and $75,000 when dragged into compulsory multi-employer bargaining. Given that small and family businesses are already facing higher interest repayments and rising energy prices, can the minister inform the House of what financial assistance the government will provide to these Australian businesses to help them meet these new costs? 14:10 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for Bass for her question. There's no doubt, and I've said in this place, that small businesses have been doing it tough. They are dealing with increased prices and they are doing it tough in terms of increased mortgages and increased energy prices. But what we're doing with the better pay, secure jobs legislation is that we're trying to actually support small businesses and give them what they want. What we're doing here is giving them access to enterprise bargaining— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Ms COLLINS HWM that will improve productivity and give businesses the benefit of negotiating with their employees. Indeed, when you go to the regulatory impact statement and you keep reading, it says: The significant benefits of being covered by an enterprise agreement and the costs that may be associated with remaining covered by a Modern Award outweigh the additional cost for businesses to engage with the new multi-enterprise bargaining streams— not to mention that most small businesses will go into the cooperative stream— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Ms COLLINS HWM where they'll be able to get off-the-shelf type products, and it will cost them very little, and that's where we think most small businesses will go. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Moncrieff will cease interjecting. There is far too much noise. I want to be very clear with the House. There must be silence when questions are being asked. Ministers are entitled to answer questions in silence as well. I'm not mucking around today. Economy 51 14:12 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government working with investors to address some of the nation's big economic challenges? 14:12 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Bendigo for her second question this week. She's now asked as many questions in four days as the member for Hume has asked me in more than four weeks. When we have our fair share of economic challenges— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Petrie is warned. Dr CHALMERS 37998 in this country and we have our fair share of constraints on the budget, it's more important than ever that governments work with investors in our economy to try to satisfy some of our big national economic objectives. There are ways that we can do that to ensure that investors get good returns for their investors and for their members when it comes to super funds at the same time as we address some of the big economic challenges that have been left unattended for too long in this country. That's why tomorrow, for the first time, the Treasurer's Investor Roundtable will be convened in Sydney. The investor roundtable will bring together the four big banks, Macquarie, the industry funds, the retail funds, BlackRock, Blackbird, the Future Fund, representatives of the state treasurers and others to begin to deal with and take advantage of some of the big challenges and opportunities that are in our economy right now. Around the table in Sydney tomorrow there will be trillions of dollars of funds under management ready to find ways to get good returns at the same time as we address some of these challenges. The first order of business tomorrow will be the government's housing accord, and I pay tribute to the housing minister for her work on the housing accord as part of our broader sweep of housing policies, which are so important in dealing with one of the biggest economic challenges we have around housing affordability. The challenge is—when it comes to this particular part of the housing market that the housing accord will address—that, when we've got low unemployment in this country, we need to make to easier for people to live near where the jobs and opportunities are being created. At a time of low vacancy rates and high rents, we need to make it easier. So I welcome the interest of the big investors in this country—super funds, banks and others—as we try to work together to deal with this big economic challenge. If we make progress here, and I'm confident that we will, there's nothing preventing us from turning to some of the other challenges in our economy, whether it's the challenges which have been left to us in energy markets, whether it's challenges in data or digital or whether it's recognising the opportunities in critical minerals and advanced manufacturing. There's a big opportunity here. Big investors in this country want to work with the government, the government wants to work with them, and we'll be getting on with it. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 52 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Members of Queensland Parliament 52 14:15 The SPEAKER 53517 I'd like to inform the House that present in the gallery today are representatives from the Queensland Parliament. On behalf of the House, I welcome the Hon. Curtis Pitt, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly; the Hon. John-Paul Langbroek, the shadow minister for seniors, communities and disability services; and Dr Christian Rowan, shadow minister for education and shadow minister for the arts. A very warm welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Gas Industry 52 14:15 Mr CHANDLER-MATH 300121 Griffith ER () (): My question is to the Minister for Resources. Minister, you have previously said you supported Australia exporting coal beyond 2050. This week the boss of the oil and gas corporation fracking the giant climate bomb in the Northern Territory's Beetaloo basin said they would be able to pump gas for 'hundreds of years'. Minister, does the government still support exporting coal beyond the middle of this century, and do you support the pumping of gas for hundreds of years? 14:16 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank the member for Griffith for his question. The truth is—and the Prime Minister and this government have always said this—the decision about whether coal will be exported by this country and bought by others will be made in boardrooms around the world, particularly in North Asia; it won't necessarily be made by us. This is an export industry that, indeed, has been operating in this country since, I believe, 1801. This is a long-term industry that supports tens of thousands of people and communities right up and down the east coast. To disregard them, as you tend to do, Member for Griffith and your comrades, is disingenuous to those communities— The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the member for Griffith on a point of order. Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 On relevance—just trying to find out if the government supports exporting coal or not. Baseless accusations about the Greens policy on coal and gas— The SPEAKER 53517 That is not a point of order or how a point of order should be taken. Because the member is new, I will let that one slide. The minister is being relevant. It is not an opportunity to restate a question or to make another statement. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 I was just pointing out to the member for Griffith the history of this country and the very important export industry of this country—and it will remain a future export industry of this country. The member would do well, along, again, with his friends and colleagues, to maybe visit some of the communities up and down the east coast so they could see exactly the hard work that goes into the coal export industry. The member for Hunter is a former coalminer and worked in the coal industry. I've been down a longwall coalmine with him, and I saw the very hard work and the communities this supports. As for gas, gas exports are very important to this country—not only to towns like Karratha, Onslow, Broome and Darwin; they are also very important to our regional neighbours. We know that countries across North Asia depend upon Australia for their energy security. This country will remain a reliable and trustworthy supplier of energy to our Asian neighbours and to our region for as long as we need to be. Albanese Government 53 14:18 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons My question is to the Prime Minister. This week marks the six-month anniversary of the Albanese Labor government. What has the government achieved in that time? 14:19 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Lyons for that insightful question. I do say that, six months ago this week, I stood at the Canterbury-Hurlstone Park RSL and promised that, after a wasted decade, this government wouldn't waste a day, and we haven't. From day one, we've got on with the job of building a better future for Australians, the better future that Australians voted for. One of the first things we did was to put in a submission to the Fair Work Commission that led to the increase in the minimum wage. To keep up with a 5.1 per cent inflation rate, the Fair Work Commission granted 5.2 per cent, and we welcome that. We put in a submission for a pay rise for aged-care workers, something that those opposite failed to do during their decade in office. We've already passed legislation to make child care cheaper, this week, making a difference for over a million Australian families. We've passed legislation to make medicines cheaper—the first time in 75 years of the PBS that medicines have actually been made cheaper. We've created 180,000 new fee-free TAFE places, which will be in place from 1 January next year. We've established 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave, something those opposite, when they were in government, said would create a 'perverse disincentive' to employ women. That was the attitude of those opposite. We have got it done. We've convened a jobs and skills summit, which brought together business and unions and civil society to engage constructively. We've established the Housing Accord, again bringing together business, including the MBA, with unions and with state and territory governments to deliver more affordable housing and to boost construction. We've ended the cashless debit card. We've expanded the Commonwealth seniors health card. We've established a royal commission into robodebt. We've delivered the regional first home buyers guarantee. We've passed our Climate Change Bill and rejoined the world effort to tackle climate change. We're advancing a voice to parliament and constitutional recognition. We've set about repairing our international relations that have been trashed by those opposite. And, in these final weeks, there's more to do. Today I'm very hopeful that we will pass through this House the legislation to establish a national anticorruption commission. I can understand why it didn't happen under the previous decade of the former government. And we are making sure that we put in place measures to get wages moving so that we take pressure off people who are doing it tough. This is just in our first six months. I look forward to the next six months and well beyond. Regional Small Business Support Program 53 14:22 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Small Business. I refer to the flood-hit town of Eugowra, which the Prime Minister visited this week, and the flood-hit town of Moama, in my electorate of Farrer. If a small business in Eugowra or Moama is rebuilding next year, will they be able to specifically access the Regional Small Business Support Program? 14:23 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member opposite for her question. We are, of course, concerned about communities that have been impacted by floods. We know they have been doing it incredibly tough, which is why we did move as quickly as we could to make sure that assistance was available for those communities. Indeed, we're investing a billion dollars over five years to mitigate potential disasters and loss and damage through the government's new Disaster Ready Fund. We are concerned about it. We have also moved in each of the states that have recently had floods—in Tasmania, in Victoria and in New South Wales—to make small business grants available for those communities. Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is 30 seconds into answering the question. Out of respect for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's position, I'm allowing this point of order, but I want to have it stated clearly what the point of order is. Ms 00AMN The point of order is on relevance, because I referred specifically to a program called the Regional Small Business Support Program— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The minister is 40 seconds in. Honourable members interjecting— The 53517 Order! I'd like to hear the minister in silence. The Deputy Leader was heard in silence. The minister is 40 seconds in. She's got three minutes to answer the question. I give her the call. Ms COLLINS HWM We have been moving to support small businesses. As I said in this place earlier in the week, we have also moved to make sure that those programs that were due to end at the end of this year, on 31 December, which those opposite didn't continue to fund, about mental health and wellbeing and of course the Small Business Debt Helpline, and were not continuing, we found more than $10 million in the last budget to make sure could continue. We're looking at all of the programs to make sure that we are supporting small businesses in every way possible to come out of the floods, and we'll continue to do so. National Anti-Corruption Commission 54 14:25 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence My question is to the Attorney-General. Why is it important that standards of integrity be raised to improve voters' trust in our democratic system? 14:25 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Spence for his question. The National Anti-Corruption Commission is a landmark reform which I hope will have a profound impact on our democracy once it is established. The commission will not just investigate corruption after it happens but seek to prevent corruption as far as is possible. The commission will be tasked with education and prevention functions. The commission will provide guidance and information to support the public sector to identify and address vulnerabilities to corruption. It will educate the public sector and raise awareness of corruption risks and how to avoid them. The commission has the capacity to hold public hearings, and when findings of corruption are made the commission will be able to release public reports. This visibility is important and will ensure the Australian public see the commission doing its job. Trust in government hit an all-time low in the most recent Australian Election Study, conducted by the Australian National University in 2019. Only 59 per cent of Australians were satisfied with how their democracy was working. There is no doubt Australians at the 2022 election felt the same way. Something was broken, and they wanted it fixed. The Albanese Labor government heard that call, and the National Anti-Corruption Commission bills are our answer. The main bill to establish the commission passed this House just before question time. Our sincere hope is that the commission will help to restore trust in federal politics. Australians will know that there is a strong watchdog with teeth, ensuring that those who are fortunate enough to be elected to this place are not misusing their position for personal gain. Nothing is more important than ensuring our behaviour in this place upholds the bond of trust with Australians. That bond is the basis of our democracy. There has been much damage done in the last decade to that bond. Just one example of that is the promise made in December 2018 to establish a national anticorruption commission, which was never delivered. The bills currently before the parliament to establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission are the first steps in that repair job. It is up to all members in both houses to do the right thing, come together and pass the bills before parliament. Let's send a strong message to all Australians that we can get this job done. Workplace Relations 54 14:28 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa My question is to the minister representing the minister for agriculture. I refer to a northern Australian family cattle property that employs 21 ringers and station hands. Under Labor's industrial relations changes, if a representative for cattle ringers and station hands from that property successfully applies to the Fair Work Commission to bargain a single-interest employer agreement, could all similar family cattle properties in northern Australia be forced into multiple-employer bargaining? Mr Burke DYW On a point of order, the question goes specifically to the interaction of businesses with a piece of legislation that is entirely within a different portfolio; it happens to be mine, but this question is directed to the wrong minister. Mr Fletcher L6B On the point of order, it's very clear that what this goes to is the impact on businesses within the sector for which the minister representing the minister for agriculture is responsible, and that is why she is the appropriate minister to be asked this question and to answer it. The SPEAKER 53517 This issue has come up a couple of times this week. Practice makes it clear, on page 549, that where a question may involve the responsibility of more than one minister it should be directed to the minister most responsible. However, a minister may direct his or her answer without question. I will allow the minister, under the standing orders, to answer the question and then another minister may respond as well. 14:30 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I am very proud that in the Albanese government's first budget $1 billion has been put into the agriculture sector to make sure that we're actually growing that sector and making sure that we're protecting it from the biosecurity threats that we've seen with foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease. The specific question that the minister asked, as he knows full well, is an industrial relations question so I will refer that question to the industrial relations minister to answer. 14:30 Mr BURKE DYW Watson First of all, the example that they have given, as I heard it, refers to a single employer making an application with respect to the single interest stream. A single employer can't make an application to the single interest stream. It starts with multiple employers. That's the way it works. But if the question is wanting to go to the broader point of are these rules meant to be able to reach agriculture? Yes, absolutely. Those opposite presided over a time when horticulture workers were being paid $4 an hour. Those opposite presided over a time when some of the worst examples of wage theft were coming from that exact sector, not because of the farmers themselves but because of the labour hire companies that were going through rorting the systems. The farmers thought they were paying for decent wages but they were being charged for them. There was a rort happening that was never meeting the worker. I met with workers. I remember meeting Kate on a visa here from Taiwan who was fishing out of the bins beside the supermarkets to get food—she had a full-time job—because that's what was happening under the laws of those opposite. When the Prime Minister gave the example before that this act that has been proposed by the government, the amendments to the Fair Work Act, will make it that you can no longer advertise work for less than the legal minimum rate of pay, you bet we're in favour of that. And you bet that will get away some of the rorts that've been happening. You should be representing all the people in your electorate, including the workers who've been underpaid. Environment 55 14:33 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. What is the government's response to the— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Newcastle will resume her seat— The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Hume, you are warned. I've made it crystal clear that I want to hear questions in silence. You are refusing to follow my direction and you keep constantly interjecting. Has everyone got the message? 14:33 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. What is the government's response to the terrible destruction of the Juukan Gorge? How will the government make sure that this never happens again? 14:34 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank the member for Newcastle, who I know has spent a lot of time over the years in remote communities, for her question. Today the government formally tabled our response to the interim and final reports by the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia into the destruction of Juukan Gorge. We are so fortunate to share this continent with the world's oldest continuous culture and most successful environmental custodians. Juukan Gorge is one of the oldest sites of human occupation in Australia, with 46,000 years of continuous culture, tradition, practices and stories. As I said this morning, it is unthinkable that any culture would knowingly destroy Stonehenge or the Egyptian pyramids or the Lascaux caves in France. When the Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed in Afghanistan, the world was rightly outraged. But that's precisely what occurred in Juukan Gorge. I want to thank all members of parliament who participated in the two inquiries, across the political spectrum, and produced two very thoughtful reports. A particular debt of gratitude is owed to the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people, who are the traditional owners of Juukan Gorge. I am truly sorry about the loss you have experienced and the way the parliamentary inquiries and government response have added to your distress. What's clear from these reports is that our system is not working, which is why at the election the Labor Party promised to reform the system with a standalone piece of Indigenous cultural heritage legislation, co-designed with First Nations people. That was our commitment, and today, in signing an agreement with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance, we took the first step in that journey. The final committee report identified eight recommendations for reforming Australia's cultural heritage protections. We have accepted seven of them, and we are continuing to work through one recommendation, which is whether the ultimate responsibility for cultural heritage should sit with the Indigenous affairs minister or the environment minister. These are serious reports, and the recommendations speak to the principles and priorities that will shape our response: free, prior and informed consent; truth-telling and open dialogue; and genuine partnership, the kind that can only be entered into by equals. This morning our government signed an agreement with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance. The alliance will work closely with Minister Burney and Senator Dodson and the rest of us to make sure that we get these laws right. We are always a better country—more unified, more confident, more secure in ourselves—when we give everyone a seat at the table, when we listen to all voices. We are committed to doing better in true partnership with First Nations Australians. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I haven't given you the call yet. You don't have the call. When the House comes to order, you will get the call. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Bruce is warned. Small Business 56 14:37 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Minister for Small Business. A Canberra small business owner has told Nine News that he's worried that the government's industrial relation changes will mean he has to increase prices. He said it just means that the prices of your schooners, your pints and your parmies are going to go up. Will the minister guarantee that small businesses will not have to increase prices as a result of Labor's extreme industrial relations changes? 14:38 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member opposite for his question. Small businesses, as I said, have been doing it tough and we do know that they are facing rising increases in their costs. We do know that they are dealing with rising energy prices and that they are dealing with rising interest rates. We also know, of course, that they are having trouble attracting staff. We know that there are massive staff shortages, which is why we're also moving—in terms of increasing skilled migration and in terms of increasing fee-free TAFE places—to make sure that we have the workforce available for small businesses. We're also, of course, changing industrial relations laws to make it easier, simpler and cheaper— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Ms COLLINS HWM for small businesses to be able to engage in enterprise bargaining. That is what we are doing. We want to make sure that small businesses get the benefits of the productivity increases that come from bargaining with their employees. That is what the Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill is all about. It's also about making sure that the workers in these positions are able to get their first pay rise in almost a decade. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will resume her seat. Has the minister concluded her answer? Ms COLLINS HWM Yes. The SPEAKER 53517 She has concluded her answer. Climate Change: Pacific Islands 56 14:39 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. How is the Albanese Labor government changing Australia's approach to engagement with Pacific nations on climate change, and what previous approaches are being changed? 14:39 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I thank the member for Wills for his question and his ongoing commitment to fighting climate change and his deep commitment to national security. Nothing is more central to the security and wellbeing of the Pacific than taking action on climate change, because the Pacific is bearing the brunt of climate change. In Australia we've seen bushfires, droughts and the current massive floods. In the Pacific island countries we're seeing inundation, water contamination and threats to food security. That's why the 2018 Boe Declaration said climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihood, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific. For example, Kiribati's main island, Tarawa, will lose 50 per cent of its landmass by 2100 under current projections. At COP27, Australia's response was really well received. I met with 10 Pacific leaders and ministers, including the prime ministers of the Cook Islands and Tonga, and the President of Palau. The Secretary-General of the PIF said: Australia is taking a new refreshed approach to its relationship with the Pacific, and it's reinforcing that, not just with words, but also with some real solid action. We're working with the Pacific to deliver outcomes that reflect Pacific interest. We supported Pacific climate negotiators to be there and to progress a bid for COP in the Pacific. After a decade of inaction, Australia is taking action at home and abroad. We're supporting the Pacific climate facility. We're providing $900 million worth of extra ODA to the Pacific with a real focus on climate change. I was also asked how the approach has changed from the last government. The Albanese government has delivered more in six months than the last government did in 10 years. For example, we're not making jokes about climate change destroying Pacific island countries; we're taking this existential threat seriously. We're not blowing up regional security and unity like the member for Cook did by blocking action on climate change at the 2019 PIF. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will resume his seat. I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B The minister's answer offends against several provisions of the standing orders. In particular, on relevance, you have previously directed a minister back to the question when he has strayed and gone into the record of the previous government. The SPEAKER 53517 The manager will resume his seat. I will hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order: in terms of the way the minister is answering this question, he's being quite specific about what the government's doing and not doing. Every part of it has been framed in terms of decisions being taken by the government and that he has taken as minister. The SPEAKER 53517 The question involved what is being changed. I'm going to ask the minister to make sure he is comparing in contrast to those changes, to be relevant. Mr CONROY 249127 In contrast to the last government, which blocked climate action—which led to Fiji Prime Minister Bainimarama saying that the former Prime Minister's actions were insulting, were condescending and would drive the Pacific to countries other than Australia—the new government is supporting action on climate change and supporting the Pacific. The opposition like to claim they're strong on national security, but being weak on climate and being weak on the Pacific means they are weak on national security. Unfortunately, the opposition leader's attacks on climate action—his dog-whistling on COP, in particular on damage and loss, demonstrates the opposition leader doesn't understand national security, isn't fit to lead his party and is definitely not fit to lead this nation. Fuel 57 14:43 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. It is currently estimated there are over 20 million motor vehicles in Australia powered by internal combustion engines. These engines are running on some of the dirtiest petrol in the world. Given these petrol cars will still be on our roads for an average of 10 more years, please tell us when the Australian government will take action to ensure that the quality of our petrol will meet international best standards. 14:44 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I'm very pleased to confirm to the honourable member that the government is currently, as we speak, consulting on fuel quality standards, particularly in relation to Euro 6; that process has begun. That is a matter for the climate change portfolio, for those opposite who don't understand government arrangements! The minister for transport and I are also working very closely together on the related matter of fuel efficiency standards. They're two very closely related programs, but they're quite separate in terms of their implementation. Fuel efficiency standards are those which encourage and require manufacturers to send electric vehicles and other low-emissions vehicles to Australia—perhaps low-emissions vehicles and electric vehicles like utes, which do exist and are available in many countries around the world. They're not currently available in Australia, because we lack fuel efficiency standards. As somebody who's driven an electric ute, I can confirm they do exist and are available elsewhere, but, because of 10 years of policy indolence, they're not available in Australia. But the honourable member for North Sydney is quite right. While that transition is occurring— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Longman is warned. Mr BOWEN DZS there will be many internal combustion engines in Australia, and it is important that our fuel efficiency standards are best practice and our fuel quality standards are best practice. This government is in its first six months, and it has started the process of reviewing both. It is important that we consult with manufacturers and motoring groups. I met with motoring groups, as did the minister for transport, just yesterday and talked about exactly these two matters, as per the normal consultative and methodical practices of the government. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will resume his seat. I'll hear from the member for North Sydney on a point of order. Ms Tink 300124 It's to the point of relevance. I specifically asked about petrol quality, and, with three out of four car sales in this country being second-hand vehicles, I'd really appreciate if the minister could give me an answer on petrol. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is being relevant. He's about halfway through the answer, and I'll ask him to return to that part of the question before he has concluded. Mr BOWEN DZS In relation to the honourable member's exact question, I only began the consultation process a couple of weeks ago. It is important to allow people to have their say. That process is nearing its end. As soon as I've read through all the submissions and assessed all the evidence, I'll make a decision and announce it. Workplace Relations 58 14:46 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How will the secure jobs, better pay bill get wages moving for low-paid workers and help close the gender pay gap? 14:46 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Reid for her question, for her strong commitment to getting wages moving and, in particular, on closing the gender pay gap. We had a comment, only today, from Senator Cash, who said, 'This legislation will do nothing to get wages moving.' That's the claim—'nothing to get wages moving'. I'll go through some of the evidence that's there and some of the changes in this bill. Ending pay-secrecy clauses gets wages moving. Pay-secrecy clauses have been used deliberately to prevent workers from finding out what other workers are earning. It has been used deliberately within workplaces where the men are earning more than the women. When you end pay-secrecy clauses, you have an impact on getting wages moving. Strengthening the rights to flexible work: in terms of getting wages moving, particularly when it comes to closing the gender pay gap—it should not be this way, but it is a reality in Australia still—women have a disproportionate share of caring responsibilities in this country. That is what happens far more commonly. The situation at the moment is that, when someone asks for flexible work—for example, they can't do a roster change which, if they went ahead with it, would mean that no-one would be there pick up a three-year-old from child care or early childhood education at a particular time—and they're told, 'I can't deal with it,' if the employer says no, they have no further right of recourse. This leads women in that situation to insecure work and lower paid work. That's what happens. When you make sure people have stronger rights to flexible work, you help get wages moving. But multi-employer bargaining also helps get wages moving. Notwithstanding the comments from the member for Longman about this being the sort of bill that would be promoted by socialist and communist governments, I might remind him of that great socialist and communist who now heads the OECD. The OECD has said that multi-employer arrangements are: … necessary to negotiate targeted raises in female-dominated and low-paid sectors. The OECD has also said: Collective bargaining can be mobilised to negotiate wage increases and better working conditions and can represent a powerful tool in addressing the gender wage gap. I don't know if he's now going to go home and check for a Mathias under the bed, or something like that—the great communist who used to be the finance minister for this country! But the reality is that those opposite are opposing measures that close the gender pay gap. They are opposing measures that get wages moving. And the businesses that those opposite keep wanting to deny, like early childhood education centres, small businesses— Mr BURKE DYW There's more than one! She keeps saying, 'Can you name an early childhood centre?' The way they behaved on the cheaper childcare bill— (Time expired) Workplace Relations 58 14:50 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Can the minister confirm that a small business specialising in importing and exporting whose workforce includes 12 Australian based employees and eight workers overseas in an associated entity of that business could be compelled into multi-employer bargaining under Labor's extreme industrial relations changes? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Before I call the minister, that question was clearly directed to the minister but contains the responsibilities of another minister. But I'll give her the call and, if she wishes to transfer the question, under Practice, she is able to do so. I just want to remind members that it's very clear that ministers, whoever they are, can transfer answers to another minister. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is constantly interjecting. By her position, which I respect, she's entitled to a certain latitude, but that latitude is really pushing against the wall at the moment. 14:51 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member opposite for that question. Of course, as he well knows, it is the responsibility of the workplace relations minister. But I would say the member well knows that more than two million businesses will be exempt from the provisions that they are so concerned about there in terms of the single-interest-stream bargaining provisions. More than two million businesses in Australia will be exempt from this provision. And I'm happy to hand over to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in terms of this particular question. 14:51 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I wish they'd direct them to me. Australian workplace laws cover Australian businesses and the people who are employed in Australia. Budget 59 14:52 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. Minister, how does the Albanese Labor government budget deliver for regional Australia? 14:52 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank the member for Lingiari for the question—one of the largest electorates in the country. Her strong advocacy for Territorians is well noted across this parliament. Like 30 per cent of all of this country, I live in the regions, and I love talking about the importance of the regions to our economy and to our nation. Our budget is delivering for regional Australia. In fact, there are 760 budget initiatives to boost our regional communities and industries. Unlike those opposite, our policies will increase jobs in the renewable energy sector across the regions. The regions will be able to access more secure housing, better connectivity and investment in local ideas. Those opposite thought all regional Australia needed was grants spending, but for 10 long years they short-changed our regions—because our regional programs need transparency, they need fairness and they need a level playing field. We all know that the North Sydney Olympic Pool should not have received regional funding via a closed, invitation-only grant process. We know regional Australians deserve better than that, which is why we committed a billion dollars towards two major regional programs, which will be delivered in a fair and transparent way. In every country town I go to, students and families tell me that they need connectivity, which is why we are delivering $2.4 billion to the NBN, and $656 million to improve mobile coverage in rural and remote areas. But we also know that regional Australia is hamstrung by housing. The chef, the childcare worker, fruit pickers—all need a roof over their head before they can take up a job in our region. That's why this government has taken up the challenge. Through our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, we know we'll make a huge difference. Over a thousand regional Australians have already taken advantage of the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. We are also giving regional Australians priority access to 20,000 additional Commonwealth supported university places and $158½ million worth of measures to address teacher shortages in our regions. But good regional development isn't just about investing in our roads and our infrastructure. It's about investing in our people, through skills and training. It's about investing in our services like NDIS, Medicare and early childhood education. We know regional Australia has borne the brunt of natural disasters, which is why we are investing $200 million per year into the Disaster Ready Fund. Our communities need our help, which is why regional Australia is at the centre of the nation's growth and at the forefront of our agenda. We are committed to delivering a better future for all Australia, no matter where you live, no matter your postcode, leaving no-one behind. Only the Albanese government will deliver that. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 59 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Minister for Water; Forestry; Youth, Western Australia, Marinucci, Ms Luna Angelini 59 14:55 The SPEAKER 53517 I acknowledge that in the gallery we have the Hon. Dave Kelly, the Minister for Water; Forestry; Youth, from the Western Australian parliament, and the honourable Consul of Italy for Queensland and the Northern Territory, Ms Luna Angelini Marinucci. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 59 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE North Queensland: Dams 59 14:56 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy My question is to the Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia. Minister, would you agree that 92 per cent of Australia, which has only 1.2 million people, is an area bleeding? Three-quarters of Australia's water is in North Queensland's inland, not on its coast. HIPCo's Hughenden dam templates 13 schemes, each worth $300 million a year. Why not HIPCo dam now, Minister? 14:56 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I do note the question goes to water infrastructure, which is— Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 I know what you're getting at, Member for Kennedy. It also has intersections with the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and the Minister for the Environment and Water. But also, of course, as you pointed out, this has a lot to do with northern development in northern Australia, so I'm more than happy to answer that question as best I can. As for the statistics you mentioned in the question, I am not sure about that, but I'm really happy to take that away and look at it and get back to your office. You mentioned HIPCo and the Hughenden dam, and I note your longstanding concerns around water security right across Queensland, especially in your seat of Kennedy. It is appropriate that there is water security for that region. I entirely agree with the member in that regard. You have had a long interest in the Hughenden irrigation scheme, and so have many members in this place. As you'd be aware, funding for that scheme does remain in the budget. However, there are a number of steps to be taken. Sufficient water allocation must be obtained from the Queensland government, and I understand this is a process that government is undertaking right now and with vigour. Also, Infrastructure Australia—which, of course, is the minister for infrastructure's responsibility—will be assessing the business case in relation to the Hughenden dam. We are, as always, as a government happy to engage with any member of this parliament on any of their requests for water infrastructure and other infrastructure, particularly those in the northern Australia seats, on any project they think has value and can add to the economic and social development of the north. Member for Kennedy, we have spoken many times on many of the projects that are of benefit to northern Australia, and I know all relevant ministers will continue to do the same. This government is more than happy to engage actively and look at projects that are brought forward, but they do need to be supported by a proper business case, and they really need to be engaged on with the state and territory governments involved, because governments need to work together to make projects like the Hughenden Irrigation Project, the HIPCo project, go ahead. I thank the member for Kennedy again for his question. Mr Katter HX4 On a point of order, Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister has concluded her answer. Is it related to the question or something else? Mr Katter HX4 I don't want it to be interpreted that I've bypassed the brilliant and gracious lady who is the minister for water. I just think it's more northern development—that's all. Household and Personal Debt 60 14:59 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Minister for Financial Services. How is the government protecting consumers, without stifling innovation, in the buy-now pay-later industry? 14:59 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I want to thank the member for Blair for his question. There is not a harder-working or more decent member of parliament in this place. I want to acknowledge his long, hardworking commitment, as a lawyer and as a member of parliament, to providing rights and dignity for Australian people. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr JONES A9B He asks about buy-now pay-later. Buy-now pay-later credit products have been providing enormous innovation and competition in our credit markets. Over the last 12 months you would have seen a massive increase in the number of buy-now pay-later accounts—seven million accounts in Australia as of today, about $16 billion worth of payments flowing through the buy-now pay-later sector. Most Australians, if they walk into a shop today, can see on the counter that you can pay for a product by cash, by Visa card or by MasterCard, and you'll also see a sign saying Zip pay, Afterpay or a number of other buy-now pay-later products. And therein lies the issue. Some of those products are regulated as credit products under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act, and some of them are not. Some of them have rights for consumers; some of them do not. We take the view that if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck then it's probably a duck—and buy-now pay-later is looking pretty ducky. We want to ensure that we can continue to have innovation and competition in the credit market, but we also want to ensure that credit and credit users and consumers are well protected. We will ensure that we have the right sort of consumer protections in place. That's why this week we have released a consultation paper inviting feedback from stakeholders to look at how we can better regulate buy-now pay-later products in Australia. We're concerned about ensuring that the products are properly marketed to consumers, concerned to ensure that we aren't encouraging unaffordable lending practices, concerned to ensure that we have the appropriate levels of credit checks in place. We will receive consultation input from the market, from consumers and from stakeholders by December this year, with a view to ensuring that we can have regulation in place at some stage next year. Of course, it is not just in buy-now pay-later. There are many members in this place—including yourself, Mr Speaker—who have put a lot of effort into ensuring that we can have appropriate regulation for payday lending. We have laws before this parliament to ensure that we can regulate those areas of credit to ensure proper protection for consumers. (Time expired) Workplace Relations 61 15:02 Mr BROADB MT4 Monash ENT () (): My question is to the Minister for Small Business, Can the minister confirm to the House that under Labor's extreme industrial relations changes small business such as a hardware store, a hairdresser, a cafe and a butcher could be compelled to bargain together with a large supermarket if they are located in the same shopping centre as that large supermarket? The SPEAKER 53517 The question is clearly directed to the wrong minister. If the minister chooses to have someone supplement the answer, because it is not directed for her responsibilities, under the standing orders—I'm not ruling the question out of order, but I'll invite the minister to take the question. 15:03 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the member opposite for his question. As I have said clearly in this place, more than two million businesses will be exempt from the single-interest stream that the member is referring to in terms of the industrial relations bill. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The minister will be heard in silence, just as the member for Monash was heard in silence. Mr Dutton 00AKI Answer the question! Ms COLLINS HWM I am answering the question, and I'll keep answering the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition is warned. I can't be clearer. When a minister is on her feet, within barely seconds into the answer, it is unacceptable, the yelling, the interjections. I give her the call. Ms COLLINS HWM And as I said earlier in the week in this place, there are other thresholds that need to be met, and one of those is of course that the Fair Work Commission would need to say that they have the same single interest, and that would not be the case in the example that the member actually refers to. Telecommunications 61 15:04 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Minister for Communications. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to address mobile black spots and improve communications resilience? 15:05 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for Hunter for his question. Honourable memb ers interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The House will come to order. Ms ROWLAND 159771 I recently had the pleasure of spending time with him in his electorate to see the range of communications initiatives benefiting the Hunter community. Improving connectivity is a top priority for the Albanese government. High-quality, reliable communications services play a vital role for the economic and social inclusion of communities and especially for safety for those living and working in regional Australia as well as in our outer suburbs. That's why Labor took to the election our Better Connectivity Plan for Rural and Regional Australia. True to our commitment, our budget boosted regional telecommunications funding by $800 million compared to the last budget of the previous government. A critical element of our plan is $400 million to expand mobile coverage and improve the resilience of mobile networks and communications systems during natural disasters. This stream includes $100 million dedicated to resilience measures, which will help deliver improvements to the reliability of networks and their ability to withstand and recover more quickly from natural disasters. It's useful to understand what this can mean in practice. Right now, as honourable members across the chamber are well aware, there are communities across the country who are in the midst of devastating floods. Many constituents of those honourable members will be struggling to connect to the internet or get a mobile signal to contact their loved ones, to call for help or to receive emergency information. Our resilience measures will help to remedy just that. This includes improved reliability of backup power sources for telco facilities, and these include innovative battery and solar solutions. We will also focus on increasing the diversity of transmission routes, meaning that critical sites will be connected to the network through more than one path so, if one path fails, it's less likely to bring down the entire site. My department has also commenced consultation on the Improving Mobile Coverage Round of the Mobile Black Spot Program. This progresses our election commitments to address mobile coverage and capacity issues in 54 locations where inadequate service had been identified by communities, local councils and mobile carriers. And we've committed $39.1 million to further rounds of the Peri-Urban Mobile Program, which will deliver increased coverage and capacity in our rapidly growing outer suburban areas. Our investment will also expand the program to urban areas with a population of over 100,000. These include areas like Geelong, Wollongong, Cairns and Newcastle. The Albanese government is committed to better connectivity for Australians because good connectivity isn't simply a nice-to-have; it is an essential service for our economy, for our quality of life and, most of all, for the safety of our citizens. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 62 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program 62 15:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Can I acknowledge the 32 members of the ADF Parliamentary Program who have been working with MPs and senators here this week. They're up there in the gallery. I think it's appropriate if all members give them a bit of a thank you. I thank you for your service this week but, more importantly, I thank you for your service in defence of our nation. National Security 62 15:08 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Does the member claim to have been misrepresented, or are you seeking to correct the record? Mr THOMPSON 281826 To correct the record. I have not been misrepresented; I seek to correct the record. During the MPI yesterday, I quoted an article from a think tank which cited statistics from Save the Children regarding the number of children living in Syrian camps. While the figure of 7,300 children was correctly quoted, I have since been informed that Save the Children's position is not that these children are 'under the guardianship of their ISIS affiliated mothers who are diligently indoctrinating them with ISIS ideology and instilling in them the desire to avenge their fathers who were killed or taken prisoner in battles', as was indicated in the think tank article. This is a matter between the think tank and Save the Children. For transparency, I'm pre-empting the outcome, and I'd like to correct the record. STATEMENTS 62 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 62 15:10 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to be misrepresented? Mr ROBERT HWT Most egregiously, Mr Speaker, most egregiously. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr ROBERT HWT With respect to the article in the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald about when I was on the backbench six years ago, I reject outright the accusations and the innuendo, as I do those that the member from Maribyrnong raised today. With respect to when I was a minister years later, all ministers know the process for procurement, all understand how procurement is run by the public service and how procurement is run. Having said that, the member for Maribyrnong and I are on Q+A tonight, which may well have informed his motivations, and I look forward to taking the stage with him. The SPEAKER 53517 You may resume your seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I appreciate members are entitled under the standing orders to claim where they are misrepresented. For the benefit of all members, when we come back next week I will explain very clearly on Monday the precise way of doing that, because there are too many examples where people are taking advantage of that standing order. I remind all members when it comes to misrepresentation to follow practice. The member for Petrie? Mr Howarth 247742 I would like clarification from you, as Speaker, in relation to standing order 90— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member will resume his seat. Is the member asking me a question? The time to do that is immediately post question time, and that is for questions of administration, not standing orders. If you have a question regarding standing orders, I'm happy for you to write to me, and I will respond to the member directly. DOCUMENTS 63 DOCUMENTS Presentation 63 15:12 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 63 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Workplace Relations 63 15:13 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Bradfield proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's determination to impose union controls upon small businesses. 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— 15:13 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Australian small and family businesses are the backbone our economy. Small businesses makes up over 97 per cent of all businesses. They employ over 4.7 million people and 41 per cent of the business workforce, making them, collectively, Australia's biggest employer. The data shows an upward trend in the proportion of women small-business owners and managers over the last 20 years, and an increase in the number of both full-time and part-time women small-business owners and managers. Indeed, as of July 2020, almost 715,000 women were business owners or managers, including 381,000 part-time and almost 334,000 full-time. On this side of the House, we are consistent friends and supporters of small business. We don't just say it; we back it. In government, we reduced small business taxes, we introduced tax concessions to help small businesses generate investment, we backed small businesses to get through the pandemic and we helped small businesses as they recovered. By contrast—and the contrast could not be more stark—the Labor government, the Albanese government, is taking a sledgehammer to small business. We are seeing the biggest changes proposed to industrial relations law in decades. This government of union officials now at the second stage of their career, this government is recklessly imposing union control and inviting—indeed, encouraging—militant union officials to come into the offices and premises of hardworking Australians, small and family businesses, all across the country. How are they doing that? They are doing it through damaging, union-driven imposts on businesses, such as imposing compulsory multi-employer bargaining enabling businesses to be covered under bargaining without their consent; by giving unions new powers, including 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 vetoing an agreement reached by an employer and the majority of its employees to remove themselves by coverage of an agreement. These are powers this bill gives to the unions, the Labor government's paymasters. A consequence of this bill that is extraordinarily troubling for small businesses all around Australia is that this bill, should it pass into law, will require small business owners—and let's remember, they almost always work in the business themselves—to spend substantial amounts of time away from their work, away from serving customers so that they can negotiate a joint bargaining position with other employers—many of which will have fundamentally different businesses—and then they will need to negotiate with employees and union representatives, who will have significantly more time to dedicate to this process than will those small business proprietors. At the end of all of that exercise and provision of time and money and effort and stress all taking that small business owner away from dealing with their customers, serving their customers, that small business will be forced into a multi-employer agreement which will undoubtedly take on a one-size-fits-all approach and which will not be relevant to the specific conditions of that business. I look at my colleagues on this side of the House, many of whom have worked in small businesses for years, have built up small businesses, have provided employment, have served their community, have served their customers. They and the small business people they have worked with around Australia know what a serious threat this bill presents to small business. This bill introduced by this government is dancing to the tune of their union pay masters, marching and inviting unionists through the doors of small businesses all around this country. This is a not-so-subtle effort by this government to increase trade union membership under the guise of sustainable wage growth. This is a bill which implements a union agenda to increase the powers and the reach of unions, including into small businesses across the country. What did the Franchise Council of Australia say to the Senate inquiry? It said: 'We would suggest union involvement in small businesses—ultimately it may undermine the sustainability or viability of many small businesses, which undermines the viability of jobs …' That is the consequence of a bill which is going to give unions a foothold in small businesses, as those small businesses are compulsorily roped into a bargaining process they had not asked for, they did not seek, and face the consequence of adverse terms and conditions being imposed upon them. We have seen a very limited exemption from this government in this bill, with the definition of 'small business' as one being one with fewer than 15 employees. But when you look at the details, if you have a cafe that has a significant number of people, often young people working one shift on a Saturday or Sunday, you can very readily get to 15, because it is not 15 full-time equivalent; it is 15. We on this side proposed an amendment to deal with this. We proposed an increase to 100 full-time equivalent employees, which was rejected out of hand by the government, and they were quickly on the phone to the ACTU to check out what their instructions were. They were: 'No, we're not having it'—the modern equivalent to the faceless men of the 1960s. That is the way this Albanese Labor government is working. It is implementing the agenda of the union movement for thugs and the criminals in the CFMEU. They are now on the speed dial of ministers in this government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Manager of Opposition Business! There's a point of order I'm taking from the minister. Ms Collins HWM The shadow minister should withdraw those comments. They're unparliamentary. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Excuse me, I am listening very carefully to this debate—and you are sailing close, so I'm listening carefully to you. Mr FLETCHER L6B I'm simply making reference to the numerous federal court judges who have made very similar comments about the many members of the CFMEU who appeared before them because they appear to regard that as simply a part of their professional duties. The insistence of the Albanese Labor government and the union movement on having a broad range of employers bargain together is particularly troubling for small and medium businesses. It is no surprise that small business representatives have lined up to express their very grave concern. National employer associations, including the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, are very clear in saying that the expansion of multi-employer bargaining, and the provision in this bill, 'fails to articulate clear parameters around where multi-employer bargaining would be available in either the supported bargaining or single-interest streams; and undermines the system of enterprise bargaining that has delivered many significant benefits to Australia over several decades'. When the Minister for Small Business was asked in question time today about whether it was the case that small businesses that found themselves in a shopping centre together with a large business, such as one of the large supermarkets, would be captured by the common interest test in the legislation, which specifically talks about a shared, a common, geographical location, she asserted that they would not, which flies in the face of everything that has been said about these provisions at every stage of this process. This bill has been rushed. The whole process has been highly unsatisfactory. What the government has admitted in the regulatory impact statement is that a typical small-to-medium business could face charges of between $14,000 and $75,000. Now, it could indeed be more than that because the source for this estimate is the author of an article on a website called authentic.com.au, Benjamin J Harvey, described on his website as 'a cross between business strategist, modern-day spiritual healer and self-development expert'. It says: … Benjamin J Harvey is as comfortable working with Shamans to Strategists, Psychics to Sales Reps, Healers to Home Makers, Buddhists to Businessmen and Meditators to Mediators. This is the rigor with which this government prepared these cost estimates. They've done a bit of googling. They've come up with a man who describes himself as a 'modern-day spiritual healer', and they've said, 'Right, we'll whack that number in.' Why have they done that? Because they don't really give a rat's. They really do not care how much small business is going to have to pay. They're not troubled about it at all. The reality is that small businesses around this country face very significant costs and very significant burdens of time and of distraction. They are being taken away from what is their passion, which is serving their customers. They're being taken away from their passion, which is providing stable and secure employment for their employees who have often been with them for decades and are regarded as family members. This is an extremely disappointing expansion of union power into small businesses across Australia. 15:23 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Can I say, after that speaker, what a load of rubbish his speech was—absolute rubbish. We are concerned about small businesses. We are concerned that small businesses have had a tough time coming out of the global pandemic and dealing with natural disasters. We are concerned that they're having to deal with rising energy costs. We are concerned that they are dealing with inflation and supply chain issues, as well as the staff shortages that I talked about earlier. We are concerned, and that is why we're supporting them. That is why we are making sure that small businesses are getting the support they need—because we know that, when small businesses are doing well, the Australian economy is doing well and the Australian people are doing well. We've taken action to deliver support for small businesses to become more resilient and more competitive, and we're doing it in many ways and we're delivering on many of our election commitments as we do so. We've updated the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, which will mean small businesses get a bigger slice of the $70 billion in contracts— Ms Bell interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Moncrieff will be dealt with. Ms COLLINS HWM that the Australian government spends every year with a 20 per cent target. It's something that those opposite failed to do during their nine years in government. We've also passed legislation to make unfair contract terms illegal, so small businesses can negotiate fairer agreements with big businesses. Again, it was something those opposite talked about for years but did not deliver on in the entire time that they were in office. They were in office nine years and they didn't deliver on it. As part of the budget, we also committed to provide $15 million for small business owners across Australia to access free mental health and financial counselling support. And, as I said today, there's the Small Business Debt Helpline support money that was in the budget. That is a program that those opposite, in their budget earlier in the year, had ending on 31 December, but we made sure that those businesses are getting the support they need in tough times. That is what we are doing. We know how important these programs are for small businesses. I spoke to a small business owner in my electorate, Claire. She told me how important it was. She told me about how difficult it was for her when her pharmacy flooded. She told me how important that type of critical support can be when you are waiting for supply chains and having to deal with trying to get your business back up off the ground. She is a pharmacist. At that particular time she was doing mass immunisations to try and support the local community. She had to close her pharmacy. She made sure that those immunisations that were scheduled did take place. We make sure that the programs that are required are there. That's why we are also delivering $62.6 million in energy efficient grants to eligible small and medium businesses to help with rising costs. We know that they need some support in terms of adapting and getting more energy efficient appliances and systems into their small businesses. This week, we introduced bills into the House to implement the Skills and Training Boost and the Technology Investment Boost. These are incentives that will help small businesses to train and upskill their employees and improve their digital capacity. These are worth more than $1.5 billion. The measures are backdated to 29 March to make sure small business owners receive the full benefits. I will also be meeting with state and territory business ministers next month—again, another thing that those opposite failed to do for almost a decade. You would've thought it would make sense to get the state ministers in the room with the federal ministers to talk about how we work together to remove some of that burden on small businesses, but, no, they couldn't do that. As I said, we do know that small businesses have been doing it tough. We also have new funding for measures already put in place by our government, including $18.6 million to help small businesses adapt and build resilience through digital technology. They sit alongside our other wider agenda that will benefit small businesses. For instance, small businesses, as I said today, will benefit from our increase in skilled migration to assist with staff shortages. We will provide a one-off income credit to older Australians to give them the opportunity to work and keep more of their money, immediately boosting the number of jobseekers. Again, small businesses will be able to benefit from this. We will accelerate the delivery of 465,000 additional fee-free TAFE places with 180,000 to be delivered in 2023. This will help get more skilled workers into the job market more quickly. Of course, our cheaper child care and our expanded paid parental leave will mean that it will be easier for families. It will also increase workforce participation, meaning that more people will be able to work in small businesses to help with the staff shortages that they are experiencing. Yes, we are making changes to industrial relations. It is a system that the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia has described as 'inaccessible' and 'intimidating' for small businesses. We are making these changes because we believe in modernising the workplace bargaining system and in getting wages moving. We are doing it because we know that small businesses will benefit from the productivity gains of negotiating directly with their employees. Everybody wins in that situation. We have put in safeguards. We have an exemption in there for more than two million small businesses—those with 15 or fewer employees—to make sure that we are not putting an additional burden on very small businesses. And, of course, we've had an inquiry into that legislation. The Senate committee has made eight recommendations, and one of those is for us to look at increasing that threshold from 15 to 20; we have said we will look at that and continue negotiating and talking. We have had a lot of discussion with small businesses, workers in small businesses and peak organisations about this bill. Yesterday we had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who also happens to be the shadow minister for women, say the whole bill is terrible—the entire thing! We need to remind those opposite, as the Prime Minister did today, that it's designed to help close the gender pay gap. You would have thought those opposite learned something, with all these teals over here! You've got the shadow minister for women saying it's terrible. You would have thought she'd want to ensure the work of women no longer remains undervalued, underpaid and insecure, because that's what the bill fixes. It also has pay equity provisions for the Fair Work Act to strengthen access to flexible work arrangements, again benefiting those workers that have caring responsibilities—many of them women; they are predominantly women. Importantly, the bill will implement recommendation 28 of the Respect@Work report, aimed at preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. For the shadow minister for women to go out and say the whole bill is terrible, when it contains implementing that recommendation, says a lot about what is happening on the other side of the House. Our bill will send a clear message to every worker in every workplace that sexual harassment will not be tolerated. I would've thought it's something those opposite would have supported, but apparently not. According to their deputy leader, the whole bill is terrible. There are changes I would've wanted to see when I was working in my first full-time job, in a small business. We want to make workplaces safer for women. I remember my first experience, and, can I say, it's about time modern workplaces caught up. That's all I want to say about it in this place, but I remember it. It's a pity the shadow minister over there thinks these provisions are just terrible. We've heard a lot of noise from those opposite this week—there's been a wall of noise coming over every day. If only they'd used that energy when they were in government to deliver more for small businesses. If only they had actually done what they said they would do. But, no, it took our government to do things like legislate unfair-contract terms. It took our government to increase support for critical programs that provide mental health support and for the debt hotline for small businesses. It took our government to add to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules so that small businesses get a better share. Many of these things weren't delivered by those opposite because, of course, we know they were far too busy with a whole range of other things. But we know small businesses are at the heart of communities. We support them, and we are going to continue to provide support for small businesses. We want to make sure every small business in every community right across Australia continues to prosper. We are going to make sure that every decision we make has small businesses at the heart of it, just like we have the entire six months we've been in government so far. I look forward to delivering for small businesses right across the country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Moncrieff, I just want to advise how disorderly it is to make an interjection when you are leaving the House, as you just did. I would like to give you the call and an opportunity to respond. Ms Bell 282981 I withdraw the comment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Thank you very much. I appreciate it; it assists the House greatly. 15:33 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I'm glad my good friends the member for Macquarie and the member for Richmond are in the chamber, because when I was the small-business minister I visited the member for Macquarie's seat and the member for Richmond's seat, conducting small-business round tables. They were very productive. Indeed, there were other Labor members too: the member for Braddon, when the seat was held by Labor; the member for McEwen; the member for Batman, when the seat was called Batman; the member for Lindsay; and there were many, many others. A government member interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I would've! I would've visited others, too, but you weren't in the parliament at that time. I made sure that all of the seats that I represented, the businesses that we represent in this place, that others represent in this place, could use me as a conduit to what needed to happen for small business. The small business minister currently asks what we did in 10 years for small business. Well, I'll give her a hint: it's about tax relief. It's about lowering the tax rate to the lowest point since around World War II. It dropped to 27½ per cent and is now 25 per cent, the lowest rate for small business. Do you know what that enables small-business people to do? It enables them to— Mr McCORMACK 219646 Thank you—I heard 'workers'. It means they can employ more workers. Isn't that fantastic? They can employ more workers. They can give more people the opportunity. Those opposite talk a big game when they talk about small business. Sometimes the definition of a 'small business' was a large business when a coalition government was in government, and now that's been turned into a small business under those opposite. They've never seen a small business they wouldn't want to run a picket line out the front of. They've never seen a small business they wouldn't want to tax more. That's what we stand for: lower taxes. That is why the small business tax rate is the lowest it's been for more than three-quarters of a century, because of the policies of the coalition government, because of how we operate when we're in government. I come to this debate with a bit of experience and knowledge, because I've run a small business, like the member for New England, and the members behind me. The member for Forrest ran a dairy farm for many years with her husband. This is what the small business community is all about. It's about having the experience of people who've taken that risk, put their life savings on the line, mortgaged their house and put themselves into debt up to their eyeballs and worked day and night to make that small business succeed and to get that small bit of advantage so they can employ more people. When a small-business person gets a little bit of tax relief, they don't put it in their own pockets, they don't take the holiday they deserve or want. They employ more people; they reinvest it in their small business. But those opposite wouldn't understand that, because most of them have never run a small business. Yes, they've worked for an ALP member. Yes, they've worked for a union. In the main, they are union apparatchiks when they come to this place, but we come from a business background. Government members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 Well, I appreciate that there are probably one or two aberrations but, in the main, most of them are union apparatchiks. Ms McBride 248353 Tell us more. Tell us more. Mr 219646 I've been a union member for 21 years, so you can wave your arms is all you like. I've been a member. I bet you there are not many members opposite who've been in a union for longer than two decades, are there? No. I have. I've been a member of a union for more than two decades. You might laugh, but I have, so I understand there is a balance. But the balance doesn't mean that we get unions running the show. The balance doesn't mean that we get unions, as in the industrial relations legislation, running small businesses into the ground. But don't just take my word for it. Andrew Mackellar, of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said that the revelations from the hearing into the IR laws confirmed what we've known all along, that 'this bill has been rushed and is, at best, half baked'. I think he's probably underselling it! It has been rushed. It has been half-baked. There are many others. We saw the NFF warn that the government's IR changes will lead to increased industrial action in the agriculture sector, which could cripple supply chains and lead to food shortages. We don't need that. We're already under enough pressure. Communities and families and businesses are already under enough pressure without the warnings that are coming loud and clear but that those opposite chose not to heed. 15:38 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Two big things happened in 1987. The first was that Western Australian, in Fremantle, hosted the America's Cup. That was a wonderful thing for Western Australia and this whole nation. The second thing that happened in 1987 was that Labor appointed a minister for small business. It didn't happen under the great hero Menzies. It didn't happen under Fraser. It didn't happen under Treasurer Howard. It was Labor that appointed the first minister for small business, because we have been an ongoing supporter of small business across this country, and we've acted time and time again. And then we get to the great lie of the Liberal Party. I'm not talking about the great lie of 'back in black' but the other great lie: that side say that they always back small business. Well, let's look at what the so-called friends of small business actually do when they're in government. Firstly, they lie to small business about who is actually the Treasurer of the nation. They give small business secret ministries—secret ministries in resources. They leave small businesses of Australia, who pay tax, with $1 trillion of debt to pay back. Let's look at what they do for small businesses in the car industry. When they were last in office they closed the car industry, closing down small businesses who are reliant on the car industry. Then think about our small businesses who have to trade with our Pacific neighbours. That side chose to elect a leader who jokes about the Pacific Islands drowning. The list goes on. You won't be surprised. When it comes to people who are in small business who need to put their children into child care, they have to pay 41 per cent more because of the incompetence of the other side. When it comes to wasting money and restricting the way people can actually spend their money, they forced thousands of people onto cashless welfare, meaning that these people couldn't spend their money in small businesses—wasted $170 million. But the waste goes on. For small business, many of them digital in this day and age—not the fax-machine side over there but those digital businesses we're trying to build—what sort of an NBN did they get from those opposite? They got tens of thousands of miles of copper, $128 billion wasted on the NBN—small businesses waiting to get more workers, a million people on the visa backlog, and small businesses with a secret 20 per cent energy price increase. And they changed the law to keep it secret until after the election. They wasted $100 million on sports rorts, shifting money from small businesses that could have been building sports infrastructure to marginal Liberal seats on colour coded spreadsheets. They wasted $20 billion on JobKeeper. And then when it came to the choice, when they were faced with the choice in Western Australia—do they back Western Australian small businesses or do they back Clive Palmer?—who did they choose? They chose Clive Palmer! Then, after they gave up on supporting Clive Palmer, what did they choose to do? They chose to write a million-dollar cheque—again, not a million-dollar cheque to the small businesses of Western Australia, no, but a million-dollar cheque to Clive Palmer to pay Clive Palmer's legal bills. But I shouldn't be that surprised. This is the same WA Liberal Party who tried to privatise Western Power, sending up power bills. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 A point of order from the member for New England? Mr Joyce e5d Yes, I think it's one on relevance and one on misleading the House. There was no cheque written by the coalition to Clive Palmer. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I do not believe that the issue of relevance is a matter here. And I'm not sure of the detail—whether cheques where or were not exchanged. But I am happy to ask the assistant minister if he needs to withdraw the word 'cheque' in that conversation. Mr GORMAN 74519 I'm always happy to take a lecture from the member for New England on accuracy and relevance. In this case I will say that however the money was passed to Clive Palmer to cover his legal bills from the Australian government, when it was led by those opposite, they did it and that was money they could have given to small businesses and instead chose to pay Clive Palmer's legal bills. I'll leave it there, even though I lost some time. (Time expired) 15:43 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest Like my colleagues on this side of the House, I am genuinely and personally concerned for the thousands of small businesses that will be affected by Labor's industrial relations laws. We are genuinely concerned. They are our heart and soul. It's absolutely clear to us on the side that the Albanese Labor government will hit those same small businesses hard. They will be dragged into this by the sheer scale and scope of these laws—the impacts on small businesses and those small manufacturers. I will tell you what concerned me today, and the two members involved are in this House right now. We heard from the minister himself that farmers are the key targets. We heard in a response to a question today in question time that farmers are a key target of the industrial relations laws. If we look at our agricultural sector, whether it is the dairy sector, cattle or feedlots, horticulture and viticultures, who provides the food, the fibre and who feeds 60 million people around the world, as well as what we do here in Australia—25 million here and 60 million in total? We heard today that these producers are the targets for Labor's industrial relations laws. Many of those same businesses, I recall, are the same ones who started farming at the same time that my husband and I bought our first property on the day we got married. In those days, interest rates went from 17 to 23 per cent and it was tough going. These are the same businesses that Labor is now targeting, so I am very seriously concerned for those businesses, including those who are focused day in and day out on their bottom line. That is what they do and, often, those small-business owners can't afford to take a wage themselves. They pay the people who work for them first, they value those people and they have a really great relationship with those same people. These are often small mum-and-dad business owners working their hearts out. Rural, regional and remote businesses, really diverse, could be swept up in this, no matter where they are in Australia. A part of what we hear from the other side is that the bill does provide the unions an open door into those small businesses for the first time. So those businesses will be roped into a bargaining process that they don't want to have. They may have terms and conditions forced on them, whether or not they can afford it. That's the harsh reality: whether or not they can afford it. Jennifer Westacott has said that compliance costs for small- and medium-sized businesses are set to explode. So how do you go when you're looking at your bottom line and this is what you're facing? The Albanese Labor government's own regional impact statement has said that this will cost small businesses $14,600 in bargaining costs, including consultancy fees. Well, they actually don't have their own HR department, so, yes, they are going to have to pay. Mr 74519 On a point of order, there is no such document attached to this bill called 'A Regional Impact Statement' that the member just referred to. Mrs MARINO HWP I will correct that. The Regulation Impact Statement, the RIS, is what I'm referring to. The costs, though, haven't changed, Member opposite. For a medium-sized business, the cost could be more than $75,000. So businesses out there, the small- to medium-sized businesses, but small ones in particular, really, will be affected by this. They will be forced to pay more anyway because, even if they happen to fall below that threshold, the same sector is being forced to pay more. How do they attract workers when the businesses around them, maybe in the same town, have to pay more for the same workforce? That is what is going it happen if they have 20 electricians. If there is a business in the same town employing two people, how will they attract those same workers and keep them when someone around them has been forced to pay more than they can afford to pay? This is the harsh reality of what is going to happen through the changes that we see. Whether someone is an electrician, or owns a restaurant or a cafe, that's what is ahead. It ignores the great complexities and differences as well between a business in the same field that is in perhaps a small town like Nannup or Augusta and one that is in a major centre or a major city. The relationship between businesses and their employees that will be affected concerns me. 15:49 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I listen to this debate as a small business owner, as someone who, for 25 years, ran my own business. What's more, I'm one of those people who grew up in small business, in a mum-and-dad small business that those opposite so often like to talk about. But what they are saying and what they are doing is simply raising fear amongst businesses, which is the last thing those businesses deserve right now. We know that they are coping with increased costs, like everybody is. They know their workers are coping with increased costs of living. We all recognise it. It's no time to sit there and say, 'Let's do nothing.' That's what those opposite did for nearly a decade. They said: 'Let's just not do anything. Let's just kind of see what happens. Let's just make sure that big businesses continue to roll in big profits by not paying their workers what is so justly deserved. Let's just kind of ignore small business and keep telling them that we're their friends.' Small business, quite frankly, is so busy, they don't have time really to listen to anyone saying anything. What they do is they live their businesses. I think it's really underhand of those opposite. They should be ashamed of their fear-mongering. I recognise they are scrabbling for relevance, but, please, do not use small business to try to score some sort of political point. We know, on this side, that businesses have dealt with a lot for nearly the last decade. In my electorate, they've dealt with fire, the biggest fire from a single ignition point that the world has ever seen. Businesses suffered, not because they caught on fire, not because they burnt, but because smoke kept the customers away. We then faced floods. Flood after flood after flood. Some people call it six floods, but, in essence, we've had three natural disasters declared for our flooding. So, in 2½ years, that's four natural disasters. You can bet that small businesses are not saying, 'Hey, these are the best days of our lives!' I'm someone who grew up in business, someone who ran a business for 25 years. I admit I didn't get close to the threshold that those opposite often want to ascribe to small business, which is $50 million turnover a year. I didn't quite get to that! I got to a few million dollars turnover a year, but I didn't make it to 50! I employed women who then went on to set up their own businesses, and I supported them and helped them to build their own businesses. There are incredible small businesses out there now who have been able, once I moved out of it, to take over where I left off. These are the people that those opposite are scarring. It is completely unnecessary. We've heard today that one of the biggest letdowns for small business was the decision that those opposite made on NBN to turn it from something that was going to provide universal access to fibre for nearly everyone and nearly every small business into this hodgepodge. Personally, for my business, that totally took away the possibility of growing the way I had hoped to from my base in the Blue Mountains. I've had offices in the Sydney CBD in King Street and in the Sydney CBD sector for many, many, many years, but I thought, 'Okay, this is going to allow my business to have the power of being in the city, but with the ability to work from a peri-urban area.' Quite frankly, had I still been in business, those opposite would have taken away that opportunity from me, because of their appalling rollout of NBN. Those opposite talk about us on this side, with some sort of thinking that we don't speak to small businesses, and we have never been small businesses. You are completely uninformed. Mr Deputy Speaker, their understanding of those of us who represent our communities here is completely uninformed. We know that COSBOA has said the system is too complex. The major problem we have in IR is complexity. What we want to do is give small business access to the things that big business already has access to. We want to make their lives easier. We want to give them the power to determine their future. 15:54 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I often get asked at schools, by friends, by family and even by members opposite, when we've chatted, 'Why did you join the Liberal Party?' It is a question I enjoy answering, because, like most of us— Ms Lawr 299150 Why did you? Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Well, I'm going to tell you the answer! The first reason I joined the Liberal Party was small business. My father ran a small business that did well and then was driven into the ground by policies enforced by a Labor government. I've seen what Labor does to small businesses firsthand. We saw what it did to families, particularly in my state of Victoria. Victoria was devastated in the 1990s. When I spoke during the second reading debate for the IR bill earlier this month, I went to a fable. Sometimes fables are quite instructive. I spoke about the scorpion and the frog. How the scorpion, wanting to cross the river, thought they would do a bargain with the frog. The frog, not trusting the scorpion, said: 'Why would I give you a lift? You'll sting me and kill us both halfway across the river.' But the clever scorpion asked: 'Why would I do that? We would both die and that wouldn't make any sense.' Accepting that logic, the frog said, 'Jump on board and let's go.' Halfway across, the scorpion stings and they both sink and they both die. As he's dying, the frog said, 'Why did you do that?' And the scorpion said: 'I can't help myself. It's in my nature.' And I made the point to the Labor Party, when it comes to attacking small business, that this is in your nature; you cannot help yourselves. But I didn't get the fable quite right because there's another way to tell it, there's a better way to tell it. It wasn't a frog. There's another fable where an elephant is crossing the river and it also gets asked for a lift by a scorpion. The elephant asks the same question as the frog: 'Why would I trust you? You will sting me and we will both die and we will both be doomed.' Again the scorpion says: 'Of course I won't do that. That doesn't make any sense.' The elephant agrees and the scorpion jumps on board. He moves from the back to the trunk because the elephant's quite heavy and sinks in the water. At the tip of the trunk, halfway across, the elephant flicks the scorpion off. And the scorpion says, 'Why did you do that?' And the elephant says, 'Because I heard about you and the frog.' We remember what the Labor Party do to small business, and small business won't forget. It doesn't matter how far back you have to go; we will judge you on what you do, not what you say. Small business are ready to give you the flick, and you have given them every reason to do that. And just like the scorpion, they won't trust you not to act on your instincts, not to act on your nature. The member for Perth spoke about the 1980s. We all know of lots of cultural icons of the 1980s. And while members opposite might like to say they've got experience in small business, and maybe even channel Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan, we're not talking about the 1980s. We're talking about those opposite taking us back to 1970s. It's not Thatcher or Ronald Reagan; it's Ron Burgundy. That's where you want to take this country: to big cars, big flares, big unions and big inflation. That's the country you want to see. It's not a progressive, modern country that's flexible and looking to the future, interested in science and data; it is an old country, decades old, and we can do so much better than that. In this IR act, the unions want to introduce bargaining fees for union members when negotiating enterprise agreements. They even call workers who aren't union members 'free riders'—'free riders' despite the fact that union membership is now less than 10 per cent of the private sector workforce. So at a time when unions are less than 10 per cent of the private sector workforce, we're seeing a case where they're putting pressure on the Albanese government to legislate their relevance, and that is what is happening here. But don't just trust me, trust so many others who are critical of this bill, including the Reserve Bank governor who earlier this week said, 'We need, at this time more than ever, to put flexibility back into our workplace agreements.' So if you don't want to listen to us, please listen to the Reserve Bank governor because he knows something about managing inflation in this country. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 I'm more than happy to do that! I conclude with this: instead of focusing on delivering cost-of-living relief to Australians before Christmas, the government is only focused on giving unions— (Time expired) 15:59 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Let me give a bit of a lecture to the previous speaker. During Senate estimates on 29 May 2006, when right-wing rubbish was rampant under John Howard and Peter Costello, the head of the Office of the Employment Advocate detailed that in a sample of four per cent, or 250, of the 6,263 Australian workplace agreements lodged during April 2006—after Work Choices was introduced—100 per cent removed at least one protected award condition. Sixty-four per cent removed annual leave loading, 63 per cent stripped out penalty rates, 52 per cent cut shift loadings, 40 per cent dropped gazetted public holidays, and 16 per cent slashed award conditions. That's what happened when it was a free-for-all under the coalition. That's their tory commitment to the market. Don't give us lectures here, saying you're going to increase wages and it might have happened in the 10th year of that government under Abbott and Turnbull and the member for Cook. Don't give us lectures about that, because, if you ever get control of the Senate and get a chance to bring in Work Choices, you'll do it again. Those are the facts. That's your unlimited, unbridled Adam Smith type market. So don't give us and the workers of this country lectures, because this is an opposition that, when it was in government, brought in the Australian Building and Construction Commission to prosecute and persecute workers and workplaces and to drive down wages, as the former finance minister said. It was their design feature. They're about keeping wages low. Wages as a percentage of GDP have never been lower than they are now. We need to improve wages outcomes for workers. Those opposite are like Chicken Little. Honestly! Seriously! From the ridiculous, nonsensical rubbish attitudes we've seen, you'd think that somehow Vladimir Lenin sits over this side. That's the way they go on. Some of the statements the member for Longman has made about communism and socialism are just rubbish. I'll tell you what we did. We supported people in the aged-care sector. We put in a submission to the Fair Work Commission to actually make sure that people who worked in the feminised industries, including low-paid workers in aged care, got a pay rise—a 15 per cent increase. I'll tell you what those opposite did when they sat over here: $1.2 million taken out of workforce supplements—a wage cut, effectively, for those in the aged-care sector. So Labor governments support wage increases. Those opposite mouth platitudes. It's simply rubbish the way they go on about it. They mouth platitudes: somehow the market will magically and mysteriously lift it up. They've had nine years in government to increase wages. There wasn't a MYEFO or a budget where the subsequent wages outcome was at least level with or better than in the Treasury papers. Wages were always lower. Those opposite come in here and introduce matters of public importance like this one today, when they've got no answers and had no answers for nine years, except the unbridled market. I ran a business for 20 years. I built it up from virtually nothing. I had dozens and dozens of workers working with me and for me. I know that small and medium-sized businesses like the one I ran, which I was a shareholder and a director in, work in a cooperative, collegiate way, and they work together many times with their workers' representatives, with the unions who represent those workers. I have to tell you that union members are Australians as well. I've heard those opposite disparage them. They're Australians as well, and they're entitled to be represented by the people they choose. We live in a democracy. We believe in democracy here. How about democracy also in the workplace, where people have a right to decide how they bargain and deal with their employers? There are plenty of people on this side of the chamber who have been employers and have dealt with unions and with employees in the workplace to get good outcomes. This matter of public importance is simply an opposition looking for relevance, not able to find their feet. We see it in question time every day. If they had answers, during this particular discussion they would have given them. Not one person from those opposite gave us one answer except the unbridled market. They failed in government and they've failed in opposition. (Time expired) 16:04 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Today was an excellent day. We passed the legislation through this chamber for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. I'm sure the Senate will pass it next week, and that will mean there will be a body to look at corruption and the way in which money is used, potentially, to inappropriately influence our political system. One of the worst examples, which I hope they look at at the first opportunity, is the correlation between union movement financial donations to the Labor Party and decisions that are made, from a policy point of view, in exchange for that financial interference, that financial support. The bill that has gone through this chamber without my support or the support of the opposition and that will go to the Senate and may or may not pass—and we don't speculate on what could happen up there—is a bill to reform our industrial relations system. It is something that was never, ever spoken about, in its detail, in the recent election campaign. This is such a great reform—that will be so popular and that the people of this country want, apparently—that the fundamentals of it were never campaigned on by the Labor Party in the election six months ago. That's how great this policy is. That's how popular it is. That's how good it is for workers, apparently. That's how good it is for small business. It's so fantastic that the Labor Party didn't talk about it once—not once—in the recent election campaign. Why would that be? Why would it be that, upon coming into government, upon winning an election, the priority of the new government was to do something that had nothing to do with the election commitments they took to the election in May? Why would that be? Could it have something to do with $100 million of donations from the union movement over the previous decade or so? Could it be the need for the new government to pay the piper, to give the union movement a return on that investment, that $100 million of political donations? If it had any political benefit, if it were a good thing for the people of Australia, you'd proudly campaign on it and you'd take it to the election and you'd say, 'Vote for us, and these are the great things we'll do to the industrial relations system in Australia.' If it were something that you thought the people wanted, you'd take it to an election. If it were something that you had to do in exchange for tens of millions of dollars of donations from the union movement and that wasn't good for the people of Australia, then, yes, you wouldn't mention it in an election campaign. You wouldn't go to the election and say, 'We're going to change the Fair Work Act and put all these new measures in place.' Instead, you would take the union movement's money and you would say, 'I need this money to win an election, so I'd better take that money from you, and then, when we get in, you'll be very, very happy with the things that we're going to do that will be good for the union movement in the changes that we'll make to the industrial relations system.' You can't campaign on this, and you can't talk about it before the election, because it's not going to be popular. Small businesses will be frightened by these sorts of changes. Economic leaders will be frightened by these sorts of changes, because they're not about the interests of workers and they're not about the interests of businesses; they're about the union movement. They're about propping up a dying concept. ABS statistics recently showed that there was 14.1 per cent union membership amongst the workforce. In the private sector, I think, less than 10 per cent of workers are members of the union movement. So the union movement need to use the funds they've got and they need to support people into power to dramatically fix this crisis they've got about their very existence. So what you could do to help the union movement is make massive changes to our industrial relations system, to reignite warfare within the workplaces of this nation. In doing so, in the view of the union movement, you will increase their membership and, in doing so, you will dramatically increase industrial disputes in our economy, increase unemployment and cause dramatic economic carnage. All those things are not good for Australia, but they are good for the union movement. And, if they give you $100 million in donations, there has got to be a fair return on that investment. 16:09 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong There's a great myth in Australian politics. We on this side of the House know it, the people of Bennelong know it and the people of Australia know it. It is of course the claim by those opposite that the Liberals are better economic managers. What a joke! They've left office with $1 trillion worth of debt and nothing to show for it, yet they claim to be better economic managers. They've wasted billions of dollars—famously, $5 billion on submarines that didn't even buy a canoe—yet they claim to be economic managers. And now we have a second great emerging myth in Australian politics, and that is that those opposite believe they're the party for small business. Those corporate wannabes over there feign that they understand small business, feign outrage about small business and feign that they care about small business. But, as with their attempts to claim that they're better economic managers, the Australian public are seeing straight through them. Where were they when the small businesses in Bennelong were crying out for help in the early days of the pandemic? Months passed before the former Prime Minister was dragged kicking and screaming to provide a wage subsidy to support small businesses and our economy. Then, when they finally got the message, their design of JobKeeper deliberately left out industries dominated by smaller businesses and sole traders, all while funnelling our money—$20 billion of it—into businesses that had rising revenue. Small businesses were excluded; big businesses were oversubsidised. And they claim to be a party for small businesses. What a joke. Where were they when small businesses were screaming for staff? Where were their investments in skills and training when businesses were saying there was a skills shortage? Where was their determination to fix our broken immigration system, to process visas for skilled workers? Where was their plan to increase skilled migration numbers once borders opened? There was no plan by the former government to address these issues, and they have no plan now. They are not better economic managers and they are no party for small business. I know this because this is the feedback I've been receiving from small businesses in my electorate and their employees in my 10 years in representative politics. I know this because I've run a small business my entire life—the one that my father started, the one that I grew, the one that's still employing 10 Australians today. And I know that my dad's business is exempt from the provisions under this bill, as it should be. Labor understands that small businesses need flexibility, which is why two million small businesses will be exempt under the current definition within this legislation. And we know that these provisions are, as are many others, up for negotiation, and I welcome that news. But back to those opposite, whipping out their tired lines about unionism and Labor being anti business. My electorate knows that those opposite aren't the party for small business. What the government is trying to do with these laws is promote job security, help close the gender pay gap, modernise the workplace bargaining system and get wages moving, and that is exactly what we were elected to do. They know that since our election in May we have provided and will continue to provide small business with the support they need to grow and to navigate the challenges that exist in our economy. Here's a list of what we've done and what we're doing in just six months: free access to mental health and financial counselling for small business; $4 million for a small business debt helpline; energy efficiency grants to eligible small business; help for small businesses to adapt and build resilience through digital technology; a 20 per cent bonus tax deduction for employees who incur costs training and upskilling their employees; and a bonus tax deduction for small businesses who invest in technology and digital operation—that's a $1 billion investment into small businesses, backdated to 29 March and available until June. They're no economic managers. They're not the party for small business. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time for the discussion has now concluded. BILLS 73 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 73

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023

Report from Federation Chamber 73 Third Reading 73 16:15 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 73

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

Report from Federation Chamber 73 Third Reading 73 16:16 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 73

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

Report from Federation Chamber 73 Third Reading 73 16:17 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 73 COMMITTEES Electoral Matters Joint Committee, Public Works Joint Committee 73 Membership 73 16:17 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Cadell has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters; and that Senator Cadell has been discharged from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, and that Senator Van has been appointed as a member of that committee. BILLS 74 BILLS Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022, Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022, Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022, Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022 74

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

Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022

Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022

Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022

Returned from Senate 74 Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 74

Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

First Reading 74 High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022 74

High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022

Consideration of Senate Message 74 16:20 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I move: That the amendments be agreed to. I want to thank particularly Senator David Pocock for his engagement on this legislation in good faith. His office has engaged constructively with myself and my office staff, and I'd like to thank him very much for that. Senator David Pocock has proposed a number of amendments that, I can advise, the government will be supporting. These amendments relate to ensuring that appointments to the board of the High Speed Rail Authority and to the position of CEO are the result of a merit based process as well as an amendment concerning the disclosure of the interests of board members to the minister in accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. As I've already made very clear, the board of the High Speed Rail Authority has to be a skills based board. It's a really complex and important project for the nation. I'm absolutely determined that the government appoints the board on merit. I'm also very grateful that Senator David Pocock took into account the issues around gender equity and the importance of getting far more women on boards, particularly in my portfolio. I thank him for understanding and engaging in that as well. It is important to note that this is a very different approach than that to board appointments made under my portfolio by the previous government. It's one that I am in the process of trying to clean up, particularly when it comes to Infrastructure Australia, and I know the Attorney-General is trying to deal with it in relation to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is important that boards are based on merit. We agree with the amendments and commend them to the House. Question agreed to. National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022 75

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

Consideration in Detail 75 16:22 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (10), as circulated, together. Leave granted. Mr DREYFUS HWG I move government amendments (1) to (10), as circulated, together: (1) Schedule 1, page 38 (after line 5), after item 191, insert: 19 1A Subsection 6(1) Insert: superior Court Judge means: (a) a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or (b) a Judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1). (2) Schedule 1, page 39 (after line 8), after item 197, insert: 197A Sec tion 11 Repeal the section, substitute: 11 Who may issue etc. warrants? (1) Any warrant under this Part may be issued by: (a) in relation to an application for a warrant by a law enforcement officer of the National Anti-Corruption Commission—an eligible Judge; or (b) otherwise—an eligible Judge or a nominated AAT member. Warrants issued to law enforcement officers of the NACC (2) An application made under this Part by a law enforcement officer of the National Anti-Corruption Commission may be made only to an eligible Judge. Note: An application under this Part may be for a warrant, or to extend or vary a warrant. (3) A warrant issued under this Part to a law enforcement officer of the National Anti-Corruption Commission may be revoked only by an eligible Judge. Note: Warrants may be revoked under this Part by an eligible Judge or nominated AAT member on their own initiative. As a result of this subsection, warrants issued to law enforcement officers of the National Anti-Corruption Commission may be revoked only by an eligible Judge. 197B Subsection 12(1) (definition of eligible Judge ) Repeal the definition, substitute: eligible Judge means a person: (a) in relation to whom a consent under subsection (2) and a declaration under subsection (3) are in force; and (b) in relation to any of the following issued to, or applied for by, a law enforcement officer of the National Anti-Corruption Commission—who is a superior Court Judge: (i) a warrant; (ii) an emergency authorisation; (iii) an assistance order (within the meaning of subsection 64A(1)). 197C Subsection 13(1) After "warrants", insert "(except to law enforcement officers of the National Anti-Corruption Commission)". 197D Subsection 33(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) Within 48 hours after giving an emergency authorisation to a law enforcement officer, the appropriate authorising officer who gave the authorisation (or another person on that appropriate authorising officer's behalf) must apply, for approval of the giving of the emergency authorisation, to: (a) for an authorisation given to a law enforcement officer of the National Anti-Corruption Commission—an eligible Judge; or (b) otherwise—an eligible Judge or a nominated AAT member. (3) Schedule 1, page 40 (after line 8), after item 200, insert: 200A Subsection 64A(1) Omit "to an eligible Judge or to a nominated AAT member". 200B After subsection 64A(1) Insert: (1A) The application may be made to: (a) for an application made by a law enforcement officer of the National Anti-Corruption Commission—an eligible Judge; or (b) otherwise—an eligible Judge or a nominated AAT member. (4) Schedule 1, page 43 (after line 19), after item 213, insert: 213A Subsection 5(1) (definition of issuing authority ) Repeal the definition, substitute: issuing authority (except when used in Schedule 1) means a person: (a) in respect of whom an appointment is in force under section 6DB; and (b) in relation to a warrant applied for by the National Anti-Corruption Commission—who is a superior Court Judge. (5) Schedule 1, page 44 (after line 3), after item 215, insert: 215A Subsection 5(1) (definition of Part 4-1 issuing authority ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Part 4-1 issuing authority means a person: (a) in respect of whom an appointment is in force under section 6DC; and (b) in relation to a warrant applied for by the National Anti-Corruption Commission—who is a superior Court Judge. (6) Schedule 1, page 45 (after line 17), after item 224, insert: 224A Subsection 5(1) Insert: superior Court Judge means: (a) a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or (b) a Judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1). (7) Schedule 1, page 45 (after line 30), after item 228, insert: 228A Subsection 6D(1) (definition of eligible Judge ) Repeal the definition, substitute: eligible Judge (except when used in Schedule 1) means a Judge: (a) in relation to whom a consent under subsection (2) and a declaration under subsection (3) are in force; and (b) in relation to a warrant applied for by the National Anti-Corruption Commission—who is a superior Court Judge. 228B Subsection 6DA(1) After "warrants", insert "(except to the National Anti-Corruption Commission)". (8) Schedule 1, page 46 (after line 25), after item 234, insert: 234A Subsection 39(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) An agency may apply for a warrant in respect of a telecommunications service or a person to: (a) for an application made by the National Anti-Corruption Commission—an eligible Judge; or (b) otherwise—an eligible Judge or a nominated AAT member. (9) Schedule 1, page 50 (after line 9), after item 251, insert: 251A Clause 2 of Schedule 1 (definition of issuing authority ) Repeal the definition, substitute: issuing authority means a person: (a) in respect of whom an appointment is in force under clause 16; and (b) in relation to an international production order applied for by the National Anti-Corruption Commission—who is a superior Court Judge. 251B Subclause 14(1) of Schedule 1 Repeal the subclause, substitute: (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, eligible Judge means a person: (a) in relation to whom a consent under subclause (2) and a declaration under subclause (3) are in force; and (b) in relation to an international production order applied for by the National Anti-Corruption Commission—who is a superior Court Judge. 251C Subclause 15(1) of Schedule 1 After "orders", insert "(except to the National Anti-Corruption Commission)". 251D Subclause 22(1) of Schedule 1 Omit "to an eligible Judge or nominated AAT member". 251E After subclause 22(1) of Schedule 1 Insert: (1A) The interception agency may apply for the order to: (a) for an application made by the National Anti-Corruption Commission—an eligible Judge; or (b) otherwise—an eligible Judge or nominated AAT member. (10) Schedule 1, page 50 (after line 24), after item 256, insert: 256A Subclause 52(1) of Schedule 1 Omit "to an eligible Judge or nominated AAT member". 256B After subclause 52(1) of Schedule 1 Insert: (1A) The Part 5.3 IPO agency may apply for the order to: (a) for an application made by the National Anti-Corruption Commission—an eligible Judge; or (b) otherwise—an eligible Judge or nominated AAT member. Amendments (1) to (10) amend the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022 to ensure that warrants and authorisations under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the TIA Act, and the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 can only be issued to the National Anti-Corruption Commission by eligible judges of federal superior courts, being judges appointed to the Federal Court of Australia or Division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. I commend the amendments to the House. 16:24 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra We support the amendments. They mirror the coalition's position on this issue. 16:24 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith The Greens also support these amendments. I also want to take a moment to put on the record that the member for Melbourne is unable to be here this week, as he is sick with COVID, but he wanted to make it very clear that he fully supports this bill. Question agreed to. 16:24 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 3 to 11), omit the item. This commission has broad powers and we believe the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act should be available for all decisions. That position is consistent with the position put by the Law Council in their submissions to the joint committee on these matters. We think that the ADJR Act is particularly useful in that it provides a more streamline process to bring review of decisions. We acknowledge that there is review under 75(v) of the Constitution and under the Judiciary Act, but we believe the ADJR Act processes provide additional safeguards, particularly as the commission has such broad powers. We know that the ADJR Act applies to large parts of this bill, but we don't agree with the carve outs that've been put in place and that's what our amendment seeks to address. 16:25 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Berowra for his amendment. The consequential bill provides that decisions relating to the commencement of an investigation or inquiry, and intermediary or procedural steps by the commission on the way to reaching its findings, would not be subject to review under the ADJR Act. This is appropriate to ensure that the commission's statutory functions are not undermined and delayed as a result of lengthy litigation at each interlocutory stage of an investigation and that investigations and inquiries can be conducted in a timely manner. A person may still seek judicial review of these intermediary or procedural decisions under the Judiciary Act 1903 or in the High Court's original jurisdiction. The government does not support this amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The question is that the amendment be disagreed to. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 78 16:26 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. ADJOURNMENT 78 ADJOURNMENT Youth Voice in Parliament Week 78 16:28 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Much is made in public commentary of the disenchantment and disengagement of younger Australians in the political process, but I have to say that as I was campaigning for Goldstein it became clear that this was not the whole truth. Many young people may have been disenchanted with the way the major parties do politics, but they were enthused by the opportunities provided by the rise of the community Independents, of which I am one. Young people enrolled in record numbers to vote in the postal ballot on marriage equality and they liked the result. They saw that they could have an impact and I suspect it was one of the reasons they enrolled in large numbers for the last election. Raise Our Voice aims to increase the number of young female and non-binary voices to lead conversations in policy and politics. Its Youth Voice in Parliament campaign is a national, non-partisan initiative to increase the political literacy of all our young voters and voters-to-be by connecting them with their local member of parliament. I'd like to take the opportunity to read into the record a couple of speeches from my young constituents. This one is from Sophia Smith: … I am a 16 year old living with type one diabetes and I am a JDRF advocate. I live in the seat of Goldstein in Victoria and I was diagnosed with type one diabetes 12 years ago, when I was four. I am writing to you today as part of the raise your voice campaign. I believe Australia's new parliament should accomplish progress in the support of the people and the planet. In 2022 a great movement was made towards the rights of diabetic people through the Access for all campaign. Thank You to all members who voted to support this life changing initiative. This development allows teens like me to see a wider possibility in their future as well as the 750 other members of Goldstein affected by Type One diabetes, including my uncle and my dad. However, this generous support should not stop here. We are still fighting to push for a world without Type one diabetes. We ask the parliament to continue to back progress towards a cure by supporting medical research. Type one Diabetes is not just an individual issue but one that is nationwide, with 125,000 Australians struggling everyday through this disease. With just your support my future can become one without needles and tubes but instead one with a taste of normality. We have started such a great movement towards bettering people's futures so let's continue to strengthen them and reach that final goal of eliminating Type one Diabetes for me, my family, Australia and the world. To which I would say: hear, hear. And now this, from 16-year-old Rose Pearson: While much of the world mourns the Queen—a woman lucky enough to be born into a position of power, of wealth and privilege—Australia has people rotting in what are essentially prison cells. As Australians, we pride ourselves on providing a 'fair go for all', but this nation is deeply flawed in deciding those worthy of humane treatment. Current policies are upheld by xenophobia, by racism, by a fear of the other that pervades the Australian consciousness even in a land populated by migrants. Asylum seekers are sent back out into unsafe waters, locked up in offshore detention where the processing lasts years—there are people who have been imprisoned for decades, lost years of a normal life. They have no access to our courts of law—because our laws would recognise that they are innocent of their conviction; that they deserve freedom and have the same right to life as you and me. Australia accepts a mere 12,500 refugees each year. Consider our participation in global conflicts, in environmental destruction. Surely, as a developed nation we have a duty to uphold—a duty acknowledged in our signing of the 1951 UN Convention. We have obligations to an international community, yes. But more than that, we have an obligation to our country, to make the sorts of choices that align with the values we so pride ourselves on having. I implore you to change things for the better, to put our nation, Australia, on the right side of history. For the better—on the right side of history—I couldn't have put it better myself. Thank you to Rose and to Sophia for your contribution to the public debate in this place. Climate Change 79 16:33 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I rise today to speak about the important issue of climate change and specifically the action this government is taking to address the climate crisis. This week the House has heard from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy about his role representing the Australian government, accompanied by the Minister for International Development and the Pacific and the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy, at this month's 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties, COP27, held in Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt. The contrast between the actions of this government and those of the previous government when it comes to climate is enormous. While those opposite had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support a goal of net zero emissions by 2050, in the short time that we have been in government we have already legislated a target of 43 per cent emission reduction by 2030, on the way to net zero by 2050. The minister commented that the target being legislated was welcomed as providing certainty to industry and investment. At the conference, as the ministers reported, there was a concerted push by some countries to water down the global community's ongoing commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. And I am proud to be able to tell my constituents in Boothby, who I know care deeply about this issue, that our government's representatives work very intensively with our allies, like the UK, New Zealand, the US, Canada, the EU and Pacific nations, to resist any move to water down that target. I know that many of my constituents are concerned about the impacts of climate change, particularly on developing countries, who are already facing the worst effects and who are often the worst placed to deal with them. That is why I am proud of Australia's role in negotiating for the establishment of a loss and damage fund to support vulnerable countries hit hard by climate disasters. Our government also committed to a number of pledges and alliances, including: the Green Shipping Challenge to advance global actions to set the shipping sector on an emissions-reduction pathway that aligns with the Paris Agreement goals; the Forests and Climate Leaders Partnership to focus on voluntary actions to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030; the Global Offshore Wind Alliance to create a global driving force for the uptake of offshore wind; the Ocean Conservation Pledge to conserve or protect at least 30 per cent of our ocean waters under our respective jurisdictions by 2030; and the Net-Zero Government Initiative to achieve net-zero emissions from national government operations no later than 2050, which lines up with our net-zero APS target of 2030. These are all really important international pledges to show that Australia is a good partner. We are working with international partners to directly address the causes of climate change. Of course, it is not just on the global stage that the government is playing a responsible role in tackling climate change. We are doing so at home, and for me that starts in Boothby. That is why I'm so excited that the government's budget included a commitment to establish a community battery in Boothby, in Edwardstown, to enable more Boothby residents to benefit from the take-up of renewable energy. I had the pleasure of a couple of conversations with the minister in the last couple of days about how that is progressing. We are cutting taxes on electric vehicles to make them cheaper. We're also establishing a Disaster Ready Fund to ensure communities in Boothby and across Australia are effectively equipped and resourced to prepare for and respond to extreme weather events, which are becoming more common and more severe due to climate change. It is why I will not stop fighting in this place and within this government to ensure our government takes a leading role in addressing climate change, locally and globally. While we haven't had the terrible floods that we have seen in the last few months hitting the eastern states, I know that the residents in Boothby see that. We had a terrible storm two weeks ago, the likes of which we haven't seen for many years, so it does appear that climate is affecting us now. I would like to acknowledge the many groups and individuals in my community who campaigned, petitioned, agitated and ultimately voted for a government that will deliver real climate change action. Without your efforts and your support we would not have a government, an Albanese Labor government, committed to real action to address climate change, representing our country in global forums such as COP. Together we can take action to address climate change and to deliver a better future for all our children. We hear you and we thank you. Budget 80 16:38 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom We have had time now to digest the Albanese government's first budget and, like many Australians and many small businesses in my community, I am still left with many questions. Just before the election, the Prime Minister promised Australians that they would be better off under a Labor government, but the reality is, as Christmas approaches, the typical family will be at least $2,000 worse off. They are facing increased mortgage payments, higher grocery bills, higher electricity prices and sky-high fuel costs. All the things that households were worried about are still going to happen. Labor said they had a plan to bring down the cost of living but, six months on from the election, all Australians have is a list of broken promises and a budget which ignores that pain. This budget was absolutely a missed opportunity to help households through this tough time. It also failed to outline a plan to contain the ballooning interest rates and inflation that are currently crippling the nation. Labor instead fell back on its old routine of high taxes and even higher spending. There was no short-term plan to reach or even approach budget balance and no long-term plan to reassert the roles of productivity and lower taxes in driving growth and real wages. The budget left the heavy lifting of addressing inflation to the Reserve Bank, and, as we all know, the only hammer that they have to hit with is higher interest rates. At his recent public hearing in front of the Economics Committee, the Reserve Bank governor, Philip Lowe, could not have been clearer on the need for monetary and fiscal policy to work together during this tough time and that, if they didn't, it would prolong the pain being felt by Australian households. It's not just the RBA governor; this is something that central bankers around the world have been calling for. Unfortunately, clearly their warnings were not heeded by the Treasurer, who's waved the white flag on using fiscal policy to address the pressures on inflation. Instead of a comprehensive plan to consolidate the strong economic and budget positions, we have a growing deficit and no medium-term fiscal strategy for balanced budgets. Instead of delivering economic growth that's stronger than spending growth, we've got $142 billion of extra taxes and likely more to come. Instead of a productivity agenda, we have union red tape, more big government and cuts to employment, innovation and small-business programs. This failure has been acknowledged in the media, with economist Warren Hogan quoted in the AFR on 14 November as saying: … our federal fiscal policy has failed to join the fight against inflation, preferring to sit on the sidelines and cheer on the "independent" Reserve Bank as it takes up the task. The budget itself does a very good job of admiring the problems created by this failure. The budget shows that the cheaper mortgages that Labor promised before the election will not happen. The budget shows that the $275 reduction in energy prices that Labor promised before the election will not happen, and the budget shows that the real wage growth that Labor promised before the election will not happen. Professor Stephen Hamilton from the ANU's Tax and Transfer Policy Institute has said the budget delivers: … the weakest economic and fiscal strategy of any government since the Charter of Budget Honesty was established, and the exact opposite of the approach of a responsible economic manager. Hamilton—no relation—also notes: … the government is actively driving the budget deeper into structural deficit. It would appear that the Treasurer is leaving the heavy lifting of addressing inflation to the RBA. The budget does not make the Reserve Bank's job of containing the rising inflation any easier. Already, a family with a $750,000 mortgage is paying more than $1,200 extra every month on their repayments compared to May this year, and this is while Goldman Sachs expects the cash rate to increase five more times in the next six months. No wonder we've seen the Reserve Bank, the ANZ and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, among others, now forecast end of year inflation to be higher than what was contained in the budget. They've seen the budget; they've assessed it, and they're now acting on their belief that the government is making a bad situation worse. But why, despite multiple promises from both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that franking credits wouldn't be touched, does this budget make changes to franking credits with a $550 million tax? 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, 'We won't be having any changes to that franking credits regime.' The Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, told Queenslanders that, when it came to tax: 'We won't be doing franking credits. I couldn't be clearer than that.' But, in the budget, there is a new tax on franking credits. Budget Paper No. 2 contains an unannounced $550 million grab on retirees and Australian investors, and Treasury officials have confirmed to the Senate that this change alters the franking credits regime as it has functioned for decades. The Australian people deserve answers to some of these questions. They simply can't wait another seven months for Labor's second budget to see if Labor can come up with a workable solution for households and important tax relief. Hurst, Ms Dawn 81 16:43 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Today I want to pay respect to Dawn Hurst, my husband's grandmother and my children's great-grandmother. Tomorrow Dawn turns 98. In some families there's a larger-than-life matriarch who holds the family together and creates an inextricable link and friendship between their children which is passed down from generation to generation. Both my grandmother and my husband's grandmother are incredible matriarchs. Dawn—or Nanna, as my husband calls her—is a compassionate, sensible, steadfast, thrifty and community minded woman. She holds herself with gravitas and has an incredible intellect. In fact, she and her daughters played Scrabble once a week until her mid-90s. Dawn has a thirst for knowledge and was homeschooled until the age of nine, when she moved in with her grandparents to go to formal school. She relished the opportunity to socialise with girls her own age and the access to more books to read. She devoured the books and in fact was caught reading books by candlelight in bed. She was swiftly told off and was banned from reading books for a week. My family did not grow up doing crosswords and playing Scrabble. My excuse is that I love numbers and struggle with words. But, upon reflection, I have no excuse to not play Scrabble. You see, Dawn finished her formal schooling at 14, which was the norm for country girls in the 1930s. Despite not completing high school, Dawn is the epitome of a lifelong learner. I think that missing out on formal education made Dawn want to make sure that her children had the education opportunities that she did not. I know that Dawn is proud of the jobs that her children got, which were helping other people. Anne Bennett worked as a tax consultant. Bev Hurst was a prolific primary schoolteacher. Carol Wiles ran early childhood education centres. Steve Hurst is a mechanic doing roadside assistance. Geoff Hurst, my father-in-law, is a Uniting Church minister. Many here in this place would know that my story would not be possible if not for a Whitlam government. Similarly, for Dawn and her children, their success was because of a Whitlam government. Following on from this, people would not be surprised to learn that Dawn is a card-carrying member of the Labor Party. Labor believes that, wherever you live, whatever your income and whatever your gender, that should not hold you back from getting an education. I hope that Dawn is proud that I am part of a government that has introduced 180,000 fee-free places at TAFE and allocated more than 20,000 university places for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Dawn taught her children to be kind, busy, useful and, really, just get on with things. The truth is my father-in-law puts other fathers-in-law to shame. When he visits Perth, he helps with cooking, shopping and dishes; he fixes things around the house; and he actively plays with my kids. Because of the man that my father-in-law is, you can imagine the kind of husband that I have, and I could not do this job without the support of my husband or the broader Hurst family—and the legend that Dawn has created. Dawn cares deeply about her community, and this was seen through her volunteer work, which included Meals on Wheels, community food and pastoral visits. She has worked prolifically and was recognised by local council as Citizen of the Year. I remember when I met Sam's aunties and uncles, and Nanna, also known as the formidable Dawn Hurst. The Labor and community values were obvious to me, and it made me understand what had made my husband the incredible man he is. But I also had a sense of belonging and knew that this family would become my extended family. Dawn, you're an incredible woman. Thank you for the legacy that you've built. The other thing that I'll note is that, when Dawn took the time to write her biography, she started by acknowledging the ongoing connection of the Nawu people in her home town and acknowledged the disruption caused by colonisation. I see this as an important piece of truth-telling as we look towards the upcoming referendum on constitutional recognition for our First Nations people. I think we can count on Dawn's support for this. So, Dawn, on the final day before your 98th birthday, I hope you have a wonderful birthday and thank you for the legacy you've built. This legacy is something that will continue for future Hurst generations. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member and wish Dawn a very happy birthday. Victoria State Election 82 16:48 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin As a proud Victorian born and bred, never did I think that our great state would have the worst government in our nation. Let's be clear. The Andrews government has overseen the most rotten and dark period in Victoria's history. Don't let Daniel Andrews get away with it. Daniel Andrews is the man who locked Victoria down for a record 262 days. He was responsible for the hotel quarantine catastrophe that directly led to 801 deaths. He unleashed tear gas and rubber bullets onto the streets of Melbourne. He dismisses, belittles and sneers at anyone who doesn't agree with his extreme views. Daniel Andrews has his fingerprints all over the health crisis Victorians are facing. Under Daniel Andrews, getting treatment in a hospital is harder than ever to get, and, when you can get treatment, it might be at a tent outside a hospital. Ambulance waiting times are blowing out—that's if you can get through to an ambulance via triple 0. People are dying because they cannot get an ambulance—including a constituent in my electorate, in Mitcham, who died three hours after calling for an ambulance. And more sick Victorians are spending more than 24 hours in emergency departments. The Victorian economy and the weakness of its budget is impacting the cost of living for all Victorians as well. Our debt, as Victorians, of $167 billion is higher than New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania combined. Andrews blames COVID, but the rest of Australia faced COVID as well and is in a far better position. Small businesses have been smashed, and Andrews just doesn't care about them. Having never worked in the private sector in his life, it's no wonder he has no knowledge of or concern for the ongoing pressures that small businesses are facing. And who can forget the lies? In 2014 Daniel Andrews looked down the barrel of a camera and promised he wouldn't introduce any new or increased taxes. Well, after eight years we instead have 43 new and increased taxes, after promising there would be none—a blatant and bold-faced lie. 'How can you introduce 43 new taxes and still have the highest debt in the country?', you might ask. Well, one way is the criminal mismanagement of infrastructure projects—one of the worst being the $4.7 billion blowout on the so-called West Gate Tunnel project—not to mention the dirty deal with the Albanese government to cancel projects throughout the state to funnel into Daniel Andrews's pet project, the Suburban Rail Loop. It has a price tag that's gone from $50 billion originally to $125 billion now, and some are projecting it will cost more than $200 billion and not be completed for 25 years. It is a project described by Macroeconomic Advisory as 'the worst infrastructure project of all time'. To fund these blown-out projects, we've consistently seen Labor rip money out of the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Thousands of commuters are reminded each and every day when they sit in traffic on the Eastern Freeway that Daniel Andrews wasted $1.3 billion not to build the East West Link, a project that would have been completed years ago at a fraction of the cost that it would cost to build today. We see road upgrades being cancelled throughout the east, including the Wellington Road upgrade, the Dorset Road upgrade and the Napoleon Road upgrade, not to mention hundreds of millions of dollars ripped out of upgrading dirt roads in the outer east to funnel into Daniel Andrews's pet project of the Suburban Rail Loop. This Saturday let's make sure Victoria gets a fresh start. Let's ensure that Daniel Andrews does not get away with it. The darkness, the terrible period that we've had under this Premier for the last eight years, doesn't have to continue. Victoria can reclaim its position as the greatest state in this country, but it will not happen with Daniel Andrews and the way in which he has mismanaged every aspect of our healthcare system, our economy and our major projects, and the way in which he sneers and looks down on Victorians. I say to all Victorians: don't let Daniel Andrews get away with it. National Asbestos Awareness Week 83 16:53 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence After this House adjourns, I, like many of us, will be returning to my electorate for a very brief moment before returning back to Canberra for the next sitting week. Tomorrow morning, in my electorate of Spence, I will be attending a memorial service at Pitman Park in Salisbury that has been organised by the Asbestos Victims Association of South Australia. This memorial ceremony is held here annually during National Asbestos Awareness Week. The reason why the memorial is held here is due to the fact that, up until 1987, James Hardie owned and operated a plant not too far away from where we will have a minute of silence and then lay floral tributes. Those floral tributes are to honour the memory of a number of workers that were exposed to deadly asbestos fibres at that factory, along with their families that were exposed simply by inhaling fibres in dusty clothes that were brought home after a long day's work. I will be there alongside representatives from the union movement, particularly Peter Bauer, the state secretary of the AMWU—a union whose workers past and present dealt, and continue to deal with, asbestos exposure. I also thank my colleague and electoral neighbour the member for Makin for taking the opportunity to speak about this extremely important issue in this place yesterday. I look forward to seeing him at the ceremony tomorrow morning. Asbestos awareness and safety is a vitally important issue, and giving this issue the attention it deserves will save lives. Many people out there are still exposed to asbestos fibres from incorrect handling or not identifying building materials containing asbestos fibres while they undertake do-it-yourself and home renovation work. There's a common misconception that this is an issue of the distant past. It is just as relevant in 2022 as it was decades ago, back when people should have been informed about the risks but were allowed to mine it, manufacture it and handle it. Sadly, for some people, it is already too late. Many out there don't even know this is the case. This is because it can take years for asbestos fibres to make someone sick, whether it is by way of sustained exposure or by an acute exposure. The damage is done. For those who contract an asbestos related disease, it causes a great deal of upheaval in their lives and their families' lives. Then there are the consequences to their health, and, as we know, these consequences are ultimately grave ones. Many were simply not aware of the risks. Many had those risks assumed on their behalf by people and companies that knew but exhibited malevolent indifference to the health and safety of their workers and customers and of other people who would come into incidental contact with their wares. I would not want to know how I would react if I were in their shoes, but I don't think I could exhibit half the strength of some of the people I've met in my travels who have had their lives cursed by asbestos. Many out there have fought the good fight, seeking justice and, more importantly, making it their mission to make sure they've done their bit to prevent anyone else from going through what they have as a result of asbestos. That last quality is particularly what makes someone a true legend of the labour movement, immortalised. These legends include people such as Bernie Banton, a man who fought James Hardie to the very end for justice for himself and others; Terry Miller, who worked at the James Hardie plant in Elizabeth West; and Jack Watkins, who has a memorial named in his honour in Kilburn, South Australia, where another memorial service will take place tomorrow. Another legend is one I have the privilege of working with every single day. That person is my chief of staff, Mathew Werfel. He is not only my chief of staff but also the chairperson of SA Asbestos Coalition and a director of the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute. He is, of course, a living victim of an asbestos related disease. But, truth be told, I think we could do with fewer legends out there to begin with, because that would mean fewer people have to suffer in the ways they have. The best way of achieving that is ensuring that we continue to use the platforms we have available to us during Asbestos Awareness Week to get their message out to people, and I intend to do just that. House adjourned at 16:59 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ) took the chair at 09:29.

Thursday, 24 November 2022

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ) took the chair at 09:29.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 84 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Water Safety 84 09:29 Mr 182468 Kingsford Smith THISTLETHWAITE (—) (): The date of 1 December each year is, of course, the first day of summer. It's also National Water Safety Day, and there's a clear connection between the two. Sadly, summer is the peak season when most drownings occur in Australia. We have already lost too many Australians to drowning over the past 12 months, and these are often deaths that can be prevented. While one drowning is still one too many, we must face up to the reality that it's been a particularly bad year, with 339 deaths, according to the latest national drowning report. As the weather warms up, more of us will be heading to the beaches, rivers and pools to cool off, but we should be celebrating the start of summer, not preparing for more sadness. I join with the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Surf Life Saving, the member for Moncrieff, in encouraging all Australians to remember the importance of staying safe and acting responsibly around water across our nation over the summer. Accidents in the water can be avoided if we act responsibly and follow basic water safety rules. Always swim between the red and yellow flags at the beach and obey the instructions of lifesavers. Always supervise children in and around the water at all times. Avoid alcohol and drugs while undertaking water activities. Wear a lifejacket if you're going boating, rock fishing or on a watercraft. If you get stuck in a rip at the beach, don't panic; float and put your hand up; hopefully, someone will come and save you. Our leading water safety authorities, including Surf Life Saving Australia and Royal Life Saving Australia, play an important role in helping to keep Australians safe in and around the water. The dedicated efforts of these organisations, including those of the lifeguards and lifesavers, as well as those of over 45,000 volunteers, contribute more than 1.3 million hours each year to make a vital and greatly valued contribution to our nation. Last season alone, surf lifesavers and lifeguards performed thousands of rescues and undertook more than a million preventive actions. I want to also acknowledge the importance of swimming lessons. Unfortunately, over the COVID period, we've seen a reduction in the number of kids undertaking swimming lessons, and this is something that we heard from SWIMSAFER ambassador Giaan Rooney this week, who's been calling for swimming lessons for six-month-olds through to 12-year-olds. These are skills for life. These are skills that can save lives, and I think governments at all levels need to be doing more to ensure that a kid that graduates from year 6 has gone through swimming lessons to ensure that they have basic competence in and around the water. Let's celebrate this summer and enjoy the great outdoors by being safe around the water. Banks Electorate: Community Events 84 09:32 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks Peakhurst West Swimming Pool was built by the community, and it needs to be maintained for the community. The Peakhurst Amateur Swimming Club swims there, as does the Penshurst RSL swim club and many community led groups, such as the one run by Roy Cho. Peakhurst West Swimming Pool must be preserved. With the departure of BlueFit from the pool, it is very important to state government steps in and provides funding to ensure the continued operation of Peakhurst West Swimming Pool, which is a critical part of our community. The St George Australian Football Club is one of the great institutions of our area. Just recently, I attended their annual dinner, and it was great to see Angie Zissis, Brendan Donohue and all the executive and players of the club. The club has gone from strength to strength in recent years and now has a very strong and active female division within the club with lots of female players, which is a wonderful thing to see. The event was held at Beverley Park, and it was really well attended, celebrating this terrific organisation which has been around in our community for about 60 years. So, to Angie, Brendan and everyone who's involved in St George AFC, congratulations on another great year, and it was great to hear about the successes during the season. Pastor Noah Ho at Riverwood Baptist Church leads are large and very important congregation in our community. Recently, the church has undergone quite an extensive series of renovations, with new meeting rooms added, as well as a great outdoor area for the community to gather, and it was wonderful to visit Noah recently and see the renovations. Thank you to Riverwood Baptist Church for everything you do for our community and for the important role that you play within it. For many years, Happy Singing Group at Hurstville has been bringing goodwill to our community through the efforts of its singers. The group has really high-quality singers from lots of different genres of music. I want to thank David Guo and Karen, as well, from Happy Singing Group and everyone who's been involved in this organisation over the years. COVID was a difficult time for all singing groups around the country, and certainly that was the case in our community, but Happy Singing Group is doing a wonderful job bringing people together and celebrating the joy and the majesty of music. Child Care, National Anti-Corruption Commission, Electric Vehicles 85 09:35 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga This week marks six months since the Australian people voted in a new government, and they voted the Albanese Labor government into office because they wanted a better future. They wanted a government that would do the work, They wanted a government that took a grown-up approach to the challenges our country is facing, and that's what our government is doing. We have not wasted a moment of the past six months in getting on with some of the big and difficult things that my community and communities across this country need. I'm going to mark a few of those really big things we've done. The cheaper child care legislation, which was passed by this parliament yesterday, will make a huge difference to the lives of 6,600 families in my community. I know that there are many families across my community who have been struggling with the cost of child care. In fact, I got an email from one member of my community just yesterday, saying how much she loves living in our area and how important it is to her that she is bringing her children up here but that, between the cost of child care and interest rates, she's finding it really hard to get ahead. I know that that's not an isolated instance. I know that many in our community, particularly women, look at the cost of child care and they think: 'Is it worth it? Am I going to earn more than I'm spending?' Our government is changing that equation for local families. From mid next year, these changes will make child care more affordable by lifting subsidies for families. This is a win for children in our community, a win for parents in our community and a win for our economy. This week, our government is focusing on the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We committed to the Australian people that we would get this done, and we are doing it. It is so important that Australia finally has a powerful, transparent and independent integrity body that operates in the federal sphere. This was ignored for far too long by the previous government. It is a very important reform so that people have trust in us in this place and have trust in our system of government. It's something which so many people in Jagajaga have spoken to me about and which they see as essential, and I know they will be so pleased to know our government is getting it up and running for next year. Another big change, just this week, is our government making electric vehicles cheaper, delivering on the commitment we took to the election to remove the fringe benefits tax on EVs. Again, I've had so many people in my community come up to me and say they want to own an electric vehicle but that the price is just too high for them to justify making that switch. So we're making it easier and cheaper to buy an electric vehicle—part of the many investments we're putting into renewable energy into this country, to make us a renewable energy superpower, to make sure we're on the right track and to make sure we're looking at a better future for all of us. Lindsay Electorate: Community Events 85 09:38 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay I will take this opportunity to do a mini wrap-up of an extraordinary year in my community. Firstly, I was so proud to be returned as Lindsay's local representative in the Australian parliament. I know I say it often, but it's my view that I have the best job in the world, and I thank the community of Lindsay for their continued trust in me. I've also been quite humbled to undertake my new role as the shadow assistant minister for mental health and suicide prevention, and I will work hard to ensure that Australians have access to life-saving services. It was an honour, earlier in the year, to be at the 2022 Penrith Relay For Life at Penrith Paceway and walk with our local cancer survivors, with families of those whose loved ones have been lost to this terrible disease, and with other members of our community. I give a big shout-out to all the volunteers for their energy and passion to create awareness and their fundraising. In addition, there is Pink Up Penrith, where we raise further funds for the McGrath Foundation breast care nurses, and take a boat trip with the Pendragons Abreast women, who have survived breast cancer. There are so many wonderful people in my community doing extraordinary work in the volunteer space. The flooding has been hitting my community really hard—some people have lost pretty much everything four times. I advocated for stronger support for my community, including being included in disaster relief payments and raising issues around power outages due to the floods and the cumulative mental health impacts these events are having on the same people over and over again. I was honoured to join our community at St Marys RSL to remember the over 60,000 brave men and women who served in the Vietnam War. The St Marys Vietnam Veterans' Outpost has a special place in my heart, and we spend as much time there as we can each year supporting our local veterans and they have become really good friends as well. In September we watched on and said a final goodbye to our beloved Queen Elizabeth II, a 70-year era over. It was such a moving time. Planting Queen's jubilee trees last week in our local community and seeing the kids really excited about participating in that was really wonderful. Also something that stays in my mind is the Nepean police medals being awarded to some of our most dedicated police officers. The room was full of truly remarkable achievements and the outstanding service and stories of those who have gone above and beyond to keep us safe. It was wonderful to see so many families, who really take the weight of these careers in the police force. I want to wish my community, if I don't get to stand again, a very merry Christmas, and I hope you get to enjoy some beautiful time with your families this year. Fremantle Electorate: Impact100 Fremantle 86 09:41 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm really delighted today to speak on the 10-year anniversary of Impact100 Freemantle—an innovative, philanthropic endeavour operated by the Fremantle Foundation and sustained by hundreds of generous and engaged donors in my community. Established as a community foundation in 2010 through the leadership and vision of Dylan Smith, the Fremantle Foundation has not only provided critical support to dozens and dozens of grassroots organisations who are themselves vital to social inclusion and wellbeing, it has also helped strengthen the bonds of community through the style and methods of its operation. As part of the foundation's work the Impact100 Fremantle concept was born in 2013. As the name suggests, it seeks to find 100 people who are prepared to donate $1,000 each to create one transformational $100,000 grant for a local charity. Across the spectrum of arts and culture, education, environment, health and wellbeing, and family support for a decade, this grant has been a game changer for its recipients. The community building and deliberative democracy part of Impact100 is present throughout the process, with donors given the chance to learn about the prospective grant recipients along the way and then actually determining the successful organisation on a night that features presentations from each of the shortlisted projects followed by a vote. This means the community works together to improve and expand their knowledge in the grant application process while the proponents take on the challenge of pitching and explaining what they do, receiving feedback along the way. While of course the successful project benefits enormously from the $100,000 grant, there has generally been a smaller but not insignificant grant to the second- and third-place getters, and on a few occasions, projects that have missed out in one year go on to succeed in subsequent years. I was fortunate to attend the celebration of Impact100 Fremantle earlier this month to hear the compelling pictures from each of the four shortlisted organisations: Foodbank WA, CircusWA, Waves of Wellness Foundation and the Zonta House Refuge Association. This year's very worthy recipient was CircusWA, which helps thousands of young people to develop their confidence and wellbeing through creative high-standard training and performance programs. They create pathways for young people of all abilities and backgrounds, thanks to the leadership of their determined and creative ringmaster, Jo Smith. The Impact100 grant on this occasion will help them grow and develop their youth training program from its current status into a circus academy that delivers skills development and mentorship for young people including First Nations youth and people with disability. I pay tribute to all of those who have been part of Impact100 in 2022, noting it marks 10 fantastic years of the initiative. I acknowledge the good people in the Fremantle Foundation and the excellent people across the Freo community who have given generously over that time, a number of whom have done so many times. Barker Electorate: Child Care 86 09:44 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I don't know how many times I've stood in this chamber and spoken about the need for additional childcare services in Kingston South East in my electorate. It's got to be a few times, but I'm here again. I wish I wasn't, but I am. Let's recap: this is a community that for over half a century has been crying out for additional childcare places, with significant waiting lists. They formed a working party in 2019 and called in 2019 to work with me. After deciding the only way to solve the problem was to work with a purpose-built facility, the coalition pledged $1.8 million for the cause should we win government. To their credit, Labor matched the pledge, just before the election, on ABC Radio. Then, crickets. The community, who have seen children go without child care, grow up and have children of their own—who are also now going without child care—were made to wait five months for reassurance that the money was still there. Then we had the newly minted minister Anne Aly on ABC South East radio the day following the budget, reassuring the community that there was $1.8 million dedicated in the budget to the Kingston community for childcare places. But then, crickets! The budget was a month ago. The original pledge was six months ago. We still don't know where the money is coming from. No-one has contacted the Kingston District Council directly. No-one from the department has followed up with them. They haven't received a quick email or a phone call from the minister or the minister's office—not even a press release. They're told before the election that Labor will match the coalition's commitment, they hear nothing for six months, then we have a budget: there's no mention on the night, but, the following day, Anne Aly has the time to contact journalists at ABC South East to confirm the budget is good for Kingston child care and there's $1.8 million in the budget. But that was a month ago. No-one, not the CEO and not the leader of the working party, has heard boo since. This speaks of a government that's focused on the theoretical but can't get the trains to run on time. Please, Minister Aly, pick up the phone or send an email to the people of the Kingston District Council. They want to hear from you. Aykan, Mr Nail, Coburg Islamic Centre 87 09:47 Ms VAMVAKI 00AMT Calwell NOU () (): I want to speak about a very important event that I attended last Tuesday at the Coburg Town Hall. It was the launch of the book Coburg Mosque: A Journey of Turkish Settlement, authored by my very good friend Nail Aykan. Nail Aykan arrived in Australia in 1973 as a migrant from Turkey, settling first in Brunswick and then moving to Broadmeadows, where he has lived ever since. Broadmeadows—as you would know, Deputy Speaker Chesters—in my seat of Calwell is an iconic suburb of settlement for Turkish migrants, because it is where the first waves of Turks came to settle following the abolition of the White Australia policy. Nail's family was amongst that first wave of migrants. In his long and distinguished career, Nail has worked in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors. Nail has been an active community leader, working with communities of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds. He has also served as the executive director of the Islamic Council of Victoria and is the co-founder of the Turkish Heritage Society Australia. In taking up the challenge of writing this book, Nail wanted to document the 50-year history of the Coburg mosque and highlight the very important role it has played in the settlement of Turkish migration here in Australia. To do so, he collected the many stories of Turkish migrants, giving voice to their experiences in the early years of their settlement. In his own words, Nail says: I am neither a historian nor a storyteller. What drove me to write this book is a passionate interest in history and it took the 50th year milestone (1971-2021) achieved by Victoria's Turkish community to convince me that it was time to tell the story of the Coburg Mosque. For Nail, this book was a journey of love. He was driven by his determination to give purpose and dignity to the lives of those early migrants but also, as Dr Bulent Hass Dellal writes in the foreword, 'to offer a thoroughly researched historical perspective of the major events that unfolded over the decades and influenced the course of the mosque from its beginnings to the present day. The author shines a bright light on the Turkish migrant pioneers, leaders, imams and youth who were inspired to create a place of worship and social gathering that would act as a bridge extending from their homeland to their new home, Australia'. I want to congratulate Nail Aykan on his accomplishment. The book launch was very well attended by a large number of members of the local Turkish community. It's a beautiful book filled with the memories and journeys of senior members of the Turkish community, who as Nail says, 'willingly shared their memories not previously shared with anyone before because "no-one has ever asked me this question before, not even my children or grandchildren"'. Congratulations Nail, and I certainly look forward to the next edition. Cost of Living 87 09:50 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Without doubt, the No. 1 issue that people speak to me about is the cost of living. That is representative of many in this chamber. It doesn't matter whether you come from the city or the bush, everyone everywhere has been impacted. Current research suggests that 80 per cent of Australians are concerned about rising food and grocery prices. Right now, about two million Australians are struggling to put food on the table, and that is alarming. This is impacting around 1.3 million children. The cost of food has continued— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 09 :51 to 10:06 Mr PEARCE 282306 The price of food and alcoholic beverages have increased nine per cent in the year to September, helping push overall inflation to north of 7.3 per cent. That's the steepest annual rise in 32 years. We live in a prosperous nation and we produce enough food—in fact, we produce enough food for 75 million people, which is enough to feed the entire population three times over. But in the last three years Australians have had everything thrown at them from pandemics to natural disasters, labour shortages, geopolitical tensions, animal disease outbreaks and financial challenges. The ongoing barrage has laid bare Australia's food supply system's discrepancies, risks and vulnerabilities. What has been highlighted, however, is the fact that it's time to fully understand the complexity of Australia's food supply chain. How will specific events impact the supply of food from paddock to plate at any given point? I want to congratulate the partner associations who have recently formed the National Food Supply Chain Alliance. The NFSCA represents all facets of Australian food supply chains from farmers, processors, grocers, butchers, independent supermarkets, convenience stores, wholesale suppliers and distributors to food retailers including cafes, restaurants, hotels and clubs. The nine associations represent over 160,000 businesses with a combined revenue of a staggering $224 billion. They employ almost a million workers in Australia. There is no doubt that a more efficient and resilient food supply chain will provide greater stability, boost innovation, enhance food supply and processing capacity, create jobs and provide confidence from farm gate to fork. From the perspective of the government, the Standing Committee on Agriculture has commenced an inquiry into food security in Australia. The committee will examine how we strengthen and safeguard food security and supply chain resilience. Submissions are open until 9 December, and I encourage anyone in the industry with any interest in improving our food supply chain to have their say. Cybercrime 88 10:09 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide One of the most common forms of scams—which has been brought to my attention in my electorate office, and I'm sure many other members are getting the same queries—is Australia's invoice scams, which are taking place at the moment around the country. According to the ACCC, Australian businesses lost $227 million to payment redirection scams in 2021, an increase of 77 per cent. Invoice scams are where people intercept, through cybercrime, an invoice, change the banking account and send it off— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:10 to 10:22 Mr GEORGANAS DZY As I was saying previously, the most common form of scam in Australia is these invoice scams where a cybercriminal intercepts your emails—it could be an invoice that's going out to a client or a customer—and they change the banking number. The customer, unbeknown to them, receives the invoice and pays the bill but into the scammer's account. This is happening more often. This could be fixed quite easily if banks were willing to by checking the business name with the bank details. It's mandated in the UK and in most of Europe. I'm calling on the banks here to do whatever they can to stop this scamming that's been taking place, costing Australians $227 million in redirection scams in 2021. These scammers impersonate business, and it is disgraceful that people are losing money. These are hardworking Australians, mainly tradies, I've noticed—plumbers, electricians, builders et cetera. For example, a constituent who contacted me last week, a plasterer by trade, recently sent an invoice to a builder which he believed went unpaid. He queried with the builder and was told that the invoice had in fact been paid. My constituent never received the payment, even though the builder provided evidence of the emails received. It turns out that my constituent's emails had been hacked and the invoices amended with a new bank account, leaving my constituent considerably out of pocket. Neither the bank nor the builder feels any responsibility for what has happened. Banks should be able to put this in place. They should be able to simply check the account details using the name or the business name, and that could fix it. I've written to the Assistant Treasurer asking that he look into this to see what can be done for my constituent. The easiest way to fix this is for banks to do the right thing and do a simple check—as is done in the UK and most European countries—to ensure that these scams do not take place. It is so easy to fix. We're calling on the banks to do this voluntarily. But I have written to the Assistant Treasurer asking that he investigate and see what he can do. Too much money is being lost to hardworking Australians that don't deserve this. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 There being no further constituency statements by honourable members, the next item of business will be called upon. BILLS 89 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 89

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023

Consideration in Detail 89 10:26 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney It's a great pleasure to contribute to this consideration in detail on the budget measures connected to my portfolios, environment and water. I'll also touch on the appropriations that fall under the responsibility of the Minister and the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy. It has been just six months since the new Labor government was elected, and we're absolutely getting on and delivering our commitments. The October budget is a demonstration of that. Australians tell me that they can already see the difference. The environment is back. People are telling me that it's a breath of fresh air and what our country desperately needs. Obviously, we can't fix a decade of Liberal Party neglect and damage to our environment overnight, but we've hit the ground running. We have higher ambition on climate change; a clear path to net zero; no new extinctions; a crackdown on gases that are bad for the ozone layer; new laws that better protect the environment and give businesses faster, clearer decisions; an Environmental Protection Agency; a tough cop on the beat to enforce those new laws; and a commitment to protect 30 per cent of our land and 30 per cent of our oceans by 2030. We've announced a new nature repair market to reward farmers and other landholders for their work in restoring and protecting the environment. We've committed to expanding blue carbon projects, more mangroves and sea grasses, making our oceans cleaner and getting carbon out of the atmosphere, reducing problematic plastics, developing environmentally friendly plastic alternatives, and making recycling easier for families and businesses. There's always more to do, but we are getting on with the job. This budget delivers $1.8 billion in funding into the future for the environment. This is a downpayment on our commitment to prioritising the environment after almost a decade of neglect under the former government. The Australian government is delivering on its election promises. There is a range of targeted investments to reverse the declines seen under the previous government. The Australian government will build on the commitments in this budget when we respond to the Samuel review of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in the coming weeks. In this budget, we see a record $1.2 billion invested to protect and restore our iconic Great Barrier Reef, including $204 million of additional new funding; $90 million over six years to employ and upskill 1,000 Landcare rangers to help conserve and restore our environment; an additional $66½ million over six years to support 10 new Indigenous protected areas, bringing us closer to the government's commitment to protect and conserve 30 per cent of our land and ocean by 2030—this brings the total investment to Indigenous protected areas to $235 million over five years—$14.7 million to protect First Nations cultural and heritage places; $224½ million for actions to help threatened species, places and recovery activities prioritised under the Threatened Species Action Plan, including targeted koala programs, the eradication of gamba grass and yellow crazy ants; and $10.8 million to improve ocean and marine park management in Australia and strengthen our international environmental leadership in ocean related policy. There will be $91.1 million over six years for the first round of our $200 million election promise to improve local waterways through the Urban Rivers and Catchments Program. Turning to dam and water infrastructure, the Australian government is investing to secure our precious natural water resources for future generations. We will invest more than a billion dollars in water infrastructure projects, including Paradise Dam, Cairns Water Security Stage 1, the Mount Morgan water supply, Big Rocks Weir, groundwater improvements and water efficiency on the lower Burdekin, the Pipeline to Prosperity in Tasmania, the Darwin regional water supply, Adelaide River science project, the Nyngan to Cobar pipeline, strategic planning for improving water security in Queensland, and so much more. We've also put aside a billion dollars for future water infrastructure projects that are properly costed and will deliver results. The 2023 budget delivers long overdue investments in Australia's obligations to meet our climate challenge and energy transformation. These investments are central to our economic plan, reducing emissions and developing new industries and jobs as a renewable energy superpower. The international fuel crisis triggered by Russia's illegal war has shown the consequence of a decade of underinvestment and neglect in renewables, the cheapest form of new energy. 10:31 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I think we can all agree that there is a shared purpose within the Australian parliament of having an orderly decarbonisation of the Australian economy. I would like to think that all Australians and, indeed, all parliamentarians believe that we should have a cleaner future, one in which Australia remains a prosperous, high-wealth country and is strong and fiercely independent with its own sovereignty. The question, however, is always going to come down to how we achieve that vision for our country. The results are what really count. When the coalition was in government we saw those results in the price of energy, the reliability of the grid and the reduction of emissions. Emissions reduced by over 20 per cent on 2005 levels, a record that the rest of the world finds very difficult to match. We saw enormous reliability in the grid on our watch. Especially as the Ukraine war started to unravel, we were able to continue to pour more supply into the market of gas. In our last term alone we saw household prices in Australia reduce by eight per cent, business by 10 per cent and industry by 12 per cent. We have a new government in town. Under the Albanese Labor government things have changed. In that time we have seen power prices go through the roof. Australians know that; Australian households know it. The AWU points out the threat to 800,000 manufacturing jobs in this country because of the skyrocketing prices. We've had unprecedented intervention in the grid by the market operator because of real concerns around reliability, with the threat of blackouts. Never before has the operator had to intervene to the extent that it has on this relatively new government's watch. As for emissions reduction, only time will tell whether the damage they are prepared to inflict on the Australian economy will result in lower emissions. I am also disappointed that here we are in consideration in detail—I pay credit to the Minister for Environment and Water for being present today. This is an important part of our— Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Of course you should turn up. She's right on that—I take her intervention—she should turn up. But it points to the fact that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has not turned up. He has not turned up at all. This is his opportunity to hear from his colleagues across the aisle, to have consideration in detail, yet he does not show. He is a no-show. This goes to a problem that we have in Australia at the moment. This minister is absent. For six months now, we have seen Australian industry and households struggling under price restraints. The minister is not present. He is not present in the chamber now, and he has not been present for the Australian people. Why? Why is the minister incapable of answering a straight question when it comes to breaking the promise of a $275 reduction in household power bills? Why does the minister fail to ensure his own department does economic modelling on what he signs up to, whether it be the 43 per cent legislation, whether it be the global methane pledge or whether it be the loss and damage fund? At no point has the minister undertaken any economic modelling, so the Australian people, businesses and industries have no idea of the impact that this minister is signing up for, both internationally and here in Australia. Why is it that it's taken the minister over six months to deal with the energy crisis in Australia? It's been over six months, with prices skyrocketing. Still, to this day, we wait for the minister and the government to come out with any solution whatsoever. Why is it that the minister continues to dodge questions in every single question time and then, given the opportunity to turn up to consideration in detail, is yet again absent? That is my key question: why? 10:36 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra It's a great pleasure to contribute to this consideration in detail discussion and to be able to ask the Minister for the Environment and Water questions about why it is so important that we protect our environment, why the environment is back under the Albanese Labor government and how this is so incredibly important. I'm blown away by the previous contribution from those opposite, who, for 10 years, did nothing but contribute to a crisis of uncertainty in energy that has set us up for the situation we are in now. I want to ask why it is so important that we transition to renewable energy. Why will this help reduce power prices and put us on the path that we need to be on to have a sustainable future for our Earth? It's pretty central stuff, and it's stuff that the previous government ignored for the entire time that they were in government. Our government is instead working to deliver cleaner, cheaper and more-secure energy for Australian households and businesses through unprecedented investment in renewable energy, including through Rewiring the Nation, to bring our grid up to speed so that it can be ready to transmit that energy from renewable sources, which we need. This is the certainty that the private sector needs to invest in renewable energy, and it's what was missing under the previous government. Yes, there is an international market crisis at the moment, caused by Russia's illegal invasion in Ukraine, and that is contributing. But it has exposed Australia's underinvestment to date in the cheapest form of energy, firmed renewables. Australian households and businesses are now paying the price for a decade of denial and delay, in which three gigawatts of dispatchable generation exited the grid. Rewiring the Nation is the $20 billion centrepiece of the Powering Australia plan and a key pillar of the 2022-23 budget. It will provide low-cost finance to upgrade, expand and modernise Australia's electricity grid and drive down power prices. We have already secured agreements with the states to invest in crucial links between Tasmania and the mainland, with the Marinus Link, and between Victoria and New South Wales, through VNI West. Along with other actions in the budget, Rewiring the Nation will help ramp up renewable generation, place downward pressure on energy bills and put Australia on track to becoming a renewable energy superpower. Investment in reforms to stabilise and improve gas and electricity markets also features in this budget, as does delivering on the government's community battery and solar banks policies. I'm really pleased that the electorate that I represent—the electorate of Canberra—will be receiving one of those community batteries, as will two others in the ACT. This is about enabling households to share in the benefits of reduced power prices from renewable energy and to store that energy. We have already had a great uptake of solar energy in the ACT, in terms of rooftop solar. This is about enabling households that may not be able to do that themselves to benefit from these community batteries, so it's a very important thing, and I'm really pleased that Canberra is part of our federal government's plan. The ACT is, of course, the first jurisdiction to get to 100 per cent renewable energy. We already see that reflected in the lower power prices that we enjoy compared to New South Wales, and I think that is a case in point as to why it is so important that, as a nation, we make that transition. This is where we need to be. We have fantastic resources and natural advantages in renewable energy here in Australia. We should be making the most of them and becoming a renewable energy superpower. We should be leading the way in the world. I am so proud that one of the first things we did after forming government was to legislate our emissions reduction targets. It is incredibly important, and it is something that the people of Canberra have been crying out for. The whole time that I have been in this place, people have raised it with me more than any other issue, and it is the issue that I have talked about more in this place, so I'm really pleased to be here today with the minister to talk about why these things are so critically important for Australia and for our world. 10:41 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I, indeed, have questions for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy which I hope the environment minister— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10 : 41 to 10 : 54 Mr STEVENS 176304 My question is to the climate change minister via the minister that's here. I relate it to Rewiring the Nation within Powering Australia—the Labor Party's policy document—which essentially underpins the purported modelling to achieve a $275 cut to the average residential household bill by 2025. I've had a lot to do with transmission projects, particularly the SA-NSW Interconnector, so I wish all the success in the world to the spectacular time line and purported deliverable capacity of this project from an expenditure point of view and from a time point of view. As the Labor Party's policy document reads, the installation of new transmission really underpins the entirety of the presumed household savings. So my first question to the minister is: can we get an overview and a context and a time line now that the government is the government, and they've had their budget and a lot of time to turn that policy document into government policy? Can we get some confirmation and milestones around the time lines of that expenditure? What is the current anticipated time line for the various significant milestones that you go through to plan and design; to get environmental approval, planning approval, land acquisition; and to get local agreement from Indigenous groups, state government authorities and local government authorities where relevant? And, of course, what discussions have been had with the industry and the sector regarding being able to actually meet the physical requirement of rolling out this additional multibillion-dollar transmission upgrade to the network? That underpins almost the entirety of not only the savings but a lot of the purported achievement of emissions reductions, so obviously we'd very much appreciate as much information and detail that we can get on that. The $275 cut was as at the Labor Party's announcement of that policy in December 2021, so could we get the new figure of how much you're going to save by 2025 after you've factored in what you confirm in this budget to be a 56 per cent increase in electricity prices in the 2022-23 and 2023-24 years. We all know that you're going to honour that commitment of the $275 cut from the December 2021 period by 2025. What will it be in dollar terms against the new projected June 2024 residential bills after they've increased by the 56 per cent that the budget takes into account? Could we also get that new figure, which I assume will be $275 plus the increase to residential bills in the intervening period, so that the good people of Australia know how by much their bill is going to fall between June 2024 and June 2025 when the $275 cut on December 2021 prices is taken into account. The Labor Party policy document on this transmission policy indicated the impact at the wholesale level and at the retail level, broken down into households as well as businesses et cetera. So I think all those groups—households and, equally, businesses, major industries et cetera—would like to know: at the full implementation of this policy, keeping the solemn word to the people of Australia from that policy document, how much will power bills be cut between 2024 and 2025 for other sectors, such as the average small business? I reiterate: could the minister please confirm the time line for rolling out the Rewiring the Nation transmission infrastructure, because that is absolutely vital to achieving any of the emissions reductions projections in the policy document as well as the cost savings. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Consideration in Detail 92 11:00 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam Six months ago, the Albanese Labor government was elected on a mandate to be a better government, and that starts with an honest conversation with the Australian people to ensure we are able to do good policy. You don't do good policy unless you have an honest conversation with the Australian people about the facts. We're also committed to ensuring that we manage the budget and put it on a sustainable footing to end the waste, to address record debt and to put economic growth back on a stable footing. Work is already underway. Millions of Australians are counting on us to deliver on that mandate. We're getting wages moving again—we're supporting an increase to the minimum wage and strengthening our industrial relations system. This will deliver wage increases for millions of Australian workers, who have been languishing on low or no wage increases for a decade. Our childcare reforms are giving 1.2 million working families the option of taking on more hours and earning more money. Our aged-care reforms—targeted investments—are prioritising delivering more nursing care, more nutritious food and more hours and ensuring that we can provide better pay for those who are looking after our seniors. Our responsible targeted investments are prioritising measures that provide an economic return, not a political pay-off. That's a novel approach compared to the last nine years, but it's an approach the Australian people have voted for. I want to say a few things about budget measures aimed at tax avoidance. The Albanese government is committed to investing in the capabilities of our tax regulators to increase receipts by around $5.7 billion over the forward estimates. That's $5.7 billion that will be put into cheaper medicines, cheaper child care, better aged care and deficit reduction. The investment in our tax regulators over the forward estimates includes $1.1 billion to increase and extend funding for the Tax Avoidance Taskforce, which focuses on multinationals, large businesses and high-wealth tax avoidance. It complements the measures that my colleague the assistant minister will be addressing in relation to multinational tax avoidance at large. It also includes $242.9 million to extend the shadow economy program for a further three years, which helps stop dishonest and criminal activities outside of our tax system; $80.3 million to extend the Personal Income Taxation Compliance Program for a further two years to support individuals to pay the right amount of tax on time; and $20.8 million for the Tax Practitioners Board to increase compliance investigations on high-risk tax practitioners. The Albanese government is committed to providing a clear signal that tax avoidance will not be tolerated. The integrity of our tax system is built upon every taxpayer believing and having faith that every other taxpayer is doing the right thing. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:04 to 11:15 Mr JONES A9B As I was saying, we are committed to ensuring that every cent that is owed through the taxation system is paid because that's the integrity we want in our tax system. Australians can have faith in our tax system if they can look to their left and look to their right and know that all Australians are paying the right amount of tax as is lawfully due. I want to say something about scams. Last year Australian households and businesses lost around $2 billion to scams. That's an estimate. It's probably more than that because there's a hell of a lot of under-reporting. Indeed, this year the ACCC expects that number to be at least $4 billion. Getting scammed will turn a precarious financial situation into a disaster. It's not just the financial cost, it's the personal cost as well, and the time that is taken to rectify your personal and your business and your financial situation. Scammers are targeting our most vulnerable individuals. That's why the government is making it a priority to crack down on scams, with $12.6 million over four years in this budget, and more to come for a real plan to crack down on scammers and protect Australian households. 11:16 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Before I ask my question, I'd like to make a few comments about the budget. It was a budget that sank to the bottom of the ocean faster than the Titanic. Probably in a hundred years time, a rusting hulk will be discovered deep beneath the ocean of absolute nothingness because that's what the budget was, which makes it very difficult to ask questions about it. However, I will make some comments about it before I do attempt to ask a question about this load of nothingness. This was an incredible missed opportunity. The economy and the budget were in unexpected health. We saw a real economic growth rate of 3.9 per cent in the last financial year and we saw a budget with a massive $48 billion turnaround in the underlying cash balance from the budget forecasts, and from the moment that New South Wales and Victoria were locked down, we saw a budget that was in balance through to the end of the financial year. So this was a chance for Labor to consolidate the strength of that position and, in the process, take pressure off the pressures that Australian households, families and businesses are feeling on interest rates and inflation. And they are very real pressures. As they approach Christmas and they're looking at Christmas presents and holidays over the January period, there is no doubt that the tightening of budgets is really being felt because of the increase in interest rates and the cost of living. The opportunity for government was to deliver a budget that was responsible and that would do what treasurers normally do when they come into a role, which is to deliver a budget which is improving year on year. In fact what we saw, remarkably, was a budget that made the budget deficit worse over the coming years, going from a $32 billion deficit up to a $51 billion deficit. You say to yourself: how on earth could they have done that as we're coming out of a pandemic? The answer is: they added $115 billion of spending since the March budget, as we are coming out of the pandemic. It is a Herculean feat to have pulled that off. The Treasurer, of course, has chosen on a famous occasion to mishear questions about the budget. I'd be mishearing questions about the budget if I'd achieved such a dreadful outcome as he did in this budget. When you look at what economists have to say, they reflect this point. Stephen Koukoulas, who's not on our side of politics, a former economist to Julia Gillard, says, 'The budget puts no downward pressure on inflation, leaving "the RBA with all the work of carrying the can in getting the inflation rate lower."' You left them carrying the can. Warren Hogan, former ANZ economist, wrote in the AFR: … federal fiscal policy has failed to join the fight against inflation, preferring to sit on the sidelines and cheer on the "independent Reserve Bank" as it takes up the task. And then we see the spectre in recent days of them bagging the governor. Well, they've left him with the job. He's the one that actually has to deal with this situation because their budget does absolutely nothing. And since the budget was released, we've seen annual inflation hit 7.3 per cent, the highest level in three decades. I was looking at the cash rate expected in the futures market. It's expected to go close to four per cent. That puts mortgages in the six to seven per cent range. That's where the market expects it to go. We've got a long way to go here. There's a lot of pain to be felt. And, sadly, we have no plan; we have a white flag from those opposite, who have absolutely nothing to contribute. I'll tell you what? This is a government with an excuse for everything and a plan for nothing, and the result is that a family with a $750,000 mortgage is now paying more than $1,200 more every month on their repayments compared to May this year, and there is a lot further to go. So, given this budget has no plan to tackle inflation, my question to the Assistant Treasurer—seeing that the Treasurer hasn't found the time to turn up to answer questions—is: will the Assistant Treasurer confirm they have left the RBA carrying the can to fight against inflation? 11:21 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Of course this budget was the right budget for the right times. It did try to deal with inflation. It is trying to deal with the cost of living while putting downward pressure on inflation, and we're doing that through measures such as cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, more affordable homes—which I want to talk about in a little bit—and extending paid parental leave. We announced in the budget the housing accord, which is our aspiration for a million homes over five years from 2024 to 2029. This is an historic agreement, an intergenerational agreement, whereby we have the three tiers of government—local government, state government and federal government—working together to deliver, with the construction sector and with social housing providers, ensuring that we keep up the supply of dwellings in this country. We know that here in Australia there is a severe shortage of dwellings. When you look at the OECD average compared to what is happening in Australia in housing, we have a long way to go. We need to get more supply into the market, and is what we want to do. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11 : 23 to 11 : 3 1 Ms COLLINS HWM I was talking about the Housing Accord and our aspiration for a million homes from 2024 to 2029. We also had in the budget the Housing Australia Future Fund, which will create 30,000 social and affordable homes within the first five years of the fund. We're obviously working to establish that fund and to get to work on those social and affordable homes. I do want to thank the state ministers and indeed local government and social housing providers for their active engagement in terms of delivering on those 30,000 homes in the first five years of the fund. We are also moving ahead with a national affordability and supply council to give advice to tiers of government about what else we can do to get more homes on the ground more quickly in terms of supply. We also had in the budget our regional first-home-buyer guarantee, and I can update the House to say that we now have over 1,000 applications. It was great to see earlier in the week—I think it was in the Townsville Bulletin—a couple going into their first home. They'll have the keys and be in that home before Christmas. This is the difference that a good government policy can make for people. It can change lives. The regional first-home-buyer guarantee is where people can get into their first home with a five per cent deposit, with the government guaranteeing the other 15 per cent. That, of course, helps them overcome that hurdle of the 20 per cent deposit. It is a terrific scheme, and I was pleased to see the number of applications hit over 1,000. I did want to take the opportunity to talk about some of the things we are doing to support small businesses as well. We have legislated changes to unfair contract terms. This is something those on the other side talked about for nine years; we have actually legislated this in the first six months. It is so that smaller businesses can have fair terms when negotiating with big businesses and big providers. We have been working in terms of payment times. People may have seen the report about payment times between big businesses and small businesses. We know that there is a lot more work to be done there, and we're working to try and deliver on our election promise of trying to improve payment times for small businesses. We have also amended the Commonwealth Procurement Rules to make sure that small businesses get better access to the $70 billion that the government goes to tender on each year. That is with a 20 per cent target for Commonwealth procurement. So we are moving to improve things for small business. As I said in the House earlier in the week, we have also found room in the budget to extend two measures that were due to end on 31 December. They are about the mental health and wellbeing program run by Beyond Blue. This is a free program for small businesses. They don't need to go to the GP, and they don't need to get a mental health plan. They can access the services from Beyond Blue to give them some support and, of course, from the Small Business Debt Helpline. That will help small businesses. It is targeted support from specialists in small business that can provide advice to those small businesses that have been doing it tough, and we know small businesses have been doing it tough. As we come out of the global pandemic, they are dealing with natural disasters such as floods. Our government will continue to support small businesses, we'll continue to be there for small businesses and we'll continue to make sure they are at the heart of our government's decision-making. 11:35 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I'm cognisant of the time and trying to get through everything before we get to the adjournment at one o'clock, so I will be brief. In terms of the budget, it is a missed opportunity to continue to set lines and standards. Being an ERC minister when the last government brought the budget into balance, the rules of budget balance are quite simple: 75 per cent is receipts and 25 per cent is expenditure. That's what has to be managed. We did that by having a speed bump of 23.9 per cent of GDP in terms of tax receipts. That forms a basis by which government can live within its means, and a basis by which government does not tax its population too much—noting that, when we came in in 2013, the previous Labor government receipts had dropped down to 22½ per cent in 2011-12, courtesy of the GFC. Likewise, in terms of living within your means, we also set a spending cap at 1.9 per cent of growth so that year-on-year growth in spending wouldn't increase beyond 1.9 per cent. As the economy grew, expenditure of government didn't, and the increase in tax receipts and the decrease in expenditure equals a balanced budget. Unfortunately, this budget is a missed opportunity. Those speed bumps are gone. There's no limit on government debt, there's no 23.9 per cent limit on receipts in terms of percentage of GDP and there's no limit on government expenditure. That is why we've seen, in the out years, government debt—as in, deficits—increasing. We saw, as soon as New South Wales and Victoria come out of lockdown, the budget for those months started to come back into balance. Unfortunately, with $115 billion in new spending, those tax limits have been run over, and that's why this budget is now running away. We're seeing unemployment going up. There are 150,000 more Australians unemployed. This government was bequeathed an unemployment level that had dropped to 3.4 per cent—an extraordinary level—the lowest in 50 years, with the participation rate at its highest. Government needs to ensure that the economy runs smoothly, that inflation is not fed by extra spending, and that people have the opportunity to keep those jobs. We're seeing power prices coming up, because of the government's ill-advised approach on legislating—56 per cent in the next two years, compared with an average of 0.3 per cent year on year over the previous government. The budget is, unfortunately, a missed opportunity. It's a missed opportunity to balance and it's a missed opportunity for fiscal restraint, and Australians will pay for it. 11:38 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I appreciate the opportunity to discuss Treasury's budget measures and ask for some clarifications. Firstly, the inclusion of Measuring what matters, the discussion paper on the wellbeing economy, is a great start. It's a step in the right direction to start considering the broader picture of what prosperity would look like in the long term. It will be really vital that this is built on broad community engagement and views about what we value and what we think a successful country looks like, rather than just sitting in Treasury. While it may take longer to build consensus on what we care about than it would for Treasury to adapt a predesigned model from another jurisdiction, this engagement work is essential in rebuilding trust in our democracy and building a common understanding of the context in which we'll need to make difficult decisions. My first question is: has Treasury allocated any funding to support community engagement on setting a common vision to underpin a wellbeing budget? Secondly, I would like to know whether Treasury is being resourced to undertake the longer term tax reform that we desperately need. A stalemate over genuine tax reform has evolved between the major parties over the last 30 years, with ideology overriding facts and evidence. Every Australian loses because of this. Our tax system's robustness is in continual decline, which increasingly undermines our ability to provide essential services and a reasonable social safety net at both the federal and the state and territory levels. The government has the opportunity to build on the wellbeing framework proposed to seek a consensus on where we want to be in 20 years. This would enable us to make the harder decisions about the trade-offs in our tax system. I'd like to thank the government for the focus on the housing shortage in the budget, but I have two questions about how this might work. The government has said it will invest $10 billion in the Housing Australia Future Fund, which will generate funds to build social and affordable homes. Can the Assistant Treasurer please explain the modelling undertaken for this $10 billion allocation? How does the chosen level of allocation relate to forecast demand for housing, which is significantly higher than 30,000 homes? The government has also said it will provide $350 million over five years to support funding of an additional 10,000 affordable homes under a Housing Accord. The announcement was accompanied with grand statements of how the government's shared ambition with all levels of government, institutional investors and the construction sector was to build one million homes between 2024 and 2029. Can the Treasurer please outline how the Housing Accord will actually work in an environment of labour shortages, delayed supply chains and the rising cost of materials? What financing model can deliver one million homes with a relatively small investment from government? Do the increasing stresses on the construction industry change this aspirational figure? I'd also be keen to understand more about the $36.1 million commitment to 'Restoring Treasury's Capability on Climate Risks and Opportunities'. My initial response is horror that it's going to cost $29.8 million to restore capability for Treasury officials to model climate risks and opportunities. It seems surprising that at this point in history this skill set doesn't already exist, but, given this is where we are, could the Treasurer please outline how this figure will be spent? How do you restore capability? Is this being allocated to training or to acquire new skilled employees? And how will the success of this funding be measured? Proposed expenditure agreed to. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:43 to 11:56 Consideration in Detail 95 11:56 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I'm glad to be able to make some comments in relation to the decision by government to invest in skills. The budget handed down by the Treasurer was an important one. It will ensure that we supply skills to a labour market that really has skills shortages across it. Whatever profession or industry you look at, there are skill deficits. The National Skills Commission's last report underlined the scale of the challenge for the country by indicating that there had been an almost doubling of the occupations on the skills shortage list, from 153 to 286, in 12 months. That speaks to an economy and labour market that's starved of skills. There's a variety of reasons for that. Firstly, understandably, the closure of borders by the previous government obviously meant that there was a slowing down or a suspension of normal skilled migration pathways. We supported the previous government when they were compelled to close borders at a time when we were dealing with a global pandemic and with no vaccination in sight. It was quite understandable. What we didn't agree on with the previous government was their failure to support temporary visa holders in the labour market, making them ineligible for JobKeeper and JobSeeker, which compounded the skills deficit. It's something we now need to attend to. I'm happy to say the investment by this government in the skills agenda is quite significant. We made an announcement at the Jobs and Skills Summit to commit to 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places for 2023. That provides certainty to the VET sector and provides certainty to industry that there will be courses undertaken in skills that are in demand, whether it be in the traditional trades, aged care, advanced manufacturing, hospitality or retail. Many sectors that are suffering from a shortage of labour and skills. In fact, the OECD has said that Australia has the second-highest labour shortage per capita in the developed world; therefore, it's critical that we move very quickly. That decision by the Prime Minister and premiers at National Cabinet, announced at the Jobs and Skills Summit, led to discussions that I had with all eight other governments, who help deliver the training in the VET sector. We are moving very rapidly to allocate those places to particular areas of the economy and labour market that are in need; we are focusing on skills shortage areas. In many cases, they are fee-free places which will provide much-needed economic relief for those people who need to undertake these courses to acquire skills so that they have skills that are in demand. For that reason, we support the state and territory governments making the decisions that they are. I was fortunate to be in Adelaide last Friday, where there was an announcement by the South Australian government and the Commonwealth about the allocation of 12,500 additional places for next year. There's progress across all jurisdictions, including Victoria, Western Australia and New South Wales, and I'll be making some more announcements before Christmas to make sure that this matter is moved on as quickly as possible. We were left with a skills deficit. We were left without a national skills agreement, an agreement that should have been struck from 1 July this year for a five-year period. That didn't happen. We now need to negotiate some reforms for the VET sector. To provide certainty for this year and next calendar year, we've undertaken that investment and that is now being progressed. For people who are looking for work, seeking to acquire new skills or seeking to reskill in the workforce, the result of the decision and the provisions of the budget mean that those courses will be available for students across the country commencing next year. 12:01 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I'm pleased to rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 in relation to employment and workplace relations as part of this consideration in detail process. The Albanese government's approach to employment and workplace relations is framed around a simple concept: delivering for the unions. Since being elected, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the government, have done all they can to impose a big-union agenda on employers and employer organisations. We had the union conference, masquerading as the Jobs and Skills Summit, where the government claimed a consensus was reached on industrial relations law changes. We've seen a government which is seeking to impose the most radical shake-up of our industrial relations system in decades, a shake-up that would complicate and damage our economy. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12 : 02 to 12 : 13 Mr FLETCHER L6B I was observing previously that this government is seeking to impose the most radical shake-up of our industrial relations system in decades, a shake-up that would complicate, create conflict and damage in our economy. It's no surprise that a wide range of business and employer groups have expressed extreme concerns. This bill that the government is presently taking through the parliament seeks to implement the wish list of the big union bosses. The militant CFMMEU aggressively fought against the Registered Organisations Commission because its abolition would effectively shield unions such as the CFMMEU from scrutiny, and the government has legislated in accordance with the wishes of the CFMMEU. The CFMMEU also campaigned for years on the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission because the commission prosecuted and pursued the union for its lawless conduct. Again, this government has acted in accordance with the wishes of the CFMMEU. We've long seen a campaign from the ACTU on multi-employer bargaining because the union movement is seeking to expand its power to expand the membership of unions and to dictate to businesses, including small businesses, the way they should conduct their affairs. The bill the government is pursuing gives effect to the ACTU's objectives. The multi-employer bargaining provisions amount to an intent by the union movement to kill off enterprise bargaining and replace it with a new centralised wage-fixing system and a new umpire. The opposition have made it clear that we are opposed to the compulsion inherent in the legislation and the single-interest employer authorisation provisions. There are a number of questions that the opposition wishes to ask. I note that the minister for workplace relations is not in the chamber, but there are questions that the opposition would wish to ask, and I trust that the minister at the table will be able to answer on behalf of the government. Can the minister inform the parliament how many small businesses and how many small-business representative bodies have informed him and informed the government that they are in support of this government's extreme changes to industrial relations? Can the minister inform the parliament specifically how many employers stakeholder groups have voiced their support for the provisions related to multi-employer bargaining? We've heard extensive claims from the minister in relation to the likely impacts of this bill in relation to wages. Can the minister inform the parliament by precisely how much wages will rise as a consequence of this legislation? What is the basis for the estimate that is provided, and in particular, has economic modelling been done by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations or by the Treasury or by consultancies engaged by those organisations in relation to expected wage rises? Over what time period will those wage rises occur? What consideration has the government given to the risk of a wage-price spiral and an entrenchment of inflation across the economy burdening on the already sobering developments we are seeing in relation to inflation in Australia? I further ask: can the minister advise whether any modelling was done by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations or Treasury as to likely productivity gains as a result of this bill? In any of the modelling that has been done, what consideration was given to the extra time, cost and resources required to be allocated by a wide range of small businesses who now face the prospect of being dragged into multi-employer bargaining processes against their will and consent? What additional costs will that impose on small businesses? The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T As there is no government member seeking the call, I'll alternate and give the call to the member for Curtin. 12:19 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Thank you, very much. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Employment and Workplace Relations. I'd like to focus my comments and questions on changes to the funding of the Fair Work Commission. The secure jobs, better pay bill, which is likely to pass through parliament in the next week, will make significant changes to the workload of the Fair Work Commission. Some of this likely change is recognised with increased funding, but some is not recognised, and I, as well as constituents and others, am concerned that the Fair Work Commission may become a bottleneck preventing wages from increasing. Firstly, I want to clarify whether a function of the Fair Work Commission has new funding or not. I acknowledge that the functions of the Registered Organisations Commission are transferred to the Fair Work Commission, with a $7.7 million defunding from the Fair Work Ombudsman and Registered Organisations Commission entity and corresponding additional funding to the Fair Work Commission. This seems inconsistent with the text below in the bill, which says that— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:20 to 12:29 Ms CHANEY 300006 Thirdly, and more broadly, if the IR bill passes in its current form, or close to it, the Fair Work Commission is about to significantly increase its responsibilities and powers beyond the areas already discussed for which additional funding has been allocated. Many of these changes require or increase the likelihood of the intervention of the Fair Work Commission in agreements and industrial disputes. This includes intervening when employees and businesses can't agree on flexible working arrangements; resolving intractable bargaining disputes through arbitration where there's no reasonable prospect of an agreement being reached; determining whether to authorise workers with a common interest to bargain together—this will be complex and will require an in-depth understanding of different types of businesses to determine whether there's a genuine common interest—dealing with the growth in sector-wide industrial disputes under multi-employer bargaining; and arbitrating multi-employer bargaining across a large number of businesses. I note the total agency resourcing for 2022-23 has increased by 12 per cent to $95 million, compared to $85 million in 2021-22. The Fair Work Ombudsman will also need to undertake the current workload of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. While it's acknowledged that there is a reduction in the scope being transferred to the Fair Work Ombudsman, there's still a significant additional workload if it takes on some of the case load. Can the minister please inform House whether he believes that these additional functions can be done within the funding already allocated, and, if so, what assumptions will be used to estimate the additional workload for each body? My concern is that an additional unfunded workload for the Fair Work Commission will make the Fair Work Commission a bottleneck, contrary to the government's intention to increase wages in a rapid fashion. 12:31 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Let's not mince our words. Labor's industrial relations bill is a disgracefully bad bill. It's the enemy of small and family businesses across this country. On full display from this government is incompetence and money for its masters at the highest level and a badly constructed legislation that, so far, has been amended 150 times by its own creators, contains errors, and has union bosses licking their lips. The bill clearly delivers one thing: it pays back, in full, with interest, the $100 million in donations that unions have given Labor since 2007. Nine years in opposition for those opposite was a long time to amass such a large debt to the union bosses. They've had to wait until now to get their money back, and, with it, lipsmacking interest in the form of union membership fees and, ultimately, more power—power to remove employers rights to put deals to a vote by their employees, power to veto employers multi-employer deals, and power to force employers to get written approval from each relevant union before a vote can take place in their own business. In their own business! Legislating for unions to have the right of veto to stop employees from voting on an agreement is outrageous. It unfairly hands unions a completely unacceptable level of control. This bill is totally unacceptable to every small business in this country with more than 14 staff—or even 20 staff, as it may end up—be they part time, casual or full time. The tidal wave of the Labor wreckage is coming. I ask: how can those opposite sleep at night with the knowledge that this bill risks the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of families across Australia with long-lasting, damaging impacts on our economy? This bill will see small businesses forced into the same agreements as much larger employers, which is totally unfair. Small businesses will have to pay $14,600, including the consultancy fees, just to sit at the bargaining table. Now we know that Labor's error in the regulatory impact statement pushes up costs further for medium businesses, from $75,000 to $80,000. We saw the National Farmers Federation warn that these changes will lead to increased industrial action in the agricultural sector, which could cripple supply chains and lead to food shortages. Many small businesses already pay their staff above award rates— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:34 to 12:47 Ms BELL 282981 I was saying, many small businesses already pay their teams above award rates to keep their business going. They pay themselves less due to the extra hours they have to put in and increasing costs that are squeezing their margins. Under these laws, the daily break-even will increase substantially for small business to the point of unsustainability. Close the doors and walk out—that's what we're talking about here. As a Liberal, I believe in rewarding hard work with lower taxes and incentives for entrepreneurs. But Labor wants to break the small business model. They want to crush aspirations and dreams, and this bill delivers power to the unions to run amok inside those dreams. That's not a dream; that's a Labor nightmare, a nightmare akin to the seventies and eighties industrial strikes. And decisions will be made by the unions—not by directors and CEOs. Operation managers and general managers might as well hang up their boots once fair work becomes the umpire for decision-making in small and family business. I ask those opposite: does the availability of a worker miraculously create a job? I would argue that it's the entrepreneur's business that creates that job. A division having been call ed in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12 : 48 to 12 : 58 Ms BELL 282981 It's the entrepreneur's business that creates the pay packet, the taxes, the GST, the superannuation, the opportunity to work and the job security. As I've outlined, businesses simply cannot afford to pay for higher electricity bills, higher interest rates, higher inflation and increased wages under this government, a government that is making, simply, a bad situation worse. So I ask the minister to outline: how many and which small businesses were directly consulted in planning this wrecking ball through small and medium enterprises? What I do know is that the coalition will always stand up for small and medium enterprises. We will continue to fight against these proposed changes now before the Senate. We all want to see higher wages for Australians, but this bill is bad for the economy, it's bad for business, it's bad for employers and ultimately it's bad for Australians across our country. Remember, to those opposite, it is not the worker that creates the job; it's the small or medium enterprise that creates the job to deliver security in that job, in their work, for their families and for their communities. Small and family businesses are the fabric of our community on the Gold Coast, and so we oppose this bill in its entirety. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the member for Moncrieff for her perseverance! The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio be agreed to. Question agreed to. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 98 ADJOURNMENT Medicare 99 13:03 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to speak with respect to local health service concerns being felt throughout the Mayo community, and at the top of the list is access to a GP. Critical GP shortages and the failure of the Medicare rebate to keep up with the costs of providing services are raised with me constantly. Regional communities are already experiencing GP closures and reduced services, and those GPs who remain have all but ceased bulk-billing, even for their most vulnerable patients. My team spoke with a constituent who lives with rheumatoid arthritis. She says that she goes back to her doctor every five days to get a new prescription for pain medication, costing her more than $60 per visit just to get a repeat prescription. This is causing significant financial distress to her. People with ongoing health concerns and those on pensions are being forced to choose which condition they can afford to get treated and whether to visit their GP for the medication they need or to pay their bills. I've met with the Minister for Health and Aged Care and request that the minister take urgent action to address this issue. In particular, I urge the government, once the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce delivers its recommendations in a few weeks, to work with the sector to better encourage and enable GPs to bulk-bill. There are no quick fixes; we all know that. But increased Medicare rebates and indexing GP items using appropriate pricing processes would help, and we need to act quickly. My community—in fact, the entire community of South Australia—is also in desperate need of the Flinders Medical Centre Kidney Health Registry. This should be national, to assist with monitoring the quality of care and development of better healthcare policies for those with kidney disease. Most importantly, the registry would be patient focused, enabling patients and their families to share their experiences, not just purely to record clinical data. Recently, the member for Boothby and I met with the minister for health and the team at the kidney registry to talk about this very exciting proposal. I hope that the government will support this. My electorate of Mayo has the oldest demographic— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 13 : 06 to 13 : 15 Ms SHARKIE 265980 My electorate of Mayo has the oldest demographic of any federal electorate in South Australia and is among the top 10 oldest in the nation. So imagine my surprise when I became aware that there were going to be eight aged-care service offices for Services Australia deployed across South Australia, none was going to be deployed in Mayo—even in Victor Harbour, which has a median age of over 60 years. I was deeply concerned about this, and went and met with the Minister for Government Services and said, 'Look, we really need one of these offices in South Australia in my electorate of Mayo.' I'm very thankful that the minister listened and heard my pleas, and an officer will be deployed to the Victor Harbour region around January this year. My understanding is that they're undertaking the recruitment now. It is going to be a real game changer for the people of Victor Harbour, Goolwa and right across our south coast to have an aged-care services officer to support communities sitting within Services Australia. I say that because many older Australians find entering Centrelink, and trying to deal with Centrelink and My Aged Care, incredibly complex, particularly if they do not have computer skills. Many older Australians managed to go through their whole career without needing to turn on a computer. This assumption that we would have for that generation to equip themselves and have those skills now is, I think, incredibly unrealistic. I'm very pleased that the minister listened to me and heard the pleas of my community, and that the implementation of that aged-care services officer will be with us in Mayo in the new year. There is so much to talk about when it comes to health. One thing I will say, and I've known this since the day I was elected, is that health is the most important issue in my community and the most important policy area. I look forward to continuing to work with government and to also talk fearlessly in the parliament about the great needs that we have in Mayo to ensure that we have a healthy and vibrant community. Robertson Electorate: Charitable Organisations 99 13:18 Dr REID 300126 Robertson There are many amazing community leaders and stories in my electorate of Robertson that I have become aware of as I continue to meet and talk with my constituents in the community. Over Saturday 19 November, across Australia, McDonald's restaurants hosted their annual McHappy Day, which is a day committed to raising awareness and funds for its charitable arm, Ronald McDonald House. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 13 : 18 to 13 : 29 Dr REID 300126 I had the pleasure of being invited to help on McHappy Day at Woy Woy McDonald's. Here I met with the Central Coast McDonald's franchisee, Mr Ron Mussalli, and the superhardworking zone manager, Cassandra Webber. Ron and Cassie took me through the excellent work Ronald McDonald House Charities undertake and the impact this has, assisting families with sick children across the nation. They also provided me with an insightful tour of the McDonald's restaurant at Woy Woy and showed me the behind-the-scenes equipment and technology customers are often not aware of that ensure orders are completed in a timely manner. Following this, I got straight into helping raise funds for McHappy Day, helping collect spare coins as customers arrived at the restaurant. I even helped on the drive-through, helping organise orders and handing them to customers. I can confirm that I got every order correct and did not miss a nugget. The entire hour that I was there was a thrill, and I know that McDonald's restaurants across the Central Coast and across Australia raised a great deal of money for Ronald McDonald House Charities. I thank Ron, Cassie and all their employees who helped to ensure a successful fundraising effort on McHappy day in 2022. During the day on Friday 18 November I received a message about a fundraising campaign organised by the Terrigal Trojans rugby team. They were undertaking a massive 24-hour rowing fundraising event. I came down and saw the campaign in full swing at Impact Gym in Erina. I've been told that, at the completion of the 24-hour period, the campaign had managed to raise a phenomenal $9,480 and had rowed a massive 411 kilometres collectively, an unreal achievement for the Terrigal Trojans, and one that the whole community on the Central Coast can be very proud of. This is the second year the Terrigal Trojans have completed a Trojan row, and I wish to thank all the players who were involved in this year's campaign, as well as staff, coaches and supporting businesses, on a successful fundraising event. Some of these members include the team at Kadyn Drainage; the Traden team, Craig McWilliam, Karen Stanton, Daniel Stephenson, Adam McCormick, Anthony Watmough, Darren Higgins, Brett Stewart, Brent Kite and Shaun Timmins; Glenn Stewart and his team at Oaks Services Group; Jamie Crookes and everyone at Richard Crookes Construction; Wayne Pearce and his business, Wayne Pearce Advantage; Mick, Belinda and the team at Impact Gym; Luke and Rowan Tucker at Tuxco; Jason Stenning, Melanie Stenning, Jon Fleming and everyone at Industree Group; Alan and Lorraine Gaffney from Terrigal Benevolent Committee; John Stevens and the Stevens Group; Simon Denmeade and the team at ConnectSydney; Peter Cox at Leadership Dynamics; and Adam Rose and his family, Michelle, Jordyn and Tameka. I know that the funds that were raised by this group during this massive fundraising effort—all 411 kilometres of that fundraising effort—will be put to good use. As the federal member for Robertson, I look forward to supporting this community and really getting behind other fundraising efforts—in particular, this fundraising effort, because it does such good work through the community. The people whom I've mentioned here are a testament to the people not just on the Central Coast and not just in the electorate of Robertson but right across the country. They are a fantastic group of people and they absolutely must be supported, as must, also, fundraising and charity groups right across the electorate. In regard to the McHappy Day fundraising event, Ronald McDonald House does such great work for sick children across the country. As an emergency doctor working in our public health system, particularly when I undertook a paediatric rotation, I could see the tangible results and what Ronald McDonald House does for communities and for sick children. They really do fantastic work, in particular in the medical oncology space, in assisting families and sick children who are undergoing treatment for cancer in the community. With that, I want to thank the team at Woy Woy McDonald's for McHappy Day. I'd also like to thank the team at Terrigal Trojans for their fundraising efforts in the last month. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the member for Robertson for his forbearance. Hunter Electorate: Health Care 100 13:34 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter There is no greater priority for a government of any jurisdiction, state or federal, than health. At least that's what I believe, and that's what the Labor Party at the federal level and the Labor Party in New South Wales believe. But the New South Wales government clearly have other priorities, mostly self-serving, because the public hospitals in Singleton and Muswellbrook are in extremely poor condition. They are poorly maintained and extremely understaffed, and they have been neglected by a government that is out of touch. The quality of a state and its government is defined by its health system, but, if the state-run health system in my electorate of Hunter is anything to go by, the New South Wales state government, put kindly, is incompetent and, put simply, is a failure. The New South Wales government have failed my electorate of Hunter and the people in it at the time of greatest need. They should be able to rely on their local hospitals to give them the care they need. I'm standing next to a doctor right now who has been part of this and understands what the state government has done to doctors in our area. I take my hat off to you for what you've done in the past. Thank you. The National Party of New South Wales have no right to use the slogan 'For the regions', when they have failed on what should be the single most important priority, which is health. When you fail on providing health care, you fail the people you claim to represent. We've heard the horror stories of those trying to access basic health care in countries abroad, like America, and, for most of us, this as a reminder of how lucky we are to have such high standards of health care in Australia that is accessible to all. The exception is those opposite, who believe the system in the US is better. But we have no right to boast about our health system here in Australia when people in regional areas are experiencing similar horror stories to those in the US. Maybe that's because there are some in the party opposite at both federal level and state level who fundamentally believe that a person's access to health care and the standard of care they receive should depend on the amount of money they have in the bank. There are some people with a warped philosophy who actually believe that the more money you earn the better health care you should be able to access. I know one thing: I wouldn't rely on these people to shout you a beer at the pub and I certainly wouldn't rely on them to run our precious health system in New South Wales. The New South Wales government should hang its head in shame knowing that, because of them, parts of our country, which prides itself on our health system, are without a reason to be proud. Areas like Singleton and Muswellbrook have no such world-class health care accessible to them. It just doesn't cut it with me. I'm from the party that is built on the concept of being equal and having equal opportunities. The people in my electorate just want a fair go. The New South Wales Minister for Health and the state member for Upper Hunter must find some sort of morality in their pork-barrelling books and look after people who desperately need their hospitals to be properly funded, resourced, staffed and maintained. Regardless of where you live, , when you go to a local hospital in your time of greatest need, the hospital should be equipped to provide you with the care you need. Unfortunately, this is not the reality, and the state government and state members should be deeply, deeply ashamed. People in Singleton and Muswellbrook are almost better off going to Bunnings and buying their own first-aid kits than relying on their local hospitals. This is by no means a reflection on the staff of these hospitals. They all do incredible work and I thank every single one of them for the work that they do. They're amazing people working in the public health system in Hunter, but this is a reflection on the state government whose neglect is at such a level that it actually puts my constituents' health at risk. I was lucky enough—or unfortunate enough—to go and have a look at the Singleton hospital. I was taken through there by the manager. It is, honestly, in dire need of an upgrade. Parts have been upgraded. Then there are parts of it that you wouldn't even put your dog in but, unfortunately, they're putting people in them who need to go there to get better. We need better standards than this in the New South Wales government— (Time expired) Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:39 Pursuant to the determination of the Deputy Speaker, the Federation Chamber met again at 15:30. BILLS 101 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 101

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023

Consideration in Detail 101 15:30 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam The budget at large had a number of objectives. First was to have an open and honest conversation with the Australian people about the state of public finances. We've inherited a trillion dollars worth of debt. The interest payments on that debt alone are one of the fastest growing areas of public expenditure, so it behoves us all to ensure that we are doing everything in our power to bring down the deficit and to ensure that we aren't adding to the already-huge budget deficit and debt deficit. Second was to ensure that we set in train the process for implementing our election commitments, whether it's providing more affordable child care, resolving the mess in aged care or implementing our commitment to an independent commission against corruption, and that we had budget line items available for this. In fact, right across all of our portfolio areas, it's ensuring that we were able to provision for those commitments. In addition to that, it's ensuring that we could go through the budget line by line and remove wasteful or inefficient spending, and we've done that. Indeed, $22 billion worth of wasteful or unproductive spending was either returned to the budget bottom line or redirected to more productive and economic ends. One of the things that we did find as we went through the line by line analysis—and this goes directly to some of the claims that have been made by the shadow Treasurer—was enormous black holes within the budget in just about every portfolio agency. Whether that was due to negligence, incompetence or dishonesty, portfolio by portfolio by portfolio, programs that are ongoing programs in any common sense of the word were unfunded. They were funded to the end of the calendar year, to the end of the financial year or, perhaps, to the end of the financial year after, but they were not properly provisioned for. Whether it was in the health portfolio, my own Treasury portfolio or in the Finance portfolio, right across the board, absolutely essential items of government expenditure were not provisioned for. So 85 per cent of the net spending due to government decisions in the October budget was due to dealing with those sorts of legacy issues and other unavoidable spending. Indeed, of the $9.8 billion in net spending, $8.3 billion of this was due to legacy issues that needed to be resolved or unavoidable spending. What are some examples of that? Well, there was $4.2 billion in unavoidable spending, including $2.6 billion in COVID related spends and nearly $1.4 billion in Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listings. When members opposite get up and criticise those necessary increases in spending, I'd like them to itemise which of those they want removed from the budget. Which drugs? Which Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listings do they want removed? Or is it food for aged-care centres that they want removed? Is it more spending for aged-care workers that they want removed? Is it the increase in the pension or the increase in support for persons on unemployment benefits, which are indexed to various inflation and wage cost indexes? The majority of the increase in spending in the budget from what was published in May this year is due to these sorts of factors. So, as those opposite, with their bellicose howls, start to raise issues about the necessary spending that we've had to inherit, they might like to itemise which of the items across any portfolio, including the Finance portfolio, they would have us remove from the budget. Indeed, they might like to itemise which of these items, if they're successful in the next election, they'll remove. I'd like to know which drugs they want delisted. I'd like to know how much money they want to remove from the aged-care system and what the impact of that's going to be on food quality and aged-care standards in the aged-care system. Perhaps it's the Infrastructure portfolio they want to remove spending from—I don't know— Opposition members interjecting— Mr JONES A9B but they seem to be making a lot of noise with a lot of the answers. These are difficult times, but it starts with the adults in the room having an honest conversation about the state of the budget. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Consideration in Detail 102 15:36 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton This is a landmark budget for Indigenous Australians. At the election, we said we would renew Australia's commitment to reconciliation and work in genuine partnership with First Nations for better practical outcomes. This budget honours those commitments. We are working to implement the Uluru statement in full. We will ask all Australians to support the recognition for our First Peoples in our Constitution by enshrining in the Constitution a voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The referendum will be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create practical, lasting change that improves lives and builds a better future for all Australians. Importantly, it will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a say on matters that affect them. We have committed $50.2 million to the AEC to prepare for this referendum. We are also investing $5.8 million to commence work on establishing an independent makarrata commission as part of the government's $27.7 million election commitment. Quality of life for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can and should be better. That's why closing the gap is a top priority for the Albanese government. We are investing more than $300 million to improve access to culturally safe and responsible health services, including in the electorate of the member opposite. This response is a fundamental change to the delivery of First Nations health. It will grow the Aboriginal community controlled health services sector in urban, regional, rural and remote communities of Australia. We will build a dedicated birthing on country centre of excellence at Waminda in Nowra in New South Wales, and we will boost the First Nations health workforce by training 500 health workers. This training will be designed and implemented in genuine partnership with First Nations people. Solid foundations are vital. That's why we are investing more than $164.3 million in 17 critical First Nations health infrastructure projects across the country. The projects will provide modern, high-quality health clinics in areas of large and growing First Nations populations. They will also build capacity to target chronic disease treatment and rehabilitation. We know that getting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children into early education will benefit them for the rest of their lives. As part of the government's plan for cheaper child care, all Indigenous children will be able to access 36 hours of subsidised child care a fortnight from July 2023. This is a practical measure directed at closing the gap in an area where we are going backwards. It will make a difference to Indigenous children across the country. More than 30 years after the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, rates of incarceration are a national shame. The Albanese Labor government's First Nations Justice package will see a record $99 million invested in this issue. This includes $81.5 million to establish up to 30 community led justice reinvestment initiatives across Australia and an independent national justice reinvestment unit. This is the largest funding package in justice reinvestment ever committed by the Commonwealth. These are only a few of the measures we are funding to deliver a better future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. In other portfolios, like the environment portfolio, we're investing in Aboriginal rangers and Aboriginal protected areas, as an example. I am very proud of this commitment, all based on the notion of self-determination. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole and agreed to. Bill agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 103

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

Second Reading 103 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 103

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

Second Reading 103