2023-02-07 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 7 February 2023

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

BILLS 1 BILLS Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022, Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022 1

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022

Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022

Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022

Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: (1) the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, the Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 and the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, and (2) the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 and the Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 12:02 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I'll be brief in my comments here, to try to make sure that those who have different views on this motion have a chance to speak, given the time-limited nature of the debate. I move the motion in the terms in which it appears on the Notice Paper: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following proceedings at the conclusion of the Matter of Public Importance today: (1) a Minister presenting documents pursuant to the Migration Act 1958, then immediately moving a motion in relation to the instrument of designation of the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country; (a) including the Minister's speech, debate continuing for no longer than one hour, at which time any questions necessary to complete consideration of the matter being put without delay; and (b) if required by a Minister before the expiration of time allocated, debate on any question provided for under paragraph (1)(a) being extended for a further period specified by the Minister, (2) immediately following proceedings on the instrument of designation, the private Members' business notice relating to the disallowance of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (Annual Members' Meetings Notices) Regulations 2022, made under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 on 1 September 2022 and presented to the House on 5 September 2022, standing in the name of the Member for Fadden, being called on; (a) including the mover's speech, debate continuing for no longer than one hour, at which time any questions necessary to complete consideration of the matter being put without delay; and (b) if required by a Minister before the expiration of time allocated, debate on any question provided for under paragraph (2)(a) being extended for a further period specified by the Minister; and (3) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. We have two time-sensitive issues that we have to deal with, and so, rather than do it through separate motions on the Notice Paper, I've dealt with both together. The two time-sensitive issues that we have to deal with are a disallowance relating to superannuation and a Nauru instrument that people would be aware has appeared on the Notice Paper today from the Minister for Home Affairs. The reason for the time-limited debate on both is that I'm trying to make sure, given the need for issues to be resolved today, that we're able to do so well within the time before 6.30 pm, after which we have no further divisions, to make sure that these issues don't kick over beyond today. Provision has been made, depending on how quickly we get through the MPI, that, where there is flexibility for the minister to allow a further extension of time, that would be possible. But both issues are time-sensitive, and, if we have a long debate—and, I appreciate, given the nature of the issues, many members would like to be able to speak on them—there will be real-life consequences if we're not able to deal with these issues today. I commend the motion to the House. 12:04 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move, as an amendment to the motion moved by the minister: (1) Omit subparagraphs (2)(a) and (b); (2) Omit paragraph (3); and (3) Insert new subparagraph (2)(a) as follows: "that the question on the disallowance motion not be put until such time as every Member wishing to speak on the question has spoken as provided for by the standing orders". In speaking to the motion that the Leader of the House has just moved and to my amendments, can I start by issuing the normal public safety warning that I issue in these debates, which is that, whenever the Leader of the House comes into this place and adopts his most reasonable tone, those who are minded to be sceptical ought to be put on notice. In the words of that great American president, trust but verify. That's a very good principle in international relations. It's also a very good principle when dealing with the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House sought to give the impression to the House that there were two matters of urgency that had equal weight when it came to their importance and that it was urgent that the two matters be dealt with quickly. Therefore, in a wholly reasonable way, he was putting forward this motion that would allow the House to deal with its urgent business. Let me start by saying that the opposition certainly accepts the proposition that there is absolutely a degree of urgency in relation to the question of the designation of the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing centre. Let's be clear about why there is urgency. It is because this government has absolutely and hopelessly dropped the ball on a matter which is of considerable importance to our national security. The relevant opposition spokespeople, including the shadow minister for home affairs, will address this when the matter comes to be dealt with substantively, but I make the point that the opposition accepts that there is a need to deal with this urgently. It's highly regrettable that the government has managed this so poorly as to create this urgency, but as the shadow minister for home affairs will explain, we accept that this matter needs to be dealt with urgently. Let me turn to the second matter, which the Leader of the House has sought to bundle with the first matter, trying to adopt, perhaps, some of the approaches we see, for example, in the US Senate or House of Representatives, where completely unrelated matters are bundled up in an attempt to achieve political objectives. Very clearly, the government has an absolutely explicit political objective here, which is that it wants to have as little discussion as possible about the fact that it is trying to kill off transparency and scrutiny of the way that superannuation funds deal with their members' money. The shadow Assistant Treasurer removed a disallowance motion some time ago in relation to regulations that had been made by the government the effect of which would be to relieve superannuation funds of an obligation they had under the law as it stood under the previous government under provisions that we introduced and were proud to introduce because of the important policy objective to which they gave effect. That objective is that members of superannuation funds and the broader community are entitled to know if superannuation funds are making political donations and making donations to unions. Regrettably, this is an activity which many industry funds engage in very enthusiastically. The money trail, the paper trail, has been well documented. Of course, the Albanese Labor government is very keen to avoid scrutiny of what is an extremely touchy issue for it. The simple fact is that superannuation funds are set up for a specific purpose, which is to manage the money of their members, money which, it must be remembered, members are required by force of law to provide to a superannuation fund. The job of trustees is to manage that money to provide for the retirement incomes of those members. It is not to take a portion of that money and to donate it for political reasons to a union or to the Labor Party or to engage in other kinds of exotic activities. That is the reason the previous government put in place disclosure obligations and requirements in relation to superannuation funds, including industry superannuation funds. Disclosure—transparency—is something we are told repeatedly that this government is very committed to. When it comes to superannuation funds, when it comes to anything to do with industrial arrangements, they are very keen to avoid transparency and scrutiny. So they don't like this disallowance motion that was moved by the shadow Assistant Treasurer. We've seen a series of efforts by the Assistant Treasurer—himself a former union secretary, something that could be put into the biographies of half the people on the other side of the House—who is jumping to the tune of his union masters and very keen to avoid scrutiny. He gave a series of increasingly threadbare and ludicrous reasons as to why he feels that this scrutiny isn't necessary. Well, on this side of the House, we're not having it. Nor are we having this attempt by the Leader of the House to suggest that this is an issue of public policy importance that must be dealt with urgently in the same way as correcting the mess they've made in relation to the national security issues in relation to Nauru. What the Leader of the House has sought to do with the motion that is on the Notice Paper is to provide that there should be a time-limited debate on the disallowance of these regulations made by the Assistant Treasurer that would have the impact of protecting superannuation funds and trustees from the highly desirable scrutiny, visibility and transparency required under the laws as passed by the previous government. This government has very little desire for this matter to be ventilated. They don't want the sunlight here at all. They want this all done in darkened backrooms. They want to get rid of a law that they see as inconvenient and that reveals truths they don't want to have revealed. And they're using every possible parliamentary tactic to seek to achieve that aim, including the Leader of the House's 'oh so reasonable' suggestion that this is a matter of urgency that needs to be dealt with quickly and that he's attempting to be facilitative et cetera. Let's be clear: this is nothing more than an attempt to cover up a special deal the Labor government is seeking to do for its union masters. The appropriate role of the parliament is precisely to subject these kinds of deals to appropriate and proper scrutiny and transparency, and that is the effect of the amendment the opposition has moved. We have no objection to having this debate. We're delighted to have this debate. We simply say, let this debate occur according to the normal rules, the normal standing orders of this place, and any member who wishes to contribute on this matter ought to have the opportunity to contribute at length. There are a lot of facts that need to be shared about the extent to which union-appointed trustees of superannuation funds are engaging in consistent efforts to divert the money that rightfully belongs to members, that rightfully is there to provide for their retirement. But we see, regrettably, this pattern of particularly union-appointed trustees of superannuation funds enthusiastically wanting to divert that money for a range of political purposes. It is a very serious issue. It is something that, on this side of the House, we have consistently objected to, and it needs the full sunlight of transparency. That is what, in a grubby fashion, this government is trying to avoid. The amendment we are proposing would allow the full sunlight of transparency—a debate on this matter that is not constrained by an artificial time limit. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the amendment seconded? 12:14 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I rise to second the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business regarding the suspension of standing orders that the government has moved. This amendment is very important to debate, as the Manager of Opposition Business has said. I acknowledge the number of crossbenchers who are here for this debate. This is a really important discussion that we're having this morning, so I acknowledge and thank you for contributing to this debate. What we have going on here is very clear. As the Manager of Opposition Business just said, there are two things happening this morning. One is government incompetence with the situation in Nauru. We acknowledge their incompetence and will help rush that through today. The other one, as the Manager of Opposition Business just said, is that, again, we have a lack of transparency happening here. As the Manager of Opposition Business just said regarding what the changes to the superannuation funds will do, super fund members will no longer be able to see how their funds are spent, in the sense of political donations or other transactions that are suddenly there. Why are they doing this? This is their behaviour, and it's starting to be a trend that I'm noticing and I know a lot of people are noticing. It's sneaky behaviour. It was never mentioned during the campaign that they were going to do this. These types of policies were never mentioned. I'll tell you some other sneaky things that this government have done. And this is obviously about unions. This is about the unions in control of the industry super funds. This is one of the sneakiest things this government did: they have passed extreme industrial relations laws that were never mentioned during the campaign. Could you imagine the outcry of all of the left-wing political commentators in this country if we, as the previous government, had won the election and then brought through legislation that we didn't mention during the campaign? Let's repeat that: would the left-wing media in this country, of which there are many, have accepted us as a government passing legislation that was quite extreme that we'd never mentioned during the campaign? Because that's what the government have done. They never mentioned the multilevel bargaining processes that they passed through parliament. They never mentioned that during the campaign. It takes us back to Whitlam-type industrial laws. It takes away some of the reforms that the Hawke-Keating government did with enterprise bargaining. So that, again, is a very sneaky thing that this government has done. Now, the crossbenchers will be aware of this—one of the other very sneaky things that this government did. We were rushed back, as you know. We all came back to parliament. We spent a day here late last year when the government put their gas and coal price cap legislation through parliament. Were you told? Were you, crossbenchers, told that there would be up to $1 billion in compensation paid to coal-fired power stations? Because parliament wasn't. The Prime Minister said there was nothing to see there. Anastasia Palaszczuk, the Queensland Premier, contradicted the Prime Minister in public comments about what would happen there as well. Dominic Perrottet, the New South Wales Premier, said, 'No, that was all part of our negotiations.' It was never mentioned that day. Nothing to see here! Again, it is sneaky behaviour. Even the ISIS bride issue—was that mentioned during the campaign? Was it mentioned that they were going to change the policy and bring these families back? It was all very secretive that they had done that. It was an alleged leak from the department while we knew that was happening. Then families were placed in communities—all very secretive. Again, it was a sneaky type of behaviour. It's even getting down to just language, which is just misleading—again, sneaky. The prime minister went to Woodford; he wanted to do a sort of Bob Hawke re-enactment up there at the music festival. There he said that we, as the previous government, 'chose to stop speaking to China'. That is just misleading language. I, as the shadow trade and tourism minister, have quite a bit to do with the trade minister, Don Farrell, who I think is doing some very good things, and I'm happy to acknowledge that. I'm happy to acknowledge some of the things that the minister has done in that space. When we see the government do things that we think are good for our country or good for our people, I think we as an opposition do and should compliment that. But how could the Prime Minister speak to an audience like that and say that we chose not to? It's exceptionally well-documented that China put 14 conditions on us that we would have to adhere to for us to start dialogue. We never wanted to stop speaking to them. The Chinese government chose to not speak to us. So, again, it was sneaky behaviour. What the government is doing today is sneaky. This is about lack of transparency, and I appreciate the crossbench contribution to this. 12:19 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein With respect to the Leader of the House and his most reasonable voice, I will use my most reasonable voice to say that this is unreasonable. This crossbench, as I recall, voted in favour of changes to procedures to allow time limited and urgent debate when that was required. This is something that has been sprung on the parliament today. I fail to understand how there could not have been advance warning so that members could rightly look at what we are actually analysing and voting on. Together with that, pieces of legislative amendment have been bundled, to the extent that we have an issue around offshore detention in Nauru and an issue around complex superannuation changes being put together, and we're expected to navigate that in order to debate it in a time managed way this afternoon. This is not due process. This is not the way this parliament should operate. The Nauru issue, to my mind, is controversial given, much as the government might think it's standard, how much we spend on offshore detention, and I think that our communities would expect that we would give it due consideration. We haven't been given the time to do that, therefore I will be voting against this. 12:21 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I add my voice to those on this side to say that I'll also be voting against this motion today, and I want to record that, once again, we're being asked by the Labor government to limit debate in this place. In fact, we've been asked twice in the same day. Limiting debate on such important issues—particularly as sensitive an issue as offshore detention—to just one hour is absolutely unacceptable. There's no way that issues of this gravity can be debated in such a short period of time. Indeed, in this family friendly new parliament that we have, I don't think the intention to halt debates till 6.30 pm is about pulling the doona up over proper debate on such important issues. I note also the exquisite irony that we're being asked to limit debate today on something as sensitive as offshore detention when Behrouz Boochani has, historically, just been in this Parliament House speaking to us about offshore detention. I find this an excruciating and exquisite irony, actually. The other thing that I would say is that I found giving us notice last night that this motion would be brought forward, after what was a pretty quiet sitting day yesterday, rather disturbing, I have to admit, and I think the process is really, really poor. Now, I was in the last parliament and I heard my colleagues who are now in government but were then in opposition make considerable noise about gagging debate, and I'm very disappointed, to be truthful, that we're in this position again today. I spoke in this House when the motion was put by the Leader of the House to change standing orders around urgent matters and I asked the question then: what would be considered urgent? To my knowledge, from what I've gleaned in the very short period I've had time to consider it, this issue of the Republic of Nauru has been known about for some months and, indeed, expired in October, so, having found this out last night and been asked to ram this through today with limited debate, I will be voting against this motion. 12:23 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I rise to also oppose this motion. I'm really proud to stand with my crossbench colleagues on this matter today because it's something which matters to all of us. On 21 May 2022 the Australian people told us that they wanted a government of transparency and integrity. Giving people bills with less than 24 hours notice—bills that matter, about important things like offshore detention—is not governing with transparency and integrity, especially when we now find out that this is a matter that the current government has been aware of for some months. Their protests of urgency don't add up. We, our constituents and those 65 individuals on Nauru deserve an opportunity for us to discuss this important matter at length. Bundling up this bill on Nauru with a bill on superannuation, which also has implications with respect to transparency, is egregious and perverse. I don't think I could find any way that I could support this motion, and I suspect that many of my colleagues feel the same way. 12:25 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I will be supporting the amendment and voting against the debate management as well. It is clear that neither of these matters is actually urgent, and putting these two issues together, I think, goes against the good faith that the crossbench has engaged in in accepting the debate management approach. The first issue on Nauru is possibly a bureaucratic oversight. It may be symbolic, and it is unknown whether it has any legal impact, but we've not been given enough time to actually form a decent view on those issues. Managing the debate is contrary to the spirit of transparency that the community wants, especially on issues relating to refugees. The second issue also relates to transparency. There has been a great desire from communities to have increased transparency when it comes to political donations. Limiting this goes in the face of that community expectation. My community certainly wants to know where parties' funding comes from, and that applies to superannuation funds just as it does to other donors. These are issues on which we need to be able to have an open discussion so that our communities understand why, and if, there is a good argument for putting any limits on the transparency of political donations. I side with my crossbench colleagues and the opposition here on saying this is not an appropriate use of debate management. The SPEAKER 53517 The time for this debate has concluded. The question is that the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be disagreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. Debate adjourned. BILLS 5 BILLS Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 5

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022

Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022

Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022

Second Reading 5 12:29 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra This package of bills represents the first tranche of legislative changes required to implement the coalition's 2021-22 budget measure, modernising and improving the private health insurance Prostheses List. It represents our commitment to modernising and improving the Prostheses List for the benefit of patients and Australia's world-class healthcare system. The package includes (1) the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery Bill 2022, (2) the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 and (3) the Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022. The Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery Bill amends the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to better define the products that may be eligible for inclusion on the Prostheses List. The bill renames the current Private Health Insurance (Prostheses) Rules (No. 3) 2022 to the Private Health Insurance (Medical Devices and Human Tissues Products) Rules to better reflect its purpose and the types of products that are eligible for inclusion. The bill also updates the relevant cost recovery arrangements, including providing statutory authority for the Minister for Health and Aged Care to allow for fee-for-service cost recovery consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework. The Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 amends the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Act 2009 to reflect the renamed medical devices and human tissue products rule. The Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 amends the Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Act 2009 to rename the act and update the cost recovery arrangements. This bill provides for the imposition of a cost recovery levy on each kind of medical device and human tissue product on the prescribed list. The amount of the levy will be set by the regulations. On the coalition's budget measures, established in 1985, the Prostheses List sets the minimum price insurers must pay hospitals for a surgically implanted prosthesis, such as a hip replacement or pacemaker, received by a private patient in a privately insured episode of hospital treatment. Since 1985, the Prostheses List has grown in both size and complexity. Under the former coalition government, in 2019-20, more than 3.1 million prostheses on the list were supplied at a cost to private health insurers of approximately $2.1 billion. The coalition supports the three bills included in this package, which progress our 2021-22 budget measure to modernise and improve the Prostheses List. As part of this measure, we budgeted $22 million over four years to reduce the cost of medical devices used in the private health sector and streamline access to new medical devices, which, in turn, would improve the affordability and value of private health insurance for Australians. We had a strong plan to lower the price of medical devices, ensuring savings flowed to consumers and improved access to new treatments and medical devices. The coalition was committed to continuing to support value, choice and high-quality services for patients and clinicians in the private healthcare sector. We were committed to continuing to make private health insurance simpler and more affordable and delivering record low premium charges for consumers. This demonstrates the coalition's strong record when it comes to strengthening private health insurance. When we left government, private health insurance membership was at record levels, with more than 14 million Australians now covered. Our reforms delivered the 2022 premium charge, which was the lowest in more than 21 years, and the eighth successive decline in premium charges since Labor's last year in government in 2013. Our government increased investment in the patient rebate for private health insurance from $5.4 billion in 2012-13 to $6.9 billion in 2022-23. We implemented new, easy-to-understand gold, silver and bronze basic classifications for private health insurance; standard clinical definitions; better access to mental health; better care in rural and regional Australia; lower prices for medical devices; and more flexibility for families and people with disabilities to receive their care. We know that the Labor government doesn't like private health insurance. But the coalition government recognised that Australia's health sector is strongest with both public and private systems working together, hand in hand, to ensure access to health care for all Australians. However, despite our support for the reform package, there are concerns with the lack of detail provided by the Albanese Labor government on certain key elements of these bills. Once again, the Labor government is refusing to be transparent with the important substantive details sitting beneath legislation that they've put forward to this parliament. There are a significant number of issues that may be subject to regulation under these bills that are yet to be resolved, including eligibility criteria, listing pathways, specifications for the calculations of cost recovery, regrouping and payments for the removal of items. The bills provide little detail about the extent or specificity of the powers to be implemented through the reforms, relegating these details to subordinate legislative instruments and mechanisms that have not been seen by stakeholders or the opposition. This government was elected on a platform of increasing transparency, yet it seems to be committed to avoiding transparency at every stage it gets to, especially by delegating the substantive details of its measures to unsighted subordinate legislation. The Albanese Labor government must stop focusing only on headline announcements and start considering the important details that are necessary for their implementation. They continue to show us that they are all talk and no delivery. We are supportive of this bill, but we're putting the government on notice that they cannot continue to expect us to pass bills in this place without seeing any of the substantive details. Modernising and improving the Prostheses List is an important reform process, and the patients who would benefit from the reforms deserve to have the details properly considered. Debate adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day. Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 6

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022

Second Reading 6 12:36 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to implement a number of measures that seek to ensure continued access to critical prescription medicines, as well as to support the safe use of therapeutic goods by strengthening the post-market monitoring and compliance of therapeutic goods. Following an investigation of medical devices that were developed in the late 1990s and later had reported widespread complications, a 2017 Senate inquiry emphasised the need for improvements in safeguarding patient safety through post-market monitoring to ensure the early detection of adverse events relating to medical devices. Recommendation 1 of the inquiry noted that adverse-event reporting plays a vital role in post-market surveillance and proposed a mandatory reporting scheme for health practitioners. As such, this bill will introduce a framework for mandatory reporting of adverse-event information by hospitals, supporting improved monitoring, earlier detection and timely action to prevent adverse events and safeguard patients from harm. It will support the safe use of therapeutic goods by strengthening post-market monitoring and compliance activities, reduce regulatory burden, and make a number of amendments to improve requirements, codify current practices and remove redundant provisions. Although the coalition supports the necessary intention of this bill to strengthen the safe use of therapeutic goods, we do have some concerns with the removal of merits review rights for decisions made by the secretary to require the provision of information and documents. We will keep a close eye on how this process rolls out, and we will hold the government to account if these new powers stray from the policy intent of this amendment. The bill will also introduce a dedicated marketing approval pathway for export-only biologicals and support activities to relieve medicine shortages by enabling the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to approve the importation or supply of overseas prescription medicines that are substitutes for medicines which have been previously approved in Australia. The coalition supports the intention of the government to ensure continued access to potentially life-saving or life-improving medicines for Australian patients, but more must be done to safeguard access to critical health care for Australian households currently facing significant cost-of-living pressures. Recent reporting has shown that the out-of-pocket costs for GP consults have risen to $60 for some families and the cost to fill a script could be $55, at the same time that energy bills and mortgage payments are skyrocketing. If the government are serious about ensuring continued access to critical medicines for all Australians, they must take action to relieve the cost-of-living pressures for Australian families, who are struggling to afford the cost of consults and scripts, so that they can continue to afford the medicines they rely on. Action to ensure continued access to critical health care must include a plan to relieve these significant cost-of-living pressures, which are only continuing to rise under the Albanese Labor government. Debate adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day. Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022 7

Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022

Second Reading 7 12:40 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa A healthy and strong agriculture sector is absolutely crucial to the health and strength of our nation. With around 70 per cent of Australia's agricultural produce exported, we need to ensure these industries are adequately supported, fit for purpose and operating as efficiently as possible. This is something that the federal coalition takes extremely seriously. In our nation, the Export Control Act provides the regulatory framework for the export of goods, including a range of agricultural commodities. The legislation before the House—the Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022—will amend this act to allow better information management, cut administrative red tape and clarify the intent of the act. The bill will allow for the introduction of both civil and criminal penalties, along with the use of infringement notices for any breaches of information sharing. Based on these sensible provisions, the federal coalition will be supporting the passage of this bill. Australia's export sector relies on the efficient collection and sharing of information, and the amendments in this bill will deliver an enhanced process for this, while also protecting data confidentiality. This is important because, currently, all information obtained or generated by people performing their duty or exercising powers under this act is classified as protected, regardless of whether or not it is commercially sensitive. This means that, when information needs to be shared, it goes through a complex approval process. The provisions in this bill aim to make this process more timely, responsive and efficient with less red tape, which is a commonsense outcome. It's so important, in a fiercely competitive international marketplace, that vital information in this sector can be appropriately shared with our regulatory partners, exporters and key stakeholders, while preserving safeguards for any information which is potentially sensitive. Examples highlighting the significance of this include the need to provide information quickly to a foreign country on an Australian consignment of grain that is awaiting quarantine clearance; providing export data to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to assist with trade negotiations; using the information to develop improved operating procedures; and harnessing relevant data to support the simplified trade system which is making exports and imports easier through a digital single window system. Significantly, there will be offence provisions introduced which would apply to any instances where protected information is disclosed in an unauthorised way. It's also worth pointing out that the information-sharing provisions contained in this bill will help bring our agricultural exports into line with the world-leading benchmarks that underpin Australia's biosecurity system. Other amendments in this legislation will streamline administrative processes in relation to variations of approved arrangements, accredited properties, registered establishments and export licences, as well as the consideration of certain information for the purposes of the fit and proper person test, along with some minor technical amendments. Overall this bill consists of practical measures that will have a positive impact on Australia's agricultural export sector. The federal coalition also notes that the National Farmers Federation has expressed its support for the bill. On this side of the House we will always back Australian agricultural exports, and, under the previous coalition government, our comprehensive plan ensured that this industry remained strong and resilient, as a crucial part of helping the agriculture sector reach $100 billion farm gate output by 2030. In government, we made it easier for business to navigate export systems to get product overseas. We're immensely proud of our track record. Some of those achievements included delivering $328.4 million in congestion-busting measures to slash red tape to get products to export markets faster and providing $85.9 million through our Agri-Business Expansion Initiative to diversify markets. In the first year, the initiative led to $418.9 million in export sales. We finalised 11 free trade agreements and lifted the share of trade covered by these agreements from 27 per cent under Labor in 2013 to almost 80 per cent, with the inclusion of the UK and India free trade agreements. We actively supported our exporters through the pandemic, through the International Freight Assistance Mechanism. This program supported more than 25,000 flights to 58 international destinations carrying 399,000 tonnes of exports worth more than $4.7 billion. This program alone saved over 150,000 jobs. We launched the Trade Information Service to provide a single source of online information on how to export, including information on regulatory and border requirements. This initiative will save export businesses some 1,370 hours, on average. We appointed a special representative for Australian agriculture, which has advanced our interests overseas. It's worth recognising that in our last budget the federal coalition also committed an additional $100 million, as part of our Regional Accelerator Program, to go towards the Export Market Development Grants program, which would have helped our small and medium-sized exporters in rural Australia promote their goods in new markets. Disgracefully, in the October 2022 budget, this Labor government decimated the Regional Accelerator Program as part of their cruel cuts to regional and rural Australia. In the interests of our export businesses in the bush, we urge this government to take action and immediately reinstate this funding for such an important initiative, which would help this sector grow into the future. To conclude, the federal coalition will always work constructively with the government and support practical measures that will help strengthen our agricultural export sector. The provisions outlined in this bill deliver on this front and, therefore, we're pleased to commend it to the House. 12:46 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I move: That the debate on this bill be adjourned. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I appreciate that the honourable member for Kennedy is seeking the call. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Procedures this morning were that we had the Leader of the House move to adjourn a number of bills to the Federation Chamber. The honourable member will absolutely have the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate, but it will be at a later stage today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I gave the call to the minister at the dispatch box. I appreciate the point that the honourable member is making. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I have made a ruling— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I've made a ruling. I've given the call to the minister, in line with the wishes of the House. The question before the House is that the debate be adjourned. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I appreciate that; take your seat. The question before the House is that the debate be adjourned. Question agreed to. Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 9

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022

Second Reading 9 12:47 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I am very pleased to get up and speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, and I will signal, at the outset, that the opposition will be supporting this bill for a number of reasons. Firstly, credit to the government. They have picked up a number of the amendments to paid parental leave that the former government announced as part of the March 2022 budget. In fact, the vast majority of these changes have been adopted from there, and credit to the government for picking up on initiatives to provide increased flexibility and more user-friendly and more fit-for-purpose paid parental leave for modern families that were announced as part of that March 2022 budget. We all know that PPL commenced in 2011. It currently consists of some constraints that this bill proposes to remove—a 12-week PPL period and six weeks of flexible PPL, and a dad and partner pay component of leave, which is a two-week period. This bill essentially increases the total number of weeks of available paid parental leave from 18 to 20 weeks and removes some of the constraints around the two-week period of dad and partner pay and the 12- and six-week PPL periods. We wholeheartedly support that because we know that mothers and fathers—parents—make household decisions around caring arrangements. We think increasing the number of weeks from 18 to 20, with the enhanced flexibility that represents, is eminently sensible. The bill will do this by combining the PPL and DAPP, forming a single 20-week payment that, as I said, can be shared between parents. We agree with the provision in the bill for two weeks to be reserved on a 'use it or lose it' basis for each claimant. I think both parents, a mother and a father, having some time with their new child is important. That increased two weeks, to some extent, encourages both parents to have a period of leave. The bill removes the notion of primary, secondary and tertiary claimants. That's really a result of removing some of the existing rigidity that exists between who takes leave, when and how, between a mother and father. The bill also expands access by introducing a $350,000 income test, which will ensure that, rather than just assessing individual income between two parents, household income is considered when determining eligibility to PPL. We also approve of the increased and expanded flexibility, including the concept of PPL days and the flexibility around when they are used over a two-year period. This allows parents to take leave in big blocks or, indeed, in a single block or in whatever way works for that particular family. That was, to some extent, at the heart of what the former government sought to do with PPL, with our announcements in the March 2022 budget, and we are pleased to see these measures as part of this bill. As I said at the outset, we'll support the bill, in stark contrast to what the former opposition did the last time there was a change in government. For those of us who have been around a bit longer, and have the battle scars to prove it, the former government was elected in 2013 with a very defined paid parental leave policy that was taken to an election. The then Labor opposition in no way respected the mandate of that particular government and sought to oppose it. That was quite a shameful thing to do. As the shadow ministry in opposition, we will not repeat that quite shameful position that the Labor opposition took. We will support these enhanced and sensible changes to paid parental leave. I note that this bill does not include the staged increase from 18 to 26 weeks; obviously, in later bills over the next few years the increase will take place bit by bit. My message to the Australian public is: the coalition was a government that really stewarded paid parental leave, which saw it become a mainstay in mainstream Australian life. Our changes complimented, in many instances, paid parental leave offered by employers working in harmony with the baseline government scheme. But, where there are enhancements and improvements that can be made, where there are ways that we can help with what is an extraordinarily joyful but difficult time in every parent's life, that should be done. Walking through that door with a new baby, regardless of your family's circumstances, is a remarkable joy, and it changes people's lives. The purpose of paid parental leave is to provide, in particular, for mothers, who bear the physical burden, in most cases—where we don't include adoption—of having a child and then the huge adjustment in looking after and caring for a baby who needs you 24/7; this is a remarkable thing. At its heart, paid parental leave should make it easier for mothers and fathers to make decisions that work for their family, that give them the opportunity to spend what is a very precious and important time with their child, unencumbered by the pressures of work, where they choose to do so. I think the changes in this bill that provide greater flexibility for families to determine how they use that 20 weeks of leave are in keeping with the changes to modern families. But this legislation also maintains what is a timeless aspect at the heart of paid parental leave, which is trying to give parents time with their child and trying to help them adjust to the remarkable differences in family life when having your first child, or your second or third or more, and the additional burdens that places on families. I will support good changes to paid parental leave. We'll have a lot more to say about these things over the next couple of years. As I said, we'll adopt a different approach in opposition than the Labor opposition did in the last government. We will support this. We won't stand in the way of paid parental leave, as the Labor opposition did after the 2013 election. We'll very happily support this, acknowledging that a huge number of the changes and a significant portion of the increased flexibility in this bill were adopted from the coalition, who announced this in March 2022. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E We brought in paid parental leave. You opposed it. Mr SUKKAR 242515 I'll take that interjection. The member opposite did not support enhanced paid parental leave after the 2013 election. There will be a number of new Labor members who we can't blame, but we can certainly blame that member for not listening to the will of the people at the time. Well, we'll do something different. We will not stand in the way of sensible changes to paid parental leave for the sake of being different to the government when in opposition. That's what Labor did in opposition. We won't do it. We will support these very sensible changes, many of which are coalition changes. We'll be very happy to see where the government wants to take paid parental leave. Hopefully, in providing this bipartisan support for these changes, those members opposite, who very shamelessly and shamefully opposed our paid parental leave proposals after the 2013 election, will reflect on that. Sometimes, what's in the best interests of the country and in the best interests of families, even if they're not in your political interests, is worth supporting. We're here to support good things for Australian families. That's what we're doing. Coming into 2023, the government seem to have forgotten about many of the pressures and struggles that Australian families are suffering and are not wanting to engage or talk much about those pressures. But we're very happy to support this bill, and we commend the government for adopting a number of measures that were announced by the former government. 13:00 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I'm very happy to speak on this piece of legislation, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. Just listening to the shadow minister, I find it quite extraordinary; he shows the front and chutzpah of the coalition. You'd think they'll start taking credit for Medicare, the NDIS, the NBN and a whole range of initiatives of Labor. I must say, they had three prime ministers during their nine years. They had Tony Abbott, whose thought bubble was an extraordinary idea—trying to get rid of what he thought was a 'woman problem' in terms of his relationship with female voters. So he came up with his ridiculous idea of a paid parental leave scheme that had virtually no support from any of the women's groups in this country. Then there were two subsequent prime ministers who didn't follow Prime Minister Abbott and bring in these types of legislation. So, don't give us history lessons, when you had two prime ministers on the coalition Treasury benches who didn't bring in a paid parental leave scheme, and don't try to claim that somehow it was your paid parental leave scheme—when we actually brought it in, under the Gillard government. What an amazing degree of historical revisionism goes on in the heads of those opposite in relation to this issue. It's amazing. It's simply astonishing, that you're going to take credit for things we did—when you opposed them, for heaven's sake! I'm looking forward to the next two years, to hear those opposite taking credit for so many other Labor initiatives—perhaps Blue Poles or something like that; they may take credit for that initiative under Gough Whitlam, or a whole range of initiatives under Andrew Fisher, the Labor Prime Minister back in the early 20th century, or income tax reform. Chifley and Curtin will be turning in their graves over the credit the coalition government takes. So, thank goodness for those opposite—naysayers in government and naysayers in opposition and then trying to take credit for things that Labor governments do. By the way, there are 2,554 families in my electorate of Blair who'll benefit as a result of this particular initiative. We know that, because they got paid parental leave payments last year. So, they'll benefit, at least. And there'll be more, who'll get additional assistance by virtue of the flexibility and choice that this legislation and subsequent legislation will provide to their family life. Those opposite go on about family values. Well, this is about family values, I can tell you. This is about helping families. This gives families choice and flexibility and it helps them in their local domestic decision-making. Those opposite love to parade themselves as champions of family values. But when it comes to supporting families with financial support and these types of things, they'll take credit from when they were in government, when they did nothing about it. I'm very pleased to see this legislation, because families come in different shapes and sizes, and they come in different forms. There are not just nuclear families; there are flexible families. There are blended families. There are families in the LGBTIQ community. There's a whole range of different families and different forms that they take. So, this is particularly important. It also recognises that dads are very important carers for young children. About one in five children is, by the age of two, primarily bonded to their father. We also recognise that women are often high-income earners. The minister pointed that out in her second reading speech, where she talked about 3,000 additional parents getting a benefit as a result of this reform because the mother is the primary income earner in the family. So, this is particularly important. The current settings have obstacles and hindrances to decision-making in family life and the flexibility that families need. Currently the paid parental leave scheme really comprises two payments for eligible carers of a newborn or a recently adopted child. We're talking about an 18-week payment for the birth parent, while the dad and partner leave is two weeks for fathers and partners. The paid parental leave may be taken in conjunction with the employer paid leave, but dad and partner pay cannot. There's a need for parents to benefit from these changes to be able to spend more time with their children, to maintain their connection to the workplace—that's good for workforce participation amongst men but particularly women. International experiences show more paid leave results in an increase in the number of hours and the time taken by partners, particularly dads, in looking after their children. That's a very important significant reform that we're talking about today that will change the lives of lots of Australians. Lots of times we pass legislation in this place and it has a peripheral impact, a minor impact—for example, customs regulation reforms, statute law revisions and a whole range of things that don't seem to have that much impact on families individually. But there are thousands of families in every electorate around the country that will benefit from these changes. That's absolutely important. Promoting gender equality is also absolutely crucial, and it's an important part of this bill. The purpose of this bill is a commitment of over $531 million by this government—the biggest expansion of the Paid Parental Leave scheme since its introduction in 2011. That's 12 years ago. We had those opposite infesting the treasury bench for nine years and doing nothing about it—presiding but not governing. This is important; it is about flexibility and assistance for families individually. Our party, now the party of government, is better for having a strong and meaningful commitment to equal representation and equal opportunity for women. When you look at this side of the chamber, compared to the other side of the chamber, you can see that is the case. You can also see that—and it is true for the economy and for our nation—equality for women is at the heart of the Albanese government's vision for a fair go for work. It was at the centre of our first budget. Equal, full and respectful participation of women in our economy is our nation's greatest untapped resource. This is why the October budget delivered the biggest boost to PPL we've ever seen. This budget and this bill will implement the first of a couple of tranches of reform. It will go a long way to gender neutrality claim rules governing PPL. By 2026 we will see every family with a new baby be able to access a total of six months paid leave under legislation this government will bring in, at the national minimum wage shared between two parents—choice, decision-making, individuals and families making those decisions. Single parents will also be entitled to the full 26-week leave payable so their kids don't miss out as well. These changes will be part of a second tranche. The purpose of this bill is combining the PPL, 18 weeks, and the dad and partner leave, two weeks created, into a single parental leave payment available for 20 weeks, with two weeks reserved on a use-it-or-lose-it basis for each claimant. It removes the requirement that the primary claimant of the PPL must be the birth parent. It allows claimants to take the payment flexibility within two years of birth or adoption. It introduces a $350,000 family income limit under which families can be assessed if they do not meet the individual income test, which is about $156,000 at the moment. This is really important. It will benefit about 181,000 families, and around 4,300 people will gain access to what they are ineligible for under the current scheme. It's important to note that the change in this bill commences on 1 July this year—just the first step. From 1 July 2024, the government will start expanding the scheme with two additional weeks a year until the scheme reaches its full 26 weeks from July 2026. The government has sought advice from the independent Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, chaired by Sam Mostyn, on the optimal model for increasing the scheme to 26 weeks and on what mix of flexible weeks and the use-it-or-lose-it component for each parent will deliver the best outcome for families and encourage more shared parenting. That's crucial. We see that in our family law legislation, about the need for children to be cared for by both parents regardless of their parents' marital status and by other people significant to their care, welfare and development. This legislation picks up that notion. This second tranche will be legislated later and done in a fiscally responsible manner. The reality is that the current scheme doesn't do enough to provide access to dads and encourage them to take parental leave. While it enables mothers to take PPL at the same time as employer paid leave, this option is not currently available, as I said, to fathers and partners, so there's that limit on flexibility. The bill fixes up this issue, so both parents will be able to take the PPL at the same time as employer paid leave. The bill means more families can take up this leave, sharing their precious time more equally in care responsibilities, and that's absolutely crucial. Those of us who are parents know how important our children are. As, I'm sure, does everyone here, I remember when my daughters were born as though it was yesterday, and the fact is that I've got a little grandson now. That love, that respect and that affection comes straightaway. Parents want to care for their kids; they want to spend time with them. My youngest daughter, Jacqui, said to me the other day that, because of that bonding between parent and child, she misses her son, Joshua, when he goes and has a sleep. Spending time with their kids is the sort of thing that parents want to be able to make decisions about, and this legislation will assist in that regard. The government values men and, as someone who practised as an accredited specialist in family law, I can tell you I did hundreds of cases involving men winning what we used to call custody and being the primary caregiver for children. Dads can be great parents, and I saw it many, many times in private practice as a lawyer. Dads are so important, not just in those circumstances but as role models in caring and as examples of hands-on giving, showing kids how to play sport and music and how to be respectful men and grow up to be decent human beings. All of those things are so important for little kids. They are important as children grow and learn. In the first two or three years of a child's life you can see how much they absorb and take in and how much they learn, so that time is so precious. The government really wants fathers to take a greater role from the start, and this legislation will benefit dads, mums and kids. We know it's important to participate. We know participation is important for productivity. A lot of times in this place we use language that seems to be about economics, and solely economics—and I studied economics at university as well. It's so important because we're running a nation, running an economy and running a community. But families are the basis of our society. They're the absolute hub. They make decisions about where they send their kids to school, what extracurricular activities they engage in and what faith they adhere to or don't adhere to. They make decisions about all of those things each and every day. Sometimes it's mundane. Sometimes it's what food we put on the table at night. Sometimes it's where we have a holiday or what sport or cultural activity our kids will participate in. This legislation here today is the sort which assists parents to make decisions each and every day of their lives and provides some security for them. We know relationships break up. We know that about 50 per cent of second relationships and one in three first relationships break up, so we want to give as much support as possible. There are real pressure times, in terms of domestic and family relationship break-ups, and one of those times is when your kids are really, really small. We want to support families in that way. We don't want to tell people who they partner with and how they live their lives, but we want to make sure that they have the greatest opportunity to participate in the lives of their children and be the best parents they can possibly be. The burden of child care is disproportionately borne by women at the moment. That needs to change. In a modern policy—that is, for the modern family unit that we all see in our electorates—we need to have the legislation and a paid parental leave scheme that are reflective of modern Australia, to give choice and greater security and, I think, aspiration to families. This is something that Labor has consistently championed. With this legislation that we have before the chamber today, I'm proud to be a Labor MP; I really am. Seeing legislation like this introduced here, I'm proud to be the member for Blair and a Labor MP. It's good social policy. It's good Labor reform. It's good women's policy. It's good policy for men. It's also good economic and workplace reform and good for participation. I commend this legislation to the chamber and I thank the minister for bringing it in. It's great to see that it's a Labor government doing the great reforms that are needed to help families in this country. We'll continue to uphold their aspirations for local, individual family units. 13:15 Ms 175696 Warringah STEGGALL () (): I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. I support the amendments that the government is proposing in this bill in its first stage of reforms. These changes are long overdue, with so many families have been struggling under the current system. The changes will have a positive impact on the lives of some 180,000 Australian families, many of whom are juggling work and family life. It will take some of the pressure off their household budgets. These changes will give more families access to the payments and greater flexibility on how they take the payments. They will encourage sharing of the caring load, which supports gender equality and increases the number of fathers taking on carer roles with newborns. I must say that this is still not an ambitious bill. There are a lot of things in this bill that are not vastly growing the Paid Parental Leave scheme in this country. We are still miles behind our OECD counterparts. This bill is getting rid of discrimination and improving flexibility, which I welcome, but I do want to be measured in speaking about what we are achieving here. I welcome the introduction of the $350,000 family income test. Single parents can can also access it, but they don't meet the individual income test of $156,647. Previously, for those who maybe aren't familiar with the scheme, the test was calculated solely on the birth mother's income and strongly discriminated against professional women, because as soon as a woman earned above that cap of $152,000 the family was not entitled to paid parental leave. But you had the converse situation where a man could be on any income above that—on any income, essentially to $1 million—and if the birth mother was below that cap that family was entitled to paid parental leave. The discrimination against women in professional occupations was quite extreme and ridiculous. I raised it in a motion under the previous government in 2021 and raised it again in 2022, so I absolutely welcome the fact that the government is getting rid of that provision that discriminates against professional women. There are many families in Warringah and elsewhere around the country who are missing out under the current scheme because the payment was pegged to the mother's income in that way. According to the ATO, between 2010 and 2020 the number of Australian women with taxable incomes over $150,000 more than doubled, with almost 250,000 women now earning over $150,000. The proposed higher family income threshold will mean more families can access paid parental leave, especially where the birth mother is a professional and the higher income earner. This is really only bringing this scheme into the current day and age, where both men and women birth parents work and pursue professional occupations. The current scheme is grossly outdated and desperately needed to be fixed. It effectively assumed that a woman would not be the primary breadwinner in the family. It beggars belief that it has taken this long for such a measure to be amended, but I commend the government for addressing it so quickly in this term of government. Not only will more families be eligible for the payments, but basing the income test on the joint household income will encourage fathers into caring roles. It will also get rid of the disparity where you had the situation of the very high income earning father of, say, a million dollars; those families will no longer be able to access the payment, which I think is appropriate. Having more fathers in caring roles will improve the long-term bond with children and increase their participation in unpaid work at home. The proposed amendments also include increasing flexibility for families. Parents can now decide how and when they take their paid parental leave days, allowing parents to take payments in multiple blocks as small as a day at a time for the first two years of their child's life. Importantly, the requirement to not return to work in order to be eligible will be removed. This will help facilitate mothers transitioning back to work. It can also be taken in conjunction with any employer leave entitlements. Under this amendment, parents will also be able to take two weeks of their leave at the same time so that they can spend time together bonding with and raising their child. The proposal to simplify the claiming process is also welcomed. It will now be made gender neutral, by removing distinctions between primary and secondary carers. Currently, if a family wants to share parental leave, the birth mother must claim first and then transfer it to another parent. This new, simpler claiming process allows eligible fathers and partners to qualify if the mother or birth parent does not meet the income test or residency requirements. This change will benefit about 2,000 Australian families a year. This is finally bringing paid parental leave in Australia into the modern day and age, but we can do more. The government's proposal to combine the existing payments into a single 20-week scheme is more a reconfiguration rather than an extension of the scheme. This is not extending paid parental leave. We are still stuck on 20 weeks. We know the proposal combines the 18 weeks of paid parental leave that traditionally the birth mothers took with the two weeks of dad or partner leave to form a single 20-week payment that can now be shared between both parents. The full rollout of the scheme to increase to 26 weeks of paid leave is promised by 2026—essentially another election cycle away. That is too long for families to wait. That's three more years. I remind the House that, at 26 weeks, Australia will be lagging well behind developed countries, with the average in OECD countries being 55 weeks of paid parental leave. Just think about that—55 weeks and 26 weeks. That is a monumental difference. Last year the Grattan Institute released research showing that shared paid parental leave not only boosts mothers' earnings but it can boost our entire GDP. Increasing the entitlement to 26 weeks, shared between parents, would have a net positive impact on the economy. We would benefit by $300 million. It would cost some $600 million per year but would return $900 million per year. So why are we waiting three years to do it? I just don't understand. It's the patriarchal nature of this place. Changes to break down gender inequities and pay inequities take so long. You have to develop the political will, the political courage, to change the status quo. We need to increase paid parental leave sooner if we want to have a chance of increasing female workforce participation and decreasing the gender pay gap. We know two major issues are facing the Australian economy: increasing savings for superannuation and moving women from part-time to full-time work. The government has maintained the two weeks reserved on a 'use it or lose it' basis to encourage both parents to share the leave. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce see a further increase in the 'use it or lose it' provision as a key to ensuring more women stay connected to the workforce, rather than being expected to take all the leave to care for the newborn. The Parenthood organisation, who have done phenomenal advocacy work in this space, say that a goal of four to six weeks of 'use it or lose it' is essential to achieving a behavioural change in men whereby they do more of the parenting in early months. I encourage the government to also consider the inclusion of a bonus provision. A 2021 Grattan Institute report recommends an additional two weeks of bonus leave which could be used by either parent if both parents take at least six weeks leave. When these 'use it or lose it' provisions and incentive schemes have been introduced overseas, there have been significant increases in men's uptake of parental leave. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that only one in 20 fathers take primary parental leave and 95 per cent of all primary carers leave is taken by the mother. These figures highlight the importance of the 'use it or lose it' and bonus provisions. A Warringah constituent's petition to me, with 8,000 signatures, which I've presented to this place, has not been addressed in these amendments. The petition calls for Australia to align with the World Health Organization guidelines and the National Breastfeeding Strategy goal of children having the opportunity to be exclusively breastfed for the first six months, which means you need to increase paid parental leave to 26 weeks at the minimum. These are the basic things that need to happen. So I welcome the government's amendments to paid parental leave. They will give families more access and greater flexibility, they will help to eliminate gender inequality in some small way, they will get more fathers into carers' roles and they will facilitate women's participation in the workforce in a small way. But the timing of the full rollout to 26 weeks of paid parental leave should be brought forward. There is no justifiable reason to wait three more years. We can't make families wait that much longer. As we look to the future, we have to encourage the government to be planning to bring further improvements to this bill. We need to consider these two important incentives to achieve equitable sharing of leave: extending the use-it-or-lose-it provision to at least four weeks and including a bonus provision. I haven't even begun to touch on the problem of the inequity of access from community to community and the costs involved. And then, of course, there are the skills shortages. We know there are not enough carers in the child care sector. For paid parental leave to work, children need to be able to go into care so that women can go back to the workforce. There are so many issues in these areas. It is so gendered, and the patriarchal nature of this place has meant that for too long it has gone unaddressed. But I do hope in this term of parliament we have sufficient loud voices from women in this place and men who know and care about how important this issue is to finally make some changes. 13:26 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 is one of a suite of measures the Albanese Labor government is implementing to promote healthier, more equal communities across Australia, and it's something I know is very welcome in my community of Chisholm in Victoria. We were very clear, heading into the election, that ours would be a government that listened to the community and that we would honour commitments made during the campaign and beyond, including through the budget. This bill is an example of our government doing just that; listening and acting on the promises we've made. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the very best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and more support for families and more opportunities for women. It's really important that this bill's title is 'improvements for families and gender equality' because, of course, investing in paid parental leave benefits our economy and advances gender equality. We are committed as the Albanese Labor government to expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks, a full six months. This bill will implement the first tranche of the government's changes announced in the budget. Crucially, the bill will give more flexible access to government payments, giving parents greater choice in how they take leave, and encouraging parents to share care, to support gender equality. Paid parental leave reform was one of the most frequent proposals raised at the successful Jobs and Skills Summit in September. Indeed, in my own local Jobs and Skills Summit this was a topic we discussed also. Our government has listened, and that's why we're introducing this bill here. It is a really significant step to improve the scheme—of course, it was Labor who introduced the scheme into parliament in 2011. This bill reflects our commitment and desire to improve the lives of working families, support better outcomes for children and also advance women's economic equality. There are around 181,000 families who will benefit from the changes in this bill, including around 4,300 people who will gain access for the first time because they would have been ineligible under the current scheme. We are modernising paid parental leave in this country to reflect how Australian families and their needs have changed since its establishment over a decade ago. These changes, to commence from 1 July this year, are the very first stage of our reforms, and they lay the foundation for expansion to 26 weeks by 2026. It's clear the current scheme does not do enough to provide access to fathers and partners. It limits flexibility for families to choose how they'd like to take leave and transition back into work. The eligibility rules are unfair to families where the mother is the higher income earner. We need to modernise the scheme, and our bill fixes these issues, giving more families access to the government payment and giving parents more flexibility in how they take leave. It also encourages parents to share care to improve gender equality, which is a really important thing to do given Australia's standing on gender equality has gone backwards over the last decade. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time being 1.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. As the member for Chisholm was interrupted, she will be granted leave to continue when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Treasurer 15 13:30 Mr 241067 Banks COLEMAN () (): I read the Treasurer's essay on capitalism. It's really, really bad. Some people say it has no structure, but I think that's unfair. There is a clear structure. Step 1: start with a quote from a Greek philosopher so readers know you are a thoughtful guy. Here it's one about a river. Step 2: use a dramatic metaphor linking your story to a Greek philosopher. Here we learn that the world is entering a stream full of perilous white water. Step 3: say some things that don't actually say anything, so they're hard to criticise. Here are a couple of my favourites from the essay. Firstly, the economy will be made better: By strengthening our institutions and our capacity, with a focus on the intersection of prosperity and wellbeing, on evidence, on place and community, on collaboration and cooperation— Secondly: With a new, values-based capitalism for Australia, we can understand something the old thinking neglected: that the problems of government—of whole societies—don't and shouldn't permit one simple solution set. Step 4: link back to the Greek philosopher at the start to imply there's a whole and coherent argument; put yourself into the story. The Treasurer concludes his essay by saying: Different river, different man—and a different country to help shape and steer on their behalf. The Treasurer's river is flowing rapidly in one direction—higher costs for Australian families and a betrayal of Australian business. Bennett, Mr John Patrick, AM 15 13:31 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I rise to speak on the great life and legacy of John Bennett AM, co-founder of the world-famous Ashgrove Cheese. John was a passionate dairy farmer of the Meander Valley, in the north of my electorate. He strove to take the dairy industry to the next level and ensure it was the best it could be, both in Tasmania and across Australia. He was the president of the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation from 1976 to 1985 and deputy chair of the Australian Dairy Corporation from 1981 to 1986. In that time, the dairy industry faced many challenges, but it was always guided safely to shore with John at the helm. In the 1990s, modern ideas such as paddock-to-plate experiences were unheard of and posed a big business risk for John and his brother, but the duo persevered. Their commitment to this cause led to a booming success, and the Ashgrove Cheese factory became a shining light for northern Tasmania. It's a must-visit place for the many tourists who come to Tasmania, and it has entertained hundreds of thousands of visitors across the decades, providing education on the cheese-making process and, importantly, tastings. Most people would be familiar with the very colourful cows painted on the outside of the paddock, visible as you come up to the factory. On behalf of the people of Lyons, I offer my sincere condolences to John's widow, Connie, and his children, Susan, Mary, Paul and Anne. Vale, John Bennett AM. There will never be another like you. May you rest in peace. Black Saturday Bushfires 16 13:33 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Today is the anniversary of the Black Saturday bushfires. These fires occurred 14 years ago, and the day is etched in the memory of all in my community and many across Victoria. On this anniversary, we remember the 173 lives lost and we remember their families and loved ones, who still struggle with the events of that day. We acknowledge and thank our community, our emergency services—the Country Fire Authority, Victoria Police, the State Emergency Service and Ambulance Victoria—and many more who were there on that day, in many cases when their houses burned. They were there in the weeks, months and years afterwards. As a community, we thank and acknowledge the many organisations, from the Country Women's Association, community groups and charities that helped our community rebuild and recover so we could come back stronger, with that true Australian spirit. This is also a day for me and many other survivors of that day to pause, toreflect and to be thankful that we are here. We have a responsibility to live in honour of those who lost their lives on that day. Hope4u Foundation 16 13:35 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie When Di Russell experienced the tragedy of the suicide of her son Jason, she turned her grief into action, providing support for others and raising awareness about the scourge of suicide. She created the Hope4u foundation to offer free support to families affected by suicide. One of their many activities is the annual Hope4u walk, which I've attended since its start in 2016. It attracts more and more people each year who want to remember and honour someone they've lost. Sadly, Di, who also works as a registered nurse, has since lost a second son to suicide, her youngest son, Aaron, aged 27. Her loss is unimaginable but her determination is palpable, and it was very fitting that she was recently named Hawkesbury Citizen of the Year. I encourage people to come out on this coming Saturday morning to support Di but also to connect and to help lift the stigma of suicide. I'll be there at 9 am at Ham Common, opposite the Richmond RAAF base, down near the tennis courts, to do the walk, which ends at the visitors centre. I'll be joined by my friend Emma McBride, the Assistant Minister for Mental Health. We'll be there to show our support for Di and all the people who are there to remember their loved ones. It's an important event. It connects people, it allows them to remember, it raises awareness and it brings hope to all involved. Oil and Gas Exploration 16 13:36 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar After being repeatedly told last year that PEP-11 was dead in the water, we find that it is once again alive and kicking. PEP-11, or petroleum exploration permit 11, allows for ocean floor drilling and seismic blasting in a massive area extending from Manly to Newcastle. Following the court settlement last week, PEP-11 head David Breeze made it clear that he would like the licence to be resurrected and suggested that it could help with the gas crisis. Let's be clear about a few things. Firstly, there is no gas crisis in this country. It's just that multinational companies ship most of it—around 80 per cent—overseas, leaving Australians to pay exorbitant prices. Secondly, the International Energy Agency has warned us in no uncertain terms that there must be no new oil and gas mines opened if the world is to keep the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees. If the Albanese government is serious about meeting our Paris Agreement obligations, it should not allow any further oil or gas exploration in Australia, on land or sea. Thirdly, I know that my community of Mackellar will never accept drilling for oil or gas off our coastline. We should instead focus investment on clean, cheap and reliable renewable energy. This is the future. Fisher, Ms Betty, AM 16 13:38 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide On 23 November, the world lost one of our greats. Betty Fisher left an indelible mark on the world and the people around her for her unwavering dedication to a better and more just society. I had the honour to know Betty. Betty was a committed Labor woman. She was a committed trade unionist and she proclaimed herself to be a socialist. She joined the Australian Labor Party in the early seventies and was later made a life member of the party. She was a friend of and an advocate for First Nations people. She was a staunch environmentalist. In fact, she became the first female president of the Conservation Council of South Australia. In addition, Betty was a feminist who advocated for and supported women in all walks of life, including politics. My good friend in South Australia, former SA parliamentarian Stephanie Key, was very close to Betty. It was a friendship that endured to the end. I know that Steph, as well as all of Betty's friends and family, feels Betty's loss immensely. For all we have lost with Betty's passing, we have gained so much more from her life. We are a better and kinder society thanks to Betty's care for the welfare of others and her community work, and we're a stronger society thanks to her unwavering advocacy and her ability to speak for those who could not. From me, thank you, Betty, for all you have given us and all the advice you gave me over the years. Medicare 17 13:39 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan Over the past few months, many locals in Ryan have been contacting my office really angry about the inadequacy of the current Medicare rebate, which has resulted in very few GPs bulk billing to the general public. This government is, in effect, continuing the previous government's funding freeze after an insultingly low increase last July of 1.6 per cent. I remind you that inflation is currently around 7.8 per cent. There was no increase at all in the October budget—the same budget that kept $254 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy and $42 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels. This is unacceptable. We're in a cost-of-living crisis. Families shouldn't have to fork out an extra $30 or $40 for a GP visit. Many people just can't, which puts more pressure on our already overcrowded hospitals when they have to go to an emergency department for an issue that could have been dealt with by a GP. I'm sure Labor's mates in the private health industry, who've given them $7.9 million in donations over the last 10 years, don't mind that our universal healthcare system is being whittled away like this. After all, it means more profit for them as public health becomes harder to access. Building Friendships 17 13:40 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I have spoken before in this place about Building Friendships, a deeply committed community organisation that supports people with disability in Kalamunda and surrounds within the electorate of Hasluck. Building Friendships are a finalist in this year's Telstra Business Awards in the championing health category. Building Friendships is a team of professionals working with intellectually disabled people. Their programs range from life skills, cooking classes, fitness and wellbeing to regular evening and weekend excursions. Building Friendships meets the needs of individuals within our community, with a focus on their skill development. They aim to assist their clients in learning to become as independent as they can be, all within a caring and fun environment. In 2007, Minister Shorten stated in his first speech that he believed: … the challenge for government is not to fit people with disabilities around programs but for programs to fit the lives, needs and ambitions of people with disabilities. That is what the minister continues to strive to do with the NDIS, and it is what Building Friendships does every day in Kalamunda for their community. Dianne Owen and the team at Building Friendships are a great example of enthusiasm, resilience and dogged endeavour. All the best to the worthy finalists on 14 February, and especially to Building Friendships. Vaccination 17 13:42 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I've had some shocking days in my office in my time here since 1990. But yesterday, I spent an hour with three vaccine-injured people and heard the worst, most horrific stories I have heard in this place as a federal member for all of this time. I say to Kara Potter, Lisa Walmsley and Michelle Longhurst—and Kara's with us today in the gallery—I have never heard such horrific stories in my time as a federal parliamentarian in this place. I have written a letter to Mark Butler with a number of questions. Along with that letter, I've sent 23 case stories, including Kara's. In my office, I said to all three: 'Your representatives are your representatives in this place. You voted for them; they're here.' I sent Kara to Kirsty McBain, the member for Eden-Monaro. I haven't heard from the health minister, but my expectation is high. Black Saturday Bushfires 17 13:43 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Fourteen years ago we woke to a very hot day. It was 46 degrees, with 100-plus kilometre per hour winds. The Premier of the day, John Brumby, said that it was going to be a day of danger. He was scoffed at by his opponents. It turned out that he was dead right. No-one was to know what was going to happen. In the course of the next 24 hours, 173 people lost their lives, 4,000 homes were taken, and some 440,000 hectares of land were lost. We stood there and watched this roaring sea of flame come across the hills towards our home. Knowing that we couldn't do anything else, we just tried our best. My wife did the right thing: she left. Me being me, I was a bit more obstinate and I decided to stay. But we weren't to know what was going to happen as we saw the might of the Black Saturday fires, which remain the most devastating fires in the nation's history. As I said, 173 people across all our communities in McEwen lost their lives. And it's not just those that lost their lives on the day; it's the many hundreds that lost their lives afterwards. The pain and suffering never left. The scars on the landscape are still there and they are still in the hearts and the minds of the people who were there and lived through it. Even today, there are people there who still can't countenance the sound of a helicopter or a hot northerly wind on a day like today, when it's hot and blowy and you just don't know what is going to happen. We should never forget what they went through and what they continue to go through. (Time expired) Longman Electorate: Infrastructure 18 13:45 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman It's been just over six months now since the election and the good people in my electorate of Longman are justifiably asking when the election promises made by Labor are going to be fulfilled. Both parties made many of the same promises, if they were elected, and part of being a good government is keeping your promises. Where are the lights for the Narangba Demons Baseball Club, the new clubhouse and lights for the Narangba Eagles Football Club and the new clubhouse for the Caboolture rugby league club? We've heard crickets on the Centenary Lakes splash park, and we won't hold our breath on the Bruce Highway four-lane upgrade. But the project that the coalition promised that will have the biggest impact on the Longman community is the $110 million commitment the coalition made to partner with council for the critical upgrade to Caboolture River Road to allow access to the Bruce Highway for the 70,000-odd expected residents that will move into the Caboolture West development over the next 20 years. This massive project was one of vision and plans for the future. It is a proactive rather than a reactive project that puts the infrastructure in place before this development reaches maturity, with something the Australian public are crying out for: forward planning. So I'm challenging this Labor government to fulfil their promises and , at least, give our community time lines on their election promises, and I'm asking them to match the coalition's commitment to the Caboolture River Road project. Bacchus Marsh Aerodrome 18 13:47 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Things are looking up at the Bacchus Marsh Aerodrome—looking up at the aerodrome!—in my electorate of Hawke thanks to a $470,000 investment under round 3 of the Australian government's $100 million Regional Airports Program. Last week I joined the management committee chairman, Trevor Oliver, at the aerodrome to announce that they had successfully 'landed' the funding. The investment will fund runway and taxiway surface treatment works including the installation of a lighting system with pilot activated lighting control and an illuminated wind direction indicator. The Bacchus Marsh aerodrome is an important asset for our community. Just a couple of days ago I took the kids down to the aerodrome for the Bacchus Marsh Wings, Wheels and Coffee Festival. I joined thousands of enthusiasts from all over the country who were driving and flying into the aerodrome to see some classic cruisers and vintage planes as well as to enjoy a hot cuppa and a few cheeky snacks. Personally, I was particularly drawn to a Ford panel van that reminded me of my first car, Member for McEwen—the 1992 XF panel van that travelled many miles in McEwen during the 2010 election campaign on your behalf. Events like this are vital for the local economy in towns like Bacchus Marsh, Ballan and others around McEwen and the rest of Australia. It's why the Albanese government's investment in our community infrastructure is so important. Lyne Electorate: Sporting Events 18 13:48 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I would like to give a big congratulations and a huge shout-out to Lucy Miller of Taree Old Bar Surf Life Saving Club who recently won the Surf Life Saving Junior Life Saver of the Year at the Lower North Coast awards. I would also like to congratulate Lucy Monaghan, Monique Durbridge, Maddy Major, Emma Eggins and Grace Monaghan of the Wauchope Bonny Hills Surf Life Saving Club who recently won their first ever Surf Life Saving NSW Country Championship open women's gold medal at Forster, also in my electorate. Their crew is known as the Boatettes and they usually compete in the under-23 women's competitions, but this was in the open category. Speaking of Forster, the site of this championship, the town was also buzzing on 19 January when the Forster tri club held its first girls-only triathlon. Event organisers and volunteers included Aaron Eichner, Tracey and Richard Sewell, Tristan Marshall, Matt and Ashley Birks, Louise Every, Leighton and Trent Hopper. Everyone at the registration and out on the course managed to keep the event running like clockwork. Everyone was thrilled that the first-ever girls-only triathlon was such an outrageous success, and I look forward to the next one. Medicare 19 13:50 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Having run primary health services for over 15 years, I know that primary health care is the linchpin of our health system. Primary health care is where illness prevention happens, as do early intervention and continuity of care. But I have heard from so many across Boothby that they struggle to get in to see their GP or it is too expensive, and they end up in hospital ED for something that isn't an emergency. I have heard from Boothby GPs that they are swamped. Medicare rates have been frozen over the last decade while the cost of running a practice has continued to increase. Our health system is complex, and we need to get this right and make it fit for the future, so I'm pleased to see the report from the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce which recommends, among other things: increasing access to primary care, including a voluntary registration scheme to encourage continuity of care; encouraging multidisciplinary team based care, because the GP shortage won't be fixed overnight, so we need allied health professionals to be working to their full scope of practice; and modernising primary care, including digital systems. This government has committed $750 million to deliver the highest priority care, in line with the recommendations of the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce. Strengthening Medicare won't be quick, it won't be easy, but Labor is the party of Medicare and we are now strengthening Medicare for the future. Moore Electorate 19 13:51 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Last week I held my regular community cuppa sessions at two popular local cafes, Alex Junior in Padbury and Marmalade Cafe in Carine. These catchups provide a relaxed and informal way for me to stay in touch with electors, listening to their feedback and concerns. The two events were well attended by local residents, who raised a number of issues with me. Cost-of-living pressures remain the main concern for my constituents, with many locals feeling the pinch after eight consecutive interest rate rises since May last year. They are also struggling with higher grocery prices, high fuel costs and hefty electricity bills. With another rate rise expected today, the Albanese Labor government must urgently address the cost-of-living crisis to ease that pressure on local households. Quite a few constituents also raised with me their concerns regarding the referendum on the voice. Specifically my constituents want to know the details surrounding the treaty, which will follow the voice. Australians will not just leave the details to the politicians to figure out later. I look forward to holding more community cuppas across Moore later this year. Skerritt, Dr John 19 13:53 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Last week, Professor John Skerritt announced his retirement from his position as head of the health products regulation group in the Department of Health and Aged Care. He has worked there for 11 years. He is without doubt one of the finest public servants I have known. He helped Australia get through the pandemic. Before that, he was responsible for the assessment and regulation of all therapeutic goods, drugs, treatments and tests that come into Australia that provide health support for all Australians. We should be grateful for his services. He has regulated all the new immunisations, antiviral products, the tests that have come into Australia that have helped us to get to this stage of the pandemic. He has provided exemplary service. He is a highly qualified scientist, interested in evidence based treatments and management. He is without doubt the one person that I see as responsible for our response to the pandemic at the highest level, as well as to the new innovative treatments that are coming because of genetic technologies and the new biologics in health care in Australia. He is a fine Australian. This parliament should be very, very grateful for his service, and I hope to see him contribute more in the future. Thank you, Professor Skerritt, for your wonderful work and the time you have spent in Australia's health care. Economy 19 13:54 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom With inflation at a 32-year high and interest rates hurting households across the country, we have the following contribution from the Treasurer in The Monthly: By strengthening our institutions and our capacity, with a focus on the intersection of prosperity and wellbeing, on evidence, on place and community, on collaboration and cooperation. By reimagining and redesigning markets—seeking value and impact, strengthening safeguards and guardrails in areas of unchecked risk. And with coordination and co-investment—recognising that government, business, philanthropic and investor interests and objectives are increasingly aligned and intertwined. I join with the average Australian in saying, 'What does this mean? What are you on about?' This is absolute undergraduate gibberish that has no place in sensible economic debate, and that is exactly what we need at this point in time. The challenges that Australians are facing to manage their household budgets and the challenges that Australian businesses are facing real, and the Treasurer's hubristic essay does absolutely nothing to address any of those challenges. When a government intervenes this much in an economy, they own that economy, and we need to make that case very clearly to the Australian people. Be it the IR legislation or be it price caps that we've seen introduced that we never would have suspected from the language before the election, the government has intervened as much as it can in this economy. What that means for Australians who are hurting right now is that they need to understand that the interest rate rises that we've had, that are coming and that will be sustained are the result of this government refusing to work with the RBA to deal with inflationary pressures. Lunar New Year 20 13:56 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton 'Gongxi facai!' to all who've been celebrating the lunar new year and welcoming the Year of the Rabbit and bidding farewell to the Year of the Tiger. Like you, Mr Speaker, I attended some lunar new year celebrations on the weekend—with a huge crowd on the rooftop of Sunnybank Plaza. It was a wonderful celebration with line dancers weaving through the crowds and lots of kids. The rooftop celebrations were scheduled back in 2020 but were cancelled each year due to the pandemic, but this year the organisers were able to go ahead. They were filled with lots of children wearing bunny ears, dance, music, performers and floating red lanterns—all with a backdrop of a beautiful Brisbane sunset. The night ended with some fireworks as well. In the Chinese zodiac, 2023, the Year of the Rabbit, is predicted to be a year of hope, as I'm sure the Prime Minister would be apprised of. May this year bring not only hope but also peace, harmony and tranquillity. I especially want to say, 'Happy birthday!' to one of the special rabbits in my life, a bloke from St George, Wayne Long, whose birthday it is today. He's a Kamilaroi man with Chinese ancestry who's been having a hard time of it lately. So happy birthday, Wayne. Let's have a good year. Gongxi facai! Xin nian kuai le! Treasurer 20 13:57 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield At the last election Labor promised cheaper energy costs and cheaper mortgages. Instead we have a cost-of-living crisis and the highest inflation in over 30 years. But the federal Treasurer isn't worried. He's a really big thinker. Just ask him. He's written 6,000 words to prove it. He's very keen to let us know just how clever he is. He reads weighty books like Jared Diamond's Upheaval. He name-checks cool leftie economists like Mariana Mazzucato. He has fascinating conversations with the Canadian central banker, Mark Carney. He quotes Greek philosophers. Jim wants us to know that he's a big Labor thinker, because big Labor thinkers spend their summers writing essays for The Monthly. In case we didn't know that, he tells us. Kevin Rudd, he tells us, wrote one in February 2009 and Wayne Swan in March 2012. You can pack a lot of excuses into 6,000 words. Jim has not one but five reasons why it's not his fault if the economy goes bad. There's war in Europe, whether China recovers from COVID, recessions in the northern hemisphere, when and how rate rises will bite, and future natural disasters. He's got big plans. He's going to reimagine and redesign markets. It's all great stuff, but just maybe we might be a bit more ready to believe him if he could first get on with the key bits of his day job: get the cost of living down, get energy costs down, get interest rates down and get inflation down. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 20 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Hipkins, Rt Hon. Chris, King, Hon. Dame Annette 20 13:59 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call on questions, I'd like to inform the House that seated in the distinguished visitors gallery is the Right Hon. Chris Hipkins MP, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, accompanied by Her Excellency the Hon. Dame Annette King, the New Zealand High Commissioner to Australia. A very warm welcome to you both. Honourable members: Hear, hear! 13:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—Mr Speaker, can I add to your warm welcome of Prime Minister Hipkins. We had a very constructive meeting today. Australia and New Zealand are not just friends; we're family. We engage in our economic relationship, which is so important. Probably the CER is the world-class example of the best free trade agreement you could possibly have. On top of that, regarding the migration issues, we're working through streamlining citizenship arrangements between Australia and New Zealand. We hope to conclude those matters prior to Anzac Day. We will be co-hosts of the FIFA Women's World Cup later this year. That is the third-most-watched event in the world after the FIFA Men's World Cup and the Olympic Games, and it is a big deal for Australia and New Zealand. I look forward to continuing the close relationship between our countries, and I know that this is an issue as well that goes right across the chamber. We are friends, we will remain friends and you are very warmly welcomed. Thank you for giving us the honour of making your first international visit to Australia. It says a lot. 14:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—On behalf of the coalition, I extend a warm welcome to Prime Minister Hipkins and congratulate him on his election and his appointment to this position. I also acknowledge the high commissioner, who is a very good friend of our country. We speak in a united front in relation to our relationship with our friends just across the ditch. It's a very integral part of our family. It's more important than ever that our two countries come together to stand for the values that we've fought together for over a long period of time, and with the engagement that New Zealand has with many smaller nations, in particular in the Indo-Pacific, that relationship is more crucial than ever. We look forward to the occasions where we can continue to work together and the occasions—particularly around rugby and cricket—where we can agree to disagree in a time-honoured tradition. You are a most welcome guest here, and it is a great pleasure and honour to have you in the chamber. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 21 14:02 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Today a ninth interest rate rise since May is widely expected. Three months out from the election, the Prime Minister committed to reducing costs for families and promised: 'Australians will be better off under a Labor government.' A rate increase today would mean the typical family is paying $1,400 more each month on their mortgage, without taking into account increases in grocery and power bills. I ask the Prime Minister: why do Australian families always pay more under Labor? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise on my left and my right—it is the first question. I will hear from the Prime Minister. 14:03 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Indeed Australians, when they went to their chemist at any time from 1 January, were better off because of the reduction from $42.50 down to $30, the first reduction in 75 years. Australians who want to get the skills that Australia needs will also benefit when they enrol in a TAFE course, because 180,000 of them will be fee-free as a result of the measures that we have put in place. Australians who have children in child care also will be better off as a result of the measures that will benefit some 1.2 million Australian families in July. The fact is we are acting responsibly. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for infrastructure will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 We are making targeted relief to take pressure off. Cheaper medicines, cheaper child care, energy price relief, paid parental leave, fee-free TAFE—all of these measures are there. Of course, interest rates started to increase under the former government— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 and before the election they acknowledged that that was an inevitable consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine placing pressure on supply chains and placing pressure on inflation globally. But, when it comes to supply chains, of course, there's another measure that's before this parliament. The National Reconstruction Fund is something that is placing pressure on inflation—inflation being the result of our failure to build things here, to make things here, in Australia. Those opposite have turned the coalition back into the 'no-alition'! Not only do they want to bring Tony Abbott back onto their Senate benches but they also want to go back to the policies where they just said no to absolutely everything. The political party that told the car industry to leave is going to oppose a national reconstruction fund that the business community—the Australian Industry Group and others—is crying out for to make us more competitive, to grow our economy and to grow jobs. That is because they've learned absolutely nothing. The Leader of the Opposition this morning spoke about bad luck. Well, it wasn't bad luck to leave Australia with a trillion dollars of debt; it was a bad government. It wasn't bad luck that inflicted a decade of wage stagnation; it was bad policy—a deliberate policy from those opposite to undermine wages and to drive wages down as a key feature of their economic— (Time expired) Manufacturing Industry 22 14:06 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. What is the Albanese Labor government doing for the Australian manufacturing industry so that it can generate secure, well-paid jobs? And is this plan threatened by any recent developments? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom is now warned because he has been continually interjecting within five minutes of question time. I give the call to the Minister for Industry and Science. 14:07 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Thanks to the member for Paterson, who knows the importance of manufacturing to regional communities. I appreciate the question. We went through this seismic event with the pandemic, where we discovered that the things we needed most weren't there at a time we needed them. We realised we were dependent on a couple of countries for all these goods that get imported, and we recognised that our supply chains were completely dependent on them. We thought, at that point in time, that we, as a country, had learned that lesson and that we would commit to do better. Australians recognised that we have to be a country that makes things, that modern economies need strong manufacturing capability if they're going to keep going on into the long term and that manufacturing matters because it generates full-time, secure, well-paying jobs. That is why, with all that in mind, the Albanese government have committed to one of the largest investments in Australian manufacturing capabilities in peacetime. The $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund will look at priority areas—value-added resources and value-added agriculture, low-emissions technology manufacture, transport, medical sciences and, importantly, critical technologies that will be important to give the economy edge longer term. It will be independently run with an investment mandate, looking at delivering a return to the taxpayer, building capability—and not a colour coded spreadsheet in sight! Politicians will not be making the call. The investment decisions will be made in the national interest, not in political interests. Opposition members interjecting— Mr HUSIC 91219 Given all of that, what happens? The 'no-alition' roars back to life—the unreconstructed Tony Abbotts with, no doubt, their 'national un-reconstruction fund' in the wings there! There they are, wanting to say no to growing the economy, wanting to say no to growing jobs, wanting to say no to Australian manufacturing and wanting to stop that longer-term benefit that's required. These are criticisms from a bunch of people who brought you sports rorts, brought you regional rorts and spent, in the weeks leading into the election, manufacturing grants. They're interested in manufacturing only when it manufactures a vote. That is the only time they're interested. We're being lectured on transparency, when they had a secret industry minister in their ranks—and they're telling us we should be transparent! I mean, please—it is a joke. We will do what's right for this country. We will make sure manufacturing is revitalised. We'll do the right thing. (Time expired) Economy 22 14:10 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election the Prime Minister promised he would deliver a $275 cut to power prices, cheaper mortgages, cheaper groceries, and government by renewal, not revolution. Instead, power prices are rising, mortgages are more expensive, inflation continues to climb, and the Treasurer's only answer is to 'remake capitalism'. Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor? 14:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. And I do say this: we're not on the side of energy bosses; we're on the side of consumers and business when it comes to energy prices. I do say that. And not only do I say that. It's a direct quote from the New South Wales Treasurer, when standing up supporting action to reduce the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the pressure that's there on inflation, when the New South Wales government, along with every other state and territory government in the country, joined with the federal government last year when we both recalled our respective parliaments to take action. Then, you had to decide whose side you were on. We unashamedly were on the side of consumers, whether it be small business—or large business, for that matter—or manufacturing or consumers. Those opposite voted against that legislation. But I'm asked about energy policy. The energy shadow minister isn't here. He's off in Japan—doing work. I was wondering why he wasn't here yesterday. I thought I might get a question from him. But Ted O'Brien has gone to Japan, and you can pick that out—'Ted O'Brien goes to Japan.' He's been researching his solution. On a YouTube video that he has put up on his site—and I'm not verballing him at all—it says, 'Time to talk nuclear: what can we learn from Hiroshima?' It's not a complex question. He also visited Fukushima. Here in Australia, this government is working with state and territory governments, Labor and Liberal, to do what we can to alleviate the pressure on prices, and over there the shadow minister is off on this frolic of nuclear energy, even though we know that's the most expensive form of energy possible for Australia. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. I'll call the member for Petrie on a point of order. Mr Howarth 247742 Why is it all right for the Prime Minister to fly around the world but not the shadow minister? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Petrie has abused the standing order. I want to be crystal clear. Before Christmas I said that if that happens there will be consequences. The consequence is that you'll leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Petrie then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 I want to be very clear with people. I will take points of relevance. They have to be within the standing orders. If they are abused, there will be immediate action. The Prime Minister has 12 seconds remaining in his answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 There are alleviating circumstances, because he has not had a question—not one question—from a member of the front bench during this entire term, nor from the member for Aston, or a number of their other frontbench members. They remain silent, except for being able— (Time expired) Broadband 23 14:15 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons My question is to the Minister for Communications. What steps is the Albanese Labor government taking to ensure Australians have access to fast, reliable and affordable broadband? 14:15 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway The Albanese government is committed to driving economic and social inclusion through fast, reliable and affordable broadband. Broadband isn't a nice-to-have. It's essential, like electricity and water, but too many Australians have a connection that's slow and unreliable. In many cases, that's a result of inferior copper infrastructure. That's why this government is delivering a better National Broadband Network. We delivered $480 million for NBN's fixed wireless network upgrade, extending coverage to another 120,000 premises that are currently on satellite. In the October budget, we committed to upgrade an additional 1.5 million premises to full fibre by the end of 2025. Importantly, over 660,000 of these premises are in regional Australia. These upgrades will create thousands of jobs for construction workers, engineers and project managers in our suburbs and our regions. Importantly, these upgrades will drive productivity. Only a few weeks ago I had the pleasure of visiting a fantastic small business in Adelaide, Chloe's Creative Co, that's already reaping the benefits of an upgrade from copper to fibre technology. Chloe's a young mum, and she's running a consultancy from home. She said her fibre upgrade is a game changer. Her uploads and downloads are faster, her connection is better quality and she's able to spend more time growing her business rather than dealing with dropouts. These are the tangible economic dividends that come from reliable broadband. That is what the Albanese government is delivering. Our approach also places greater emphasis on affordability. We've reset the NBN special access undertaking process. We have reversed a proposal made under the former government that, if implemented, would have allowed broadband prices to increase by more than the CPI on some products. Finally, the pandemic showed us that there were tens of thousands of families, right around Australia, who, for whatever reason, did not have any access to the internet. That meant that children in these households were at a distinct disadvantage during remote learning. That's why last week the government launched our $4.5 million School Student Broadband Initiative. It's an affordability measure to enable up to 30,000 unconnected families to access free broadband for 12 months so those kids and their families are not left behind. With funding from this government in the October budget, NBN Co is partnering with state and territory education bodies, charities and community groups to identify recipients for this program. So across speed, reliability and affordability, this government is delivering a better NBN that all Australians deserve. Organ and Tissue Donation 23 14:18 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Health minister, are you aware that bone marrow registration has shrunk, yet recently, $300,000 in private funding tripled registrations overseas for donor-tissue. Cheek-swab programs could be introduced here with publicity in uni colleges, military and the public service with a donor age up to 40. Minister, couldn't we save a thousand lives? Bonnie Black battles for her life in Charters Towers. There is 40-year-old Maggie at Cronulla. It's too late for 13-year-old Missy of Malanda. Four-year-old Robbie and his little sister pray to Jesus for their dad, Liam O'Brien. 14:19 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Kennedy for his question on this very important health challenge that faces so many Australians. I also want to thank the member, first of all, for bringing this issue to my attention yesterday but also for arranging meeting that we had together with Liam and Josephine, as Liam faces a really difficult battle against leukaemia. Liam is not just in the fight of his life for his life; he and Josephine have also brought enormous energy, time and resources, doing fundraising and media appearances, to draw attention to an area of health care that, frankly, has moved too slowly in this country. I thank the member for his question today and for that engagement over the last 24 hours. In his absence, I also want to acknowledge that the Chief Opposition Whip, the member for Forde, and I had a discussion about this issue in the chamber just yesterday afternoon. As the member knows and many others will, bone marrow donations provide the stem cells that are required for stem cell transplants, life-saving treatments today for people who are fighting leukaemia and a range of other blood cancers. It's clear to me, though, that Australia has not moved fast enough to enable more effective matching of bone marrow donors with patients like Liam and so many others that the member for Kennedy mentioned in his question. It's also clear to me that our bone marrow donation system in Australia is too small—there aren't enough people on the registry—it's too slow, and it has not kept up with international standards, including on things like cheek swabs and age limits on donors. We know that cheek swabs are an effective and very economical way of bringing additional donors to the registry and giving people like Liam and so many others a different, better chance at life. Used across the world, this is not a system that has yet been introduced in Australia. What isn't clear to me, though, is why Australia has moved so slowly over the past decade in particular, compared to some of the other countries that Liam, the member for Kennedy, and Josephine mentioned to me yesterday. It seems, as unfortunately is so often the case in health policy, that part of the problem is that no single government between the Commonwealth and the states and territories has sole responsibility or sole authority to make sure that Australia keeps pace with the rest of the world and with these advances in technology. Frankly, as the member knows and as I think all members know, in cases like this, that's just not good enough. After my meeting with the member for Kennedy, Liam and Josephine yesterday, I'm writing right now to the chair of the Health Ministers' Meeting to seek their agreement to cut through some of this jurisdictional bureaucratic red tape—to do everything we can to clear the way—that is currently denying patients in Australia the best chance to access this life-saving technology. Energy 24 14:22 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government taking action after a wasted decade to build a cleaner, more reliable energy future while helping Australians with cost-of-living pressures? 14:22 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the member for Fremantle for his question and his leadership in all matters climate and environment related over his time in this parliament. As he knows and as the House knows, this government was elected with a mandate of rebuilding Australia's energy system after 10 years of denial, delay and dysfunction. We did that with a view to building our energy grid to become 82 per cent renewable by 2030, which is ambitious but achievable, and we will be world leading when we achieve it. Of course, we have started implementing the policies to do just that with, importantly, rewiring our country—Rewiring the Nation, our commitment to rebuild our energy grid. Just before Christmas, the Prime Minister and I went to the Hunter Valley to join with the Premier and energy minister of New South Wales to announce our New South Wales commitments on Rewiring the Nation with $7.8 billion total of funding, which will unleash renewable investment right across New South Wales. Mr BOWEN DZS I know the member for New England hates renewable investment, including in his electorate, but the people of New South Wales welcome it. This will create 3,900 jobs right across New South Wales. This builds on our previous commitments to the governments of Victoria and Tasmania. In Victoria our commitments create 2,000 jobs, and, of course, importantly, Marinus Link will provide the second and third links between Tasmania and the mainland and will enable Tasmania to reach 200 per cent renewables, creating 2,800 jobs in the process. We understand that 'emissions down and jobs up' is the driving motivation of rebuilding our energy grid and unleashing that renewable investment. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for New England will cease interjecting. Mr BOWEN DZS Of course, we're also implementing the capacity investment mechanism, agreed unanimously by me, on behalf of the Commonwealth, and every state and territory minister, again just before Christmas. This will unleash a minimum, conservatively, of $10 billion worth of investment and six gigawatts of clean, dispatchable power. That's very important because over the last decade we saw, as the House might recall, four gigawatts leave the grid and only one gigawatt of dispatchable energy come onto the grid, which is a big part of the challenge we are facing today. Of course, we've also abolished the member for Hume's failed Underwriting New Generation Investments scheme and recommitted the money to a big-battery program. I was pleased to announce eight big batteries at a cost of $179 million just before Christmas. That is what good government does. It gets on with the job. It doesn't delay. It doesn't deny. It doesn't dissemble. It gets on with the job. That's what the Albanese government's doing, because we know that the cheapest form of energy is renewable energy. We don't need to go to Japan to make videos about energy in Hiroshima; we're getting on with the job. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 25 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Bueta, Mrs Gretel 25 14:25 The SPEA 53517 KER (): I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is Gretel Bueta, a Commonwealth Games gold medallist with the Australian Diamonds netball team. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 25 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 25 14:25 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders My question is to the Prime Minister. An elderly couple in my electorate of Flinders, Joe and Julie Siragusa, were contacted by their energy company in January and were advised they were facing an increase of over $667 on their gas bill over the next 12 months. This is the very opposite of the Prime Minister's promised $275 reduction in power prices. Why do Australians always pay more under Labor? Government members inte rjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence. 14:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Flinders for her question, and I say that we acknowledge that there are cost-of-living pressures on Australian families at the moment, which is why we don't sit back and do nothing about it. It is why we don't vote against it. It is why we come in here and we take action in the short term and in the long term. It is why we introduced the legislation and brought parliament back last December. I don't understand why those opposite came in here and voted against that change, including the member for Flinders, because, as the New South Wales Premier said at the time: This is focused … on putting downward pressure on household bills right across New South Wales. He said this: We know it's a difficult time, and I think the country coming together to deal with this across party political lines shows the maturity that we have to make sure we're putting people first, not playing politics and getting to a point where households and businesses across our state are in a much better position in what will be a difficult time with rising electricity prices. Those opposite used to acknowledge that there was an issue with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the pressure that that was placing on energy prices. But now they don't seem to acknowledge that at all. But the business community certainly get it. The business community absolutely get it, which is why Manufacturing Australia, the peak organisation— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B It's a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. Joe and Julie Siragusa are facing an increase of over $667 on their gas bill. What is your message for them? The SPEAKER 53517 On the point of order, I will hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW On the point of order, it's very clear that, when a question is asked using an individual as a reference, it's completely in order to talk about the policy area—completely in order. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was about energy prices. The Prime Minister is being directly relevant by talking about energy prices. There were individuals mentioned in the question. He's referring to the policy, and I will invite him to continue his answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 The question was about consumers and energy policy. Here's what Energy Consumers Australia's CEO said: 'We applaud and support all elements of the proposed gas market reforms.' That's what they said. Innes Willox of the Australian Industry Group said: By passing legislation to enable temporary gas price caps the Parliament has taken badly needed action that will … help energy users and soften the blow to Australia from events in Europe. The Business Council of Australia's Jennifer Westacott said: It's good that state and federal governments have found a way through … …   …   … Australia's energy system has been stuck in a loop for too long, and Australians are paying the long term price of short-term action. That's exactly right. Rod Sims, ACCC, said this is inherently a sensible thing to do. Indeed, it was, which is why it's absolutely extraordinary that those opposite voted for higher prices by voting against it. Interest Rates 26 14:30 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser My question is to the Treasurer. What does the independent Reserve Bank's decision on interest rates mean for Australians? 14:30 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank you the member for Fraser for his question and for his work in this place, particularly when it comes to the economy and economic policy, which I personally appreciate a great deal. As expected, the independent Reserve Bank has just announced its decision to increase interest rates by another 25 basis points. That brings the cash rate to 3.35 per cent. Each of these interest rate rises, which began before the election, has put extra pressure on Australians and put extra pressure on the Australian economy as well. I think we understand in this place, certainly the Australian community understands, that the Reserve Bank makes these decisions independently, and it's not our job in this place to interfere, second-guess their decision-making or pressure them in any way. It's our job to focus on the broader pressures that are coming at us from around the world and being felt around the kitchen tables of this country. Our plan to address this high inflation, which is causing these rising interest rates, has three main parts to it. The first is to deliver responsible cost-of-living relief in a way that doesn't add to inflation and which has an economic dividend—think cheaper early childhood education, cheaper medicines and taking some of the sting out of these electricity price rises that we expect to see in our economy. The second part of our plan is obviously to deal with the issues in our supply chains and in our workforce. I commend the Minister for Industry and Science, the Minister for Skills and Training and other ministers, who are working diligently to deal with these supply chain issues, which have been pushing up inflation in our economy in conjunction with the pressures coming at us from around the world. The third part of our plan is to show spending restraint, which would be unrecognisable to those opposite. We saw that in the October budget, banking 99 per cent of the upward revenue surge over the next two years. You see that in payments falling in real terms over the next two years. You see that in real spending being, essentially, flat over the forward estimates. That approach was endorsed by the IMF just last week. They said our approach is supportive of the approach being taken by the Reserve Bank. In reaffirming Australia's AAA credit rating recently, agencies such as Standard & Poor's, Fitch and Morningstar have all pointed to the government's spending restraint and broadly neutral fiscal stance. Inflation is unacceptably high; there's no use pretending otherwise. It will hang around for longer than we would like, but there is growing evidence that inflation is expected to have peaked in our economy and is now beginning to moderate. Our job, the responsibility that we take, is to do what we can to address these inflationary pressures in our economy and to take the pressure off Australians where we responsibly can. Energy 26 14:33 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Prime Minister. Nippy's, a family run food manufacturer located in my electorate, is facing a 92.5 per cent annual increase on their energy contract. That's an increase of more than $900,000. Why do Australians always pay more under Labor? The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will cease interjecting. The Assistant Treasurer will also cease interjecting so I can hear from the Prime Minister in silence. 14:34 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Barker for his question about increased prices for manufacturers. He is the same person who came in here in December and voted against lower prices for manufacturers. Manufacturers are getting hit by higher gas prices— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left. There is far too much noise during question time. I cannot hear a word that is being said. I call the Prime Minister. Mr ALBANESE R36 What we did, along with state and territory governments, along with the sectors, such as working with the Australian Industry Group and Australian manufacturers, along with energy consumer groups, was to come up with a plan, which is being implemented— The SPE 53517 Order! The member for O'Connor is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 for a short-term price cap on gas of $12— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom will leave the chamber under 94(a). Mr ALBANESE R36 at a time where, previously, 96 per cent of the prices being paid were under that, and the average price was about $9.70—before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has seen a significant increase as a result of the changes. But it isn't just us saying that. This is what the shadow Treasurer said about prices: 'We're facing circumstances in what's happening in the Ukraine and Russia that were not expected and very hard to predict. These pressures are driven by extenuating circumstances.' That's what the shadow Treasurer had to say before the election about the pressure that was on as a result of global price increases as a result of a land war in Europe and the fact that we are exposed to those international prices. Rather than sit back and do nothing, we acted responsibly and we brought in that legislation. And, as a range of people have said, particularly in the manufacturing sector, this was the right thing to do. But those opposite voted against it, or they're going to vote against the National Reconstruction Fund. They were opposed to free TAFE and they were opposed to the electrical vehicle discount. They opposed our climate bill. They were opposed to Rewiring the Nation. They opposed the secure jobs bill. They opposed increasing the minimum wage. They are defined by what they're against, because they never have a positive idea whatsoever, which is why 'opposition' is an entirely appropriate title for a mob that are defined by what they're against, never by what they're for. Natural Disasters: Funding 27 14:37 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. Why has the Albanese Labor government ordered an independent review into disaster funding? How will this benefit the Australian community? 14:38 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank the member for Macquarie for that question and acknowledge the great work she is doing in her community as it continues to recover from not only bushfires but multiple flooding events. I think every Australian who was impacted by the 2019-20 bushfires would have been alarmed at the report that they read that the New South Wales government decided disaster recovery funding based on someone's postcode, not their need. Disasters aren't colour coded, and it would be beneficial for communities if Liberals and Nationals understood that and supported everybody. The former Morrison government showed absolute disregard and arrogance for communities who had suffered catastrophic events—people who had lost everything. We saw how the previous government determined so many of their funds based on a colour coded spreadsheet. My experience on the ground as a mayor following a major disaster was that people needed money quickly; they needed certainty that financial assistance was coming. What they told me they definitely didn't need was competitive grant funding, which pulled communities apart instead of bringing them together when they needed it. My friend the member for Richmond said yesterday that there was failed support in her area. They were denied extra funding support when they needed it the most. Natural disasters and their communities shouldn't be politicised. But we've seen this course of action time and time again from those opposite. It is the reason our Prime Minister has announced an independent review into disaster funding arrangements. It will take forward the work government is doing with states and territories to review the jointly funded disaster recovery funding arrangements. We do not need to see another repeat of a funding program that lacks transparency and integrity—another program where dollars flow out depending on your postcode. This country, Australia, was built on mateship, on helping out those in need when they need it, not on who you did or didn't vote for. The Albanese government will continue to clean up the mess caused by those opposite. We will implement funding that is fair and transparent and we will make sure it goes to the people who need it, when they need it. Interest Rates 28 14:40 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Today we've seen a ninth consecutive interest rate rise which will cause further pain for families with a mortgage. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the last time the cash rate was this high was when Labor was last in government? Why do Australians always pay more under Labor? 14:41 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin It's disappointing but not especially surprising to learn from a rare question from the shadow Treasurer that it hasn't dawned on him that interest rates started going up on their watch. The first interest rate rise of this cycle was in May last year, when they were still in government. Mr Bowen DZS No regulation! The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Climate Change and Energy will cease interjecting. Dr CHA 37998 More than that, the worst quarter for inflation last year was the March quarter. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 In a difficult year for inflation, which was 7.8 per cent in 2022, the biggest contribution in quarterly terms was the March quarter, when those opposite were in office. When it comes to the cost of living and the additional pressure placed on Australians and on the Australian economy by higher interest rates, one of the most important things we can do as a government is to clean up the mess that the member for Hume left of our energy markets. Question after question from those opposite about people who are doing it tough in this community ignore a very basic fact that, when we asked the parliament to help people out and make their electricity bills a bit cheaper, they voted against it. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The House will come to order. Members will cease interjecting so I can hear from the member for Hume on a point of order. Mr Taylor 231027 Relevance. Australians want to know why their interest rates always go— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. That is not a point of order. Because of the member's seniority, he won't be dealt with in the same way as the member for Petrie. If you want to state a point of order, you do it shortly. You do not add additional comments. I hope that is very clear to the House. I give the call to the Treasurer. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Sometimes I wonder if the Rhodes committee have asked for their money back! The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will get on with his answer. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I will get the Manager of Opposition Business to resume his seat. I'll deal with this. I want the Treasurer to withdraw that comment and move on with his answer. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Withdrawn. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 To explain it to the shadow Treasurer, one of the reasons we have higher interest rates, which began before the election, is we have an inflation challenge in our economy, which we've acknowledged, and we've got a plan to address it. One of the reasons we've got that inflation challenge is the combination of the member for Hume's incompetence and President Vladimir Putin's aggression in Ukraine, which means we've got high and rising energy prices. The point I'm making about that is: when the parliament was given the opportunity to look after Australians facing high energy prices as part of this inflation challenge which is pushing up interest rates, those opposite were nowhere to be found. The difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is we see cost-of-living pressures impacting on Australians, impacting on small business and impacting on our economy, and we do something about it. Those opposite just vote against it. If they had their way, we'd have another decade of wage suppression and wage stagnation and ordinary working people copping it in the neck. We understand this inflation problem in our economy. We understand the pressure that rising interest rates put on Australian families and the Australian economy more broadly. We've got a plan to deal with it, and part of that means cleaning up the mess that the member for Hume left us. Grants 29 14:44 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. In addition to disaster funding arrangements, what other grant programs has the Albanese Labor government reviewed since coming into office? Why has it been necessary to do so? 14:45 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Hasluck for her question. She understands, as do most of us in this place, that to serve here is a privilege and responsibility that is entrusted to us by the Australian people. It is why, frankly, it is so incredibly disappointing that we have heard revelations— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin in warned. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR that the former New South Wales minister made decisions on bushfire recovery grants that meant that money was directed away from Labor electorates, using Commonwealth funds— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will resume her seat. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina, I'm trying to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. I give the call to the manager. Mr Fletcher L6B We have heard two successive ministers speaking about decisions of the New South Wales government. This is not the parliament of New South Wales. This is not within their responsibility. It's not a proper area for question time. The SPEAKER 53517 I just want to deal with this matter. The question was about reasons for it being necessary, and it is a reasonable response for the minister to cover other levels of government in her answer. I will listen to her carefully, and if she strays from that, I will bring her into order. I give the call to the minister. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We heard that the New South Wales Nationals directed money away from Labor electorates, and that the minister's office changed the guidelines deliberately to do so and in fact made decisions that had significant conflicts of interest. Let's be clear— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina will cease interjecting. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR we know that bushfires do not care about what electorate you come from. We also know that the National Party has form when it comes to this issue. The National Party has significant form when it comes to this issue. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left will cease interjecting. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Can I be clear: if you want to look at how the National Party has form when it comes to this issue, there's program after program, rort after rort after rort. We know that when it came to the Building Better Regions Fund, the grants favoured the National Party electorates; they were not awarded on the basis of merit— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting immediately. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR but on the basis of rules that were not made clear to all applicants. This included, I'm sure members of the Liberal Party will be pleased to know, funnelling into National Party electorates, against recommendations from the department, $100 million that would have gone to Liberal Party seats. A lottery would have in fact been fairer. We saw it with the Community Development Grants Program initially set up in 2013 to fund election commitments, as often happens. What we then saw was Pauline Hanson suddenly popping up with novelty cheques in Rockhampton and a state One Nation candidate in WA doing the same. We saw that. It was $3.2 billion of commitments, 1,400-plus commitments across the country, with no application rounds, no transparency, no assessment of grants. We saw it with the Female Facilities and Water Safety Stream Program as well, when $150 million and 41 different projects were announced during the election, and only 21 actually went to female change rooms, including to one club that didn't actually have any women's teams playing. We saw it with the Regional Growth Fund. We saw it with the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program and the colour coded spreadsheets. We saw it with the Drought Communities Program. Time and time again, the National Party has used funds for its own political purposes. We are cleaning up the mess left by the National Party, but it shows why they should never be in charge of these portfolios ever again. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina is warned. Gambling 30 14:49 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the Productivity Commission recommends mandatory poker machine precommitment to address gambling addiction, and the New South Wales Crime Commission recommends the system be cashless to reduce money laundering. To that end, and to their great credit, the Tasmanian and New South Wales governments have committed to mandatory cashless precommitment poker machine cards. Prime Minister, this is a watershed moment. Will you seize it? Will you take the lead and drive deep reform nationally? 14:49 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Clark for his question and recognise his genuine position over a long period of time in public office on these issues. Everyone in this place knows the damage problem gambling can cause to families and to communities. Everyone also knows, tragically, that too often it's those who can least afford it who are impacted by it. And the stats tell the story that on a per capita basis we have higher gambling losses than any other country in the world. We know that the number of people experiencing gambling harm has increased as well over the last decade. As the member knows, though, states have responsibility for these issues. The member raises Tasmania and New South Wales as examples. The WA government has measures in place as well—very strong measures. These are decisions for state governments, but the federal government does have a role when it comes to gambling. My government is working with state governments in a cooperative fashion. The Minister for Social Services has convened the first meeting of state and territory ministers with the Commonwealth that has been convened since 2017 about online wagering. They'd just stopped meeting, stopped considering these things for most of the last two terms of parliament. Together we're working on strengthening the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering, which the Commonwealth does have responsibility for. We recognise that there is more work to do. In addition to that we've supported a House of Representatives committee to conduct an inquiry into online gaming, and we'll consider the recommendations from this committee after it has reported. Certainly I look forward to working with the member for Clark and other members, not just of the committee but of the parliament, on these issues. Workplace Relations 30 14:52 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta My question is to the Minister for Workplace Relations. Since passing the secure jobs, better pay bill last year, how has the Albanese Labor government delivered on its commitment to get wages moving again by reinvigorating enterprise bargaining? 14:52 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Parramatta for the question. It's surprising that we're able to have this conversation, because we were all assured last year by Senator Cash that we are about to close down Australia! But we apparently are still all here. We said we would get wages moving and we said we would get bargaining moving, and it's happening. It is happening. Some changes have already taken effect, with that in mind, from the secure jobs, better pay bill. The highly politicised ABCC is no more. Gender equality and job security are now objects of the Fair Work Act. The reforms to the equal remuneration provisions, which support the commission to order wage increases to address unequal pay and undervalued work—in particular, to address the gender pay gap—are now law, fully proclaimed. Pay secrecy provisions have now been prohibited, so that people on new contracts can find out whether they're allowed to say how much they earn. The amendments to the antidiscrimination provisions have taken effect. The provisions on the termination of enterprise agreements, which used to just be able to go on forever, have taken effect. Making it easier to initiate bargaining has started. Dealing with errors in enterprise agreements can now be done sensibly without a mountain of red tape. And communications and materials from the Fair Work Commission, as was moved in one of the amendments, now have to be available in multiple languages. Importantly, as well as that, only last week the provisions for family and domestic violence leave became law in Australia, in what is world-leading legislation. But some of the provisions that have not yet taken effect have already had an impact. I refer specifically to the multi-employer bargaining provisions, which start in a few months. There are a number of businesses that made it clear that they didn't want to be involved in multi-employer bargaining, and, of course, we said the likely behaviour that would happen would be that single-enterprise agreements would start to take off as a result of secure jobs, better pay being law. That's exactly what's happened. So, Coles, for example, who had refused to bargain and had not been at the bargaining table for some time, have said that they are: … committed to working collaboratively ... throughout the process of renewing our agreements this year. That's nearly three years after the last enterprise agreement had nominally expired. Similarly, the ANZ, after seven years of not being at the bargaining table, is at the bargaining table again. I welcome positive engagement from those businesses. I welcome the fact that we said we'd bring people to the table, and they are at the table negotiating and bargaining again. We said we'd get wages moving, and it's happening. Donations To Political Parties 31 14:55 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is the Prime Minister. Last week we learned the CFMEU donated $4.3 million to Labor. This government has already abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission in exchange. What else is the corrupt CFMEU going to get from this government for its donations? The SPEAKER 53517 I'm just going to ask the manager to rephrase that question, particularly with the word 'corrupt' involved. I'll give him another chance to rephrase the question. Mr FLETCHER L6B My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week we learned the CFMEU donated $4.3 million to the Labor Party. This government has already abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission in exchange. What else is the CFMEU going to get from this government for their— The SPEAKER 53517 I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW In relation to the reference in standing orders to references to improper motives, the question—you asked for it to be rephrased. He's the Manager of Opposition Business; he always would have known that it was outside the standing orders when he asked it the first time. He's now having to be asked to say it a second time. He's repeating the deliberate breach. I draw it to your attention for a ruling. Th 53517 I'm going to give the Manager of Opposition Business one more time. If he pushes this, the question will be ruled out, and we'll move on to the other side immediately. Mr FLETCHER L6B My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week we learned the CFMEU donated $4.3 million to the Labor Party. This government has already abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission. What else is the CFMEU going to get from this government? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting otherwise we'll move on. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for McEwen will cease interjecting as well. The Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW That preamble can only be part of the same question if it's in breach of standing orders. Mr Dutton 00AKI On the point of order, the offending words, on your advice and in my interpretation, were 'in exchange' and the word 'corrupt', which prefaced the word 'CFMEU'. The shadow minister took out the words 'in exchange', so he broke the nexus in terms of what he was trying to say in his question and removed the word 'corrupt', both on your instruction. In that case, I don't see—I know they're sensitive over this side—it is not a breach of the standing orders to ask that question, particularly given the last part of the question, which is what the Leader of the House is arguing, is: what else is the CFMEU going to get from this government for its donations? I mean, that is not in breach of the standing orders. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The House will come to order. I have tried to be reasonable with this. Members are entitled to ask questions. The Leader of the Opposition just demonstrated, in my opinion, why the question is out of order. I'm moving to the next question. I'm calling the member for Gilmore. Environment 31 14:59 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for the Environment. The Australia state of the environment 2021 report found that nature in Australia is in a poor state and deteriorating. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to reverse this trend to protect and repair Australia's environment? 14:59 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Gilmore, who represents one of the most beautiful parts of Australia and does it as a fierce advocate for the environment in her electorate. Of course, our government is getting on with our goal of delivering a nature-positive Australia, which means protecting more of our natural environment for our kids and our grandkids to enjoy, protecting more of what's precious, repairing more of what's damaged and managing nature better for the future. What a contrast to a decade of neglect and destruction by those opposite. We saw what was in the State of the environment report and what was in the Water for the Environment Special Account after we came into government. Those opposite kept those secret. We know they received a report from Professor Graeme Samuel about our broken environment laws. They didn't act on that. And, of course, one of the best things they could have done to protect the environment is act on climate change. They had 22 separate energy policies and didn't land a single one. In contrast, we are protecting more of what is precious. We are introducing stronger laws to protect our environment—better for nature, better for business. That's why the environment groups and business have welcomed that. We're setting up an environment protection agency, because we know we need a strong cop on the beat. We're working towards zero new extinctions, with a quarter of a billion dollars dedicated to that, including for things like the koala hospital in Port Stephens, in the member for Paterson's electorate. We're repairing more of what is damaged. We're establishing a nature repair market. We're restoring our urban rivers and waterways, including in Gilmore, with $1½ million for the Shoalhaven River there. Blue carbon projects around Australia—Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania—will see mangroves, seagrass meadows and saltmarshes restored. We're eradicating feral cats on Christmas Island. It's so— Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Recycled minister there! We're managing nature better for the future, cracking down on plastic pollution and investing in plastic recycling, as I said yesterday. We're doubling the number of Indigenous rangers. In the electorate of Lingiari, we're investing in Kakadu National Park, including building a new crocodile-viewing platform. And we're delivering on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, after a decade of deliberate sabotage from those opposite. This is just a small taste of what this government is doing to restore nature, to deliver on our Nature Positive Plan, after a decade of destruction from those opposite. Oil and Gas Exploration 32 15:02 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan My question is to the Prime Minister. Last year, when asked about the proposed giant gas-drilling project off the New South Wales coast you said: Absolutely, we will stop PEP-11 going ahead, full stop. Exclamation mark. No question. Not equivocal. No ifs, no buts. Prime Minister, can you now guarantee you will stop this vandalism off New South Wales's beautiful coastline? 15:03 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I don't know if the member has actually followed the court case that has just happened, because the court case that has just happened has shown that the issue there was that the minister who was due to make the decision, the now member for Hinkler, was usurped by the appointment by the Prime Minister as the minister in order to make a decision over the top of the known minister, in order to make a different decision—because the minister for resources that we all knew about was going to make a different decision from the secret minister for resources. That is what has occurred there. There has been legal action to ensure that the decision be made in accordance with the law. This government will make decisions in accordance with the law, and that means that the one Minister for Resources that this government has—who you all know about—will make a decision, on its merits, as the law requires. To do otherwise is to ensure there will be another court case. We will follow the law as it is designated, which gives the responsibility to make this decision to the Minister for Resources. Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 32 15:05 Mr D 276714 Bean AVID SMITH (—) (): My question is to the Minister for Government Services. At the recent public hearings of the royal commission into robodebt, what have we learned about the inaccurate debts raised against innocent Australians? The SPEAKER 53517 Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that is not appropriate. 15:05 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I will update the House about how the robodebt royal commission has discovered that the previous government expended almost $1 million to commission a report reviewing robodebt in early 2017 for the former minister for human services and how this report simply disappeared. Specifically, we've learned the following facts. Firstly, on 15 February 2017 PricewaterhouseCoopers was commissioned to do an independent review into robodebt to be completed by 30 June. Secondly, according to AusTender the contract allocated to PricewaterhouseCoopers to review robodebt was $939,244.90. It was paid. Thirdly, we've learned that engagements between PricewaterhouseCoopers and senior DHS officers occurred more than weekly. The minutes of one of those meetings on 10 March quote senior departmental representatives as saying: 'Political criticism has lost steam, and the ombudsman's report will say all aspects of the system are good. Further, the minister is interested in what we have to do now. What can we press accelerator on in terms of recovery?' We further learn there was a visual presentation of this review provided to the former minister in mid-May 2017. It notes that the former minister's preference was to receive slides, as he was a former consultant. We further learn that a final draft report was prepared at the end of May. It's about 93 pages long. It was dated June and it was promised to be delivered on 2 June. Then, nothing—quite literally. I report to the House that nothing happened. This draft report was never sent. Apparently there was never any written request for it not to be sent or to be sent. It simply disappeared. The trail went cold. A million dollars was paid, but there was no report. What we have, though, is that the royal commission has now found what a million-dollar report looks like—and I'll table it—but no-one can actually recall in the royal commission why the final report was never sent. A million dollars of taxpayers' money, and nothing—literally nothing. Because of the royal commission, we've got the report, but the question that I think Australians want answered is: why was the report really shelved? I turn to the royal commission. They noted that, whilst the draft report employed neutral language, it was actually a very damning indictment of DHS's system of debt recovery. The report said that the promises of the money to be saved were overstated. Their report of the accuracy of the scheme was disastrous. It's a big shame that a million dollars was spent on a report that was never tabled, but it's a bigger shame that we missed the opportunity to stop robodebt five years ago. Agriculture Industry 33 15:08 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to the Prime Minister. The National Food Supply Chain Alliance states Australia is short 172,000 workers from paddock to plate, driving up food prices. Why has this government mismanaged the Pacific labour scheme and shelved the ag visa, making this worker shortage worse? Why does Labor repeatedly make decisions that drive up the cost of living? Why do Australians always pay more under Labor? 15:09 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. The Minister for International Development and the Pacific will respond to this, but we went to the election with a substantial upgrade of our engagement with the Pacific islands. Whether it's defence, whether it is migration—including temporary labour coming here but also permanent migration to assist the Pacific—or whether it is assisting with skills or with maritime issues, we have re-engaged with the Pacific. Unlike what occurred just before the election, when the Solomons broke away and came to arrangements that were not in Australia's national interests, not only have we signed agreements with Vanuatu and made an agreement with Papua New Guinea—when I was the first foreign leader of any sort to address the PNG parliament in Port Moresby just last month—but we are back around the table. We are not abusing our Pacific island neighbours or making jokes about climate change; we are engaging in these migration issues. Ms Collins HWM How many people came on your ag visa? Mr ALBANESE R36 The minister raises the ag visa that was a complete failure where no-one came. Imagine making an announcement and having nothing happen. Imagine that. That's what happened under them. I'd ask the minister to respond. 15:11 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland Thank you to the Prime Minister. This question demonstrates the gross ignorance of the National Party when it comes to the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. I was proud to announce, with the foreign minister and the Prime Minister and others last week, that we actually exceeded our goal for this year on PALM visa entrants. When we came to power, there were 24,000 Pacific workers under the PALM scheme. We set a goal in the October budget of reaching 35,000 by 30 June this year. We reached that target in December last year— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr CONROY 249127 demonstrating again our commitment to the Pacific and our commitment to agricultural workers and spreading the scheme to other industries such as aged care. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals is warned. Mr CONROY 249127 This scheme delivers $15,000 per worker to Pacific islanders in a region where more than one-third of people live on $1,000 a year or less. This scheme is working for the Pacific, it's working for industries that use this scheme and it's working to deepen our engagement in a region vital to our national interests. It stands in stark contrast to the mismanagement and irresponsibility of those opposite, who abandoned our relationships in that region. (Time expired) Medicare 34 15:12 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce My question is to the excellent Minister for Health and Aged Care. What is the government doing to strengthen Medicare, and why is this needed? 15:12 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Bruce for his question, because he understands acutely that it has never been harder to see a GP in Australia than it is right now and it's never been more expensive. The average gap fee now for a standard GP consult, for the first time in the history of Medicare, is actually more than the Medicare rebate itself. This doesn't just mean that Australians aren't getting the care that they need out in the community when and where they need it; it also means that there is huge pressure placed on our already stressed hospital emergency departments, which is why, of course, the Prime Minister and National Cabinet agreed last week to focus on health reform over the course of this year. This crisis didn't just spring from thin air. This crisis is a product of deliberate decisions made by the former government. There is no person in Australia who bears more responsibility for the crisis in general practice than the now Leader of the Opposition, a man rightly voted by Australia's doctors as the worst health minister in the Medicare era. We remember that, after it was promised in 2013 that there would be no cuts to health, his first budget as health minister tried to slash $50 billion from hospital funding and slug every single Australian—every pensioner, every child and every concession card holder—with a GP tax for every single visit to the doctor. Then, after we blocked that radical, extremist agenda in the Senate, instead he imposed a freeze on the Medicare rebate that lasted six long years and cut billions and billions of dollars out of general practice. Now, once again, it falls to a new Labor government to start fixing up the mess the coalition always leaves in health care and to fix the vandalism to a system of universal health care that is cherished by the Australian people but has always been hated by the Liberal and National parties. We are getting on with the job of strengthening Medicare. Just last week the Prime Minister and I were in Perth with the Western Australian health minister, Amber-Jade Sanderson, opening expressions of interest for the seven urgent-care centres that we promised the people of Western Australia—centres which will be delivered this year, which will be open seven days a week from 8 am to 10 pm and which will be completely free of charge and fully bulk-billed. Every single state and territory government, Liberal and Labor alike, have cooperated deeply with us on this program because they understand urgent-care clinics won't just make it easier and cheaper to see a doctor when people need it but it will take much-needed pressure off their hospital system. Fixing nine years of cuts and neglect doesn't happen overnight, but this government has no higher priority than strengthening Medicare. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 34 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost Of Living 34 15:16 The SPEAKER 53517 I've received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's continued failure to tackle the cost of living crisis facing Australian families. 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— 15:16 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I don't think I've ever seen a more smug and self-satisfied performance from a prime minister when Australians are doing it hard, and on a day when things have just got harder for Australians. This Prime Minister stood there at question time with a smug look on his face, telling Australians, essentially, that they've never had it better. I will say to the Prime Minister: he has to deliver on some of the commitments he made before the election, when he promised Australians that he would reduce cost-of-living pressures, reduce mortgages and reduce energy prices. Rather, what we see from the Prime Minister now is a refusal to repeat any of those promises. We saw today mortgage interest rates rise again, and the Treasurer is very, very keen to make sure, whenever he utters the words 'Reserve Bank,' he prefaces it with 'independent'—the independent Reserve Bank. That doesn't stop members opposite from offering free advice to the Reserve Bank in media interviews left, right and centre, but what he refuses to repeat is that the Reserve Bank's hand is being forced by a government that is putting inflationary upward pressure into the economy. We all recall, before the election, the Labor Party speaking about wages and how real wages had been going down. What do we think is happening now with real wages? In the quarter to December, we saw inflation for the quarter at 1.9 per cent and yet wages at one per cent. What does that mean? That means that every single person's pay packet is going backwards, in real terms, under this government. We heard in question time today that the last time mortgage interest rates were this high was in 2012. We now see mortgage interest rates today—well, the cash rate—at 3.35 per cent. Were the Prime Minister here, I would say that a few times to him—3.35 per cent, 3.35 per cent—just so he could bone up on that, just so he could get that number in his head, which he was clearly unable to do in the middle of the election. But what is the common denominator between the mortgage interest rates we saw in 2012 and the mortgage interest rates we see today? Of course, it's the tough luck of the Labor Party, who just stumble upon this terrible luck every time they're in government and the economy suffers. It's just terrible luck. But the other thing in common was that, in 2012, guess who the chief of staff to the great Wayne Swan was? It was the member for Rankin. Over the years, I've often referred to the member for Rankin as Wayne Swan's brain. He always took it as a compliment, but I didn't mean it as a compliment. But he is the man now who is putting upward pressure—inflationary pressure—into the economy. This is forcing the hand of the Reserve Bank. What are we going to see? We know we're going to see approximately 800,000 households who will not just see one interest rate rise; they're not sitting there today doing the sums, doing the maths on what a 0.25 per cent rise will do. There will be 800,000 households who will see a jump from their fixed rates, in many cases below two per cent interest rates, to the now prevailing headline interest rates of around six or 6½ per cent, if not higher. So these people will not, sadly, being seeing one interest rate rise overnight; when their mortgages mature—and 800,000 of them will mature this year—they will see every single one of the nine interest rate rises to date increase their mortgage overnight. What's the answer from the government? What's the answer from the Prime Minister? Well, the Prime Minister keeps talking about the reconvening of the parliament before Christmas on his gas plan. What have we seen since then? The Prime Minister talks about that being a great achievement. I received a letter into my electorate office just today, so apologies that I'm reading it from my phone. This letter had some even worse news for this person. Not only are they looking at how they are going to meet increased mortgage rates; it was a letter from Origin Energy. The letter says: 'Hello, on 1 February your natural gas rates are going up. We understand this isn't the news you want to hear, and we're here to help you if you need. We estimate the new rates would cost you $602.74 more, based on an estimate of your last 12 months of use.' The Prime Minister, 97 times before the election, promised to deliver $275 reductions to people just like that constituent. Yet, since the election, how many times has he mentioned the word 275, let alone the promise? I put the task out to all those in the chamber: do a search of Hansard. How many times has the Prime Minister reiterated the promise that he made 97 times before the election that he would deliver $275 reductions in energy prices? He's mentioned it zero times. He refuses to mention it again. He obviously thinks that the Australian people will just ignore this or pretend that he didn't make those promises 97 times. He's fumbled around a couple of times with some fairly flimsy alibis. One alibi that he seems to be throwing out there in order to alleviate his responsibility for those promises was the illegal Russian invasion of the Ukraine. But he forgot that he'd actually made the promise about 30 times after the invasion. I assume those on the other side will be scrambling around to try to work out what the next alibi could be for that promise, but what we know is that the government has no plan to deliver on that promise. They have no plan to put downward pressure—downward inflationary pressures—into the economy to take pressure off the sad decisions that are being made at the moment to increase the cash rate. So what happens? Millions of Australians will suffer. And what do we get from those in the government? It's just the bad luck of the Labor Party. Every time we come to government, things happen. Can I say to those in the government: you are elected to do a job, and when difficult times come, governments are there to make decisions to make the lives of Australians easier. I can say that, as I was a minister in the former government when the pandemic hit. Rather than run around this building saying, 'Woe is me. The pandemic is making life harder for Australians. Isn't that bad luck for us?' we took decisions to make Australians' lives better through a very difficult time. In my portfolios in that government, we saved half a million jobs in the residential construction industry. We didn't say, 'Woe is me. Isn't it all just very bad news and tough luck for the government.' No. You make decisions to make life easier. What we're seeing here is a prime minister, to be frank, who I think has the worst economic credentials of any prime minister that we've ever seen, and there have been a few doozies on the Labor side over the years, I have to say. This is a man who didn't know the cash rate on the first day of the election campaign. He didn't know the cash rate on the first day of the election campaign! Again, I know that those opposite don't want to remember that, but he did not know a fundamental figure that most people walking down the street would know and certainly that anybody with a mortgage would know. I think that also betrays another aspect to this very smug and self-satisfied Prime Minister. Look at the dinner parties that he attends and the celebrities he hangs out with, including those who accompanied him to the tennis three nights in a row. On that point, all prime ministers attend the tennis, but three nights in a row? He looked very relaxed. He did not look like a man who was sitting there trying to work out a plan to help alleviate the cost-of-living pressures hitting Australians. On this side of the House, we'll stand up for those people. They are who we represent, they are who we will support and that is what the government must do. (Time expired) 15:26 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner What chutzpah from those opposite to come in and talk to this parliament about the cost of living. Those opposite, who spent nearly a decade in office as a government whose 'deliberate design feature' was to place downward pressures on the wages of Australians. Those opposite, who in government ran a rolling energy crisis, with 22 failed energy policies driving upward pressure on bills. Those opposite, who hid power price rises from the Australian people until after the election. Those opposite, whose budgets included sports rorts, car park rorts, Leppington Triangle—who ran a veritable rortocracy. They put so much ill-considered money into the system as to have an adverse impact on the decisions of the Reserve Bank. Since we've come to office we've seen 234,000 jobs created—the best record of an incoming government since records began. We've seen the strongest wage growth in the period since we've come to office that has been seen in Australia in a decade. I have to say that the chutzpah is pretty extraordinary, given that the mover of this matter of public importance himself said, when interest rates began to rise when his government was in office, that the rise had to happen. The member for Deakin said, 'I think households are in a position where they've prepared for this.' That cash rate, he said, 'wasn't going to last forever.' We on this side of the House have a plan to support the cost of living. Today I want to run through 10 ways in which we're doing that. First, we've successfully argued for a minimum wage increase and argued for a pay rise for aged-care workers. One of the first things we did—the first cabinet submission of the Albanese government—was to support an increase to the minimum wage. The coalition cautioned against it. They wouldn't back in a dollar-an-hour pay increase for the lowest paid workers. We also supported an increase in the pay of aged-care workers at the Fair Work Commission, leading to an interim decision pushing up minimum wages for aged-care workers on a range of awards by at least 15 per cent. Second, we've passed legislation to get wages moving again. Opposed by those opposite, our secure jobs, better pay legislation built a modern bargaining system that will drive productivity growth and ensure that growth is inclusive. Yet every single coalition member and senator voted against action, with Senator Cash in the other place saying it would 'close down Australia'. Later this year, as the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has pointed out, we'll be moving legislation to ban wage theft. If you're serious about the cost of living, you should be serious about banning wage theft. Third, we've legislated cheaper child care and expanded paid parental leave. Members of the general public listening to this will remember that terrific moment in 2019 when Labor announced our childcare policy, and the coalition minister responsible, the member for Wannon, said it was communism. Apparently, better child care for Australian families is communism. Yet, in a few short months, 96 per cent of Australian families with kids in care will have access to more-affordable early childhood care. It is a direct cost-of-living relief measure which will benefit those families. We've boosted paid parental leave from 18 to 26 weeks, which is the biggest increase in the program since it was created by the former Labor government in 2011. For those families receiving childcare benefits or receiving paid parental leave, this goes directly to the cost of living. Fourth, we've legislated cheaper medicines, making medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme almost 30 per cent cheaper for every Australian, and lifted the income limits on the seniors health card by over 50 per cent, making medicines cheaper for tens of thousands of older Australians. A stunt by those opposite in the Senate delayed our support for older Australians by almost a full month, delaying cost-of-living relief when it was needed most. Fifth, we've legislated emissions reduction targets and invested in cleaner and cheaper energy. Our action to lock in emissions reduction targets is going to transform the economy over the long term. More than three million Australian households have solar photovoltaic panels on their roofs. They understand the direct cost-of-living benefits, because, as the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has pointed out, the sun and the wind don't send a bill. Australians are taking up electric vehicles in droves. We cut taxes on electric vehicles, and those opposite voted against. It was another cost-of-living measure that they refused to back. They are the party who said electric vehicles would end the weekend, failing to realise that if you drive a hundred kilometres in a petrol vehicle you pay an average of $14 but in an electric vehicle you pay $4. Their shadow Treasurer is the Don Quixote of Australian politics, a man who made his name tilting at windmills, who is campaigning against renewable energy and who did more than anyone else under the former government to prevent serious action on climate change and to prevent the benefits for the cost of living that flow from cheaper renewable energies. Sixth, we've invested in fee-free TAFE and more university places. For those who want to get more education, we're making it easier for them to do so. We've created 180,000 fee-free TAFE and vocational education and training places just this year. We're upgrading TAFE facilities and infrastructure and allowing more Australians to go to university, where they'll earn higher wages, which is of course critical to a cost-of-living challenge. Seventh, we handed down a budget that delivered responsible cost-of-living relief. I heard the member for Deakin claiming that Labor's budget put upward pressure on interest rates. In fact, it did the very opposite. The budget brought down by the Treasurer in October had payments falling in real terms over the next two years. The October budget returned 99 per cent of upgrades to the budget over the next two years. The average for the previous government was 40 per cent. The average for the Howard government was 30 per cent. Eighth, we're focusing on competition reforms, because we recognise that a government that is on the side of consumers is going to place downward pressure on prices. We've banned unfair contract terms and we've raised the penalties for breaking competition laws. We've put in place a motor vehicle data access scheme that will reduce the cost to Australians of repairing their vehicles. Our competition reforms, which we'll go on to look in other sectors and other provisions, will ensure that Australians pay less than they otherwise would have done, because a more dynamic economy, a more competitive economy, is absolutely critical to the cost of living for Australians. Ninth, we took action to limit gas prices, putting in place a temporary $12-a-gigajoule price cap for 12 months and a mandatory code of conduct for the wholesale gas market. Those opposite wouldn't support that and they wouldn't support our targeted energy bill relief for households and businesses—up to $1½ billion in targeted bill relief in partnership with the states and territories. They did nothing, while they were in office, to deal with the crisis that Australians are facing. We in government don't believe that Australians should be paying wartime gas prices or that we should see manufacturing go to the wall simply because of the inaction of a government. That's why we acted on these critical reforms. A $12-a-gigajoule price cap is entirely reasonable. It's a price cap that is above where 96 per cent of the contracts were concluded before the war in Ukraine. Tenth, we're working on energy bill assistance with the states, partnering with them and covering the costs of states that cap the price of coal, as New South Wales and Queensland have done, at $125 a tonne. I've now covered 10 of the ways in which we're dealing with cost-of-living challenges in Australia, but there are many more points you could have made. The Prime Minister, in question time, noted the importance of our National Reconstruction Fund for dealing with supply chain blockages. That, in turn, puts downward pressure on prices. Yet those opposite won't support the National Reconstruction Fund. The Leader of the Opposition claimed today to be leading the party of families, of small businesses and of the Australian working class, but what party of families would vote against direct energy bill relief? What party of small business would be happy to see Aussie manufacturers hit the wall because they're paying wartime gas prices? What kind of party for the working class would vote against a reconstruction fund that's about creating new, well-paying, high-wage blue-collar jobs? The fact is the Leader of the Opposition is the leader of the leftovers, with no answers for the cost-of-living issues that this government is acting on. 15:36 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The member for Fenner is not a bad chap, but I do not like being lectured to by somebody who only has a capital city intent and who comes to this place just wanting to push his capital city barrow, and country people do not like that either. When he talks about the issues that he raised in this matter of public importance, there was no discussion about regional Australia. There was no thought given to how tough people in regional Australia were doing. Dare I say there are truly people in Fenner higher paid—and good luck to them—than in the average electorate in country Australia. But the fact is they are doing it tough in country Australia and in the regions, and this government has continually failed to address those issues. What we've heard from this government, in the eight or so months that it's been in, are such things as who's going to appear on the $5 note and whether we're going to have an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. I recognise this is an important issue. I'm glad the member for Lingiari is here, and I acknowledge the representation that she does for that fine electorate—which would not have been an electorate but for the person standing right here at the dispatch box, I have to say, because I know what regional representation is about. I know how tough it is for regional Australians to perhaps even sometimes see their member. I heard the member for Fenner talking about electric cars and their capacity of about 100 kilometres and which was cheaper—electric or petrol. In some instances the cars that he wants us to drive only go 100 kilometres. But, in regional Australia, that's just a trip to the shops or to the doctor for some. What he doesn't realise—I heard him talking about tilting at windmills—is that we've got quite a few windmills in the member for Hume's electorate. I wonder how many windmills creating energy are in the member for Fenner's electorate. It's easy to come to this place and lecture everybody when your own electorate—which is all of 238 square kilometres—doesn't have the capacity to create the energy, the food and the fibre. It's all well and good to represent those people—public servants and, no doubt, fine citizens of Australia as they are. But don't come into this place and start lecturing us about addressing the issue that you should be addressing, and that is cost of living. It is true: the cost of living has gone up since Labor took office. We hear all the time of those opposite railing against the debt. We hear them articulating this figure which just isn't true. It's nowhere near true. There's not a trillion dollars of debt; it's nowhere near that. And they ask, 'What did we get for the debt that we're in?' I'll tell you what we got for the debt that we are in—and we were in debt. We got 55,000 Australian lives saved, because of the measures that we put in place through COVID-19. I sometimes think that those opposite have forgotten about the fact that we were in a global pandemic, the fact that this was a worldwide virus. None of those members opposite were in those meetings when we were being told by the Chief of Defence and by the Chief Medical Officer how drastic this was. This was a health crisis. This was a national security concern. We addressed those issues, and we addressed them superbly, to a point where we actually did save lives and hundreds of thousands of jobs and many businesses. We kept the doors of businesses open. We kept the economy going. The member for Fenner talks about the jobs and what's been created since Labor took office. That's because of the good position, the good policies that were there when they took office in May last year: 1.1 million jobs created since the pandemic hit. And I remember when James Kwan lost his life on 1 March 2020. It was awful—awful for his family, awful in terms of the crisis that was about to confront the country. Yet, despite that, during COVID there was tax relief for 11½ million Australians, all benefitting from the coalition policies. There were 700,000 jobs saved. And 71.3 per cent of trade and exports were covered by free trade agreements. When we came to office it was at the 20 per cent mark. What we did was make sure that we put the economic parameters in place so that this nation could be its best self, so that this nation could succeed. What this government now needs to do is address the cost-of-living pressures on Australians, on first home buyers, on families struggling to make ends meet. 15:41 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley I want to start by pointing out to the member for Riverina that the 10 reforms that the member for Fenner spoke about in his speech, which this government has introduced and which address the cost of living, apply to the regions, too. So, when you start by having a personal crack at the member for Fenner, who represents a city seat, it really is undermined a bit by the fact that the 10 reforms that he spoke about are regional-city-blind; they affect everyone and they benefit everyone, because we are a government that is here to represent everyone, no matter where they live, no matter what their background is, no matter who they are. We don't have to say the word 'regional' in order for our policies to benefit people who live in the regions. The other point I want to make is that yes, a number of measures were put in place by this parliament during COVID-19 that went to saving lives, saving businesses and protecting people's wages. What is often forgotten when members of the now opposition talk about that is the role the Labor Party, in opposition, played in a constructive and consistent way to support those measures through the parliament—in fact, to advocate for a number of those measures, constructively and positively, for quite a period in order for them to then be adopted by the then Prime Minister and the then government. We worked in the national interest in a time of crisis and put petty politics aside in order to work for the benefit of the country as part of this parliament. When you come into this place and you are a member of a political party and a representative of your electorate, you can decide: do you want to be here to be a builder, or do you want to be here to be a wrecker? Do you want to be here to make a difference, whether you're in government or in opposition, or do you want to be here to be a roadblock to your political enemies? Do you want to be part of investing in the future, or do you want to be here to simply play petty political games and pointscore and get on the daily news cycle? When you're the Leader of the Opposition and you're in the party rooms of the coalition that makes up this opposition, you can decide: do you want to support national reconstruction; do you want to be part of the solution going forward from the crisis and the difficult times that we've been through and are still going through; do you want to support existing and new industries; do you want to support the creation of jobs; do you want to support economic recovery and growth in our local communities, in our regions and across the country; or do you want to score petty political points and try to win the argument or the news cycle of the day? What are we here for in this parliament? Do you want to be not just the opposition but stubbornly and short-sightedly oppositional at all times? Is that the sort of opposition and political party that people on that side of the chamber want to be part of? We have a cost-of-living crisis—we know we do—and everyone in this chamber knows that there is a raft of contributing factors to that, and everyone in this chamber knows that people who live in the inner city, the outer suburbs such as my community in Dunkley, the regions and remote communities are feeling the impact of that cost-of-living crisis, and everyone in this chamber, in their honest moments, will know that the 10 policy reforms and pieces of legislation that the member for Fenner referred to in his speech all go to dealing with aspect of that cost-of-living crisis. But there is no magic silver bullet. It is doing yourselves, this parliament and the country a disservice if you stand up in a debate and pretend that there is something that can be done within the next 24, 48 or however many hours to untangle the complex cost-of-living and inflationary crisis that we are in, but you can choose to be part of the solution if you want to. 15:47 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson Every time we have a Labor government, the cost of living goes up and the Australian public have to pay the price. This is how it is and how it has always been. This is a reality. There are many people in my electorate of Dawson who are wondering why this government is continuing to fail to tackle the cost-of-living crisis. Labor has been exposed as being without a plan and without solutions, and this is hurting Australians. Labor has been exposed for not standing by their word and for breaking promises. The people of Australia were promised a $275 power bill reduction. This was not a slip of the tongue. This promise was repeated all over the country 97 times. We were promised we would be better off under Labor, but under Labor we have seen unaffordable rises in interest rates, skyrocketing power prices, exorbitant insurance premiums and huge increases in food and fuel costs. I've recently run a cost-of-living survey in my electorate. Thousands of constituents took part in this survey. Ninety-eight per cent of the people who took the survey said that rising costs of fuel, groceries and energy and rising interest rates are creating huge amounts of stress for themselves and their families. A constituent from Bowen who has a 400-kilometre round trip from Bowen to Townsville for regular medical attention is struggling with extra fuel costs, leaving him short of money each week for necessary expenses. With the rising energy costs, a pensioner in Townsville can't afford to run their air conditioner. Anyone who's been to my electorate knows how hard it is to live without air conditioning in our sweltering heat. A constituent from East Mackay contacted my office advising they had just received their insurance premium renewal. Their premium has doubled, going from $3,000 to $6,000 in 12 months. This has forced them to now be uninsured. A diabetic living in Mackay came to my office just last week to complain about the cost of fruit and vegetables and about how this was causing him financial stress. A family of seven in my electorate recently told me that they are now spending $600 to $800 per week on groceries. They have said that this is not sustainable, and they are unsure what their future holds. A pensioner in Mount Ossa whose beloved wife is in a nursing home in Mackay now can't visit her each day and has now had to cut that back to every second day so he can afford to eat. How is this happening in Australia, the lucky country? Not only are we facing the cost-of-living crisis; this Labor government has also made significant funding cuts to the regions. Labor has cut our road infrastructure funding. They have cut funding to mental health services. The Building Better Regions Fund is gone. They have cut our mobile phone black spot funding. Veteran's support has been axed, and water infrastructure funding has all dried up. The Treasurer had an opportunity to provide relief to this cost-of-living debacle in October, when he delivered his first budget. Instead, he delivered a grim forecast. He warned Australians to expect soaring energy bills in the future. Remember that $275 reduction in our power bills? It's still nowhere to be seen. Australians deserve a government that is on their side, not one that breaks promises and rips funding out of where it is needed. Australians deserve and need a government with a solid economic plan, not one that is just there. Running this country is not a spectator sport. This Labor government is big on commentary and there is no action. I am urging Labor government to start taking our cost-of-living crisis seriously and to start listening to Australians. Thank you for your support. 15:51 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta The mover of this motion, the member for Deakin, gave a speech that was long on bombast but short on insight. There was a lot of drivel about the tennis and the last election, and lots of attempts at political point scoring, and, in amongst all that haze, it was difficult to see the point he was trying to make. It seemed to be that he was trying to suggest that the interest rate rise that we saw today and rising inflation were caused by the government. What an erroneous claim. He didn't even bother to give any reasons for making that claim. In a long speech he didn't give a single causal explanation for how this government is contributing to rising interest rates and rising inflation. Let's look at the evidence. Is it fiscal policy that's causing rising interest rates and rising inflation? Through the government's budget have we made a contribution to either of those areas? The answer is clearly no. This budget was remarkably prudent. This is a budget that banked 99 per cent of savings. That is more than the coalition's last budget, which only banked 40 per cent of savings; and more than the Howard government, which banked just 30 per cent of savings. In this government, real spending is essentially flat over the forward estimates. In affirming Australia's AAA rating, the agencies have all made mention of Australia's fiscal policy, which is helping to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. The IMF said that our budget approach will help support monetary policy in holding back excess demand. It takes great chutzpah from that side of the House to claim that fiscal policy is contributing to inflation, when our approach is prudent and their approach added $1 trillion of debt to the Australian balance sheet. Rather than play politics with the cost of living, let's remember that this is an issue which is having a deep impact on people right across Australia. Last week I visited Parramatta Mission and heard about how the cost-of-living crisis is impacting Parramatta's most disadvantaged and vulnerable residents. Parramatta Mission provides food, shelter and services seven days a week to people who need it most. This is where the cost-of-living crisis is most acute. It's where the pain is being felt the most. I learnt last week that Parramatta Mission's daily meals program saw a 144 per cent increase in uptake over the last year, up from 4,200 to 6,100. Food parcel uptake doubled, from just above 5,000 to nearly 11,000. Referrals to Uniting outreach services for people in crisis or experiencing housing issues increased by 204 per cent, and Centrelink referrals went up by 728 per cent. This is the front line of the cost-of-living crisis in Australia. It reflects a situation being faced by many people across our country. Around one-third of the people who are getting help from Parramatta Mission are homeless or in insecure housing. More than two-thirds of the people seeking help are in housing, but the problem is that their bills are too high for them to afford essentials. Rental costs are rising at the fastest pace on record in many suburbs. They're up 14 per cent in North Parramatta and 11 per cent in Pendle Hill. In Merrylands, in my electorate, 40 per cent of the population are living in rental stress. That means they're spending more than 30 per cent of their income on rental costs. These are issues being faced not just in Australia but around the world. That's why the government has clear plans to address inflation and assist Australians with the cost of living. Those plans involve helping to get wages moving in this country. That's why the government increased the minimum wage, helping 2.7 million Australians. That's why we delivered the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act, which reinvigorated enterprise bargaining. That's why we've been delivering responsible cost-of-living relief, including cheaper child care, which will help around 9,000 families in Parramatta; expanding paid parental leave to six months; providing cheaper medicines; providing more affordable housing; providing direct energy bill relief; lifting the pension in line with inflation; and building more affordable homes. The government has a clear plan to address the cost of living. It's a problem we inherited but a problem that we're dealing with. 15:56 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey The member for Parramatta did mention some of the struggles that his electorate has. I know every member, including me, could share stories of the struggles that we have, and it's acknowledged that we have a cost-of-living crisis. As the member for Dunkley said—I caught the end of her speech, and I agree—there is no silver bullet. This is a complicated matter that poses a lot of challenges. I would note that during the election campaign the then Leader of the Opposition did offer quite a lot of snapshots and quick bites on how he could fix this problem. It's definitely challenging. If the opposition leader at the time had been a bit more circumspect about the challenges, maybe we would be in a different place. The member for Parramatta did mention the IMF, and he talked about the budget. What he failed to talk about is the government's role when it comes to off-budget spending. That's a nice little trick that governments like to use. Off-budget spending, as the name suggests, doesn't go into the budget. The IMF and economists have talked about the challenges of off-budget spending and how it increases inflation and put pressure on everyday Australians. This government has already committed to $36.5 billion of extra borrowing in off-budget spending, and that will have a direct impact on inflation. While it's very easy for the Treasurer and the member for Parramatta to talk about the headline numbers in the budget, they always fail to mention off-budget spending, which does contribute to inflation. Much like the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, the member for Parramatta also used that favourite line of theirs about $1 trillion of debt they inherited. We've heard it a lot, and it's working because we all see it on social media. So well done to the Treasurer and his team for their political spin. I thought I might check that number because $1 trillion that they say they've inherited did seem rather high to me. I was shocked. I went to that very reliable source: the very independent ABC Fact Check. They found: When the Coalition left office in May 2022, net debt stood at $517 billion. That's a long way from $1 trillion. That's before we talk about the debt the former government inherited from previous governments—I'm not going to talk about that. The pure fact is it's $517 billion—a long way from $1 trillion. Once again this is the pattern that is emerging from the Treasurer, and it's not surprising. He is a doctor in political science, so he is well experienced at political spin. He's clearly setting the Australian people up. It's at $517 billion, and now he wants to talk about it. He can continue to drive spending up, he can continue to spend more and put pressure on inflation. That is what this government can control. It can spend responsibly, it can spend less, it can start to take the debt down. It's true this government does not have a plan, eight months in. Every time they're asked, the Prime Minister talks about the same two or three talking points. It's not surprising we've got a prime minister that doesn't have a plan for the economy. We've got a prime minister that doesn't know the cash rate. We've got a prime minister that doesn't know the employment rate. Just yesterday in question time the Prime Minister was asked a very important question: 'How many Australians are coming off a fixed loan this year?' It's a really important question because that is going to impact a lot of Australians. Every rate rise we see—nine in a row—those people that come off that fixed rate this year will be feeling that the hardest. It's a pretty important economic indicator at this time. We heard for about 2½ minutes the Prime Minister not be able to answer. He did answer at the end, but, for those that probably couldn't see it at home, there was a standing order and he needed to sit down, and his faithful Treasurer was there to pass him the numbers. We've got a prime minister that doesn't understand the economy and can't remember basic numbers, and that's why this government has no plan for the cost of living. 16:02 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle It tells the Australian people a lot about those opposite that they think cost-of-living pressures began with the inflation circumstances the world has experienced since the war in Ukraine started last year. It tells you a lot about those opposite that they think all of us should engage in some exercise in collective amnesia and put aside the nine years they were in government. The Australian people right now are looking at two stories: a nine-year story of the government of those opposite and an eight-month story of the Albanese Labor government to date. All of us in this place know that there are cost-of-living pressures. We know what that means for Australian households and Australian businesses. When it comes to Australian households we know particularly what it means for low-income households, for young people, for people on the minimum wage, for people who rely on the age and disability pension and for people in rural and regional Australia; it means some very difficult choices. There are some households where the choices are in that discretionary space. There are some households where it is about essentials. There are people in this country who are going to the pharmacist and instead of getting the four medicines they have been prescribed they're thinking about which three of the four medicines they can afford. That is a terrible thing. This government has responded to that particular kind of circumstance by delivering the largest decrease in the maximum cost of PBS medicines in Australia's history. That's what this government has done. The cost-of-living pressures that are the foundation of the circumstances people experience right now include 10 years of stagnant and falling real wages that those opposite did nothing about. In fact, it was a deliberate design feature of their approach to the economy. It includes what the health minister said in question time amounted to the gutting of the universal public health system in this country—six years of Medicare freezes. Since the turn of the century the maximum PBS medicine cost doubled, and half of that was under those opposite. Those are the kinds of things that Australian households experienced, with no relief, for the nine years under those opposite. We've been in government for eight months, and we know that there is a cost-of-living crisis that is putting Australian households and businesses under enormous pressure. So, what have we done? We've increased the minimum wage. We've changed bargaining conditions under the secure jobs, better pay laws—that they opposed—so that people can actually get a fair share of the productivity and the profits that their labour contributes to. At the end of 2021 and in early 2022, after nine years of those opposite being in charge, wages as a share of the economy had fallen to the lowest proportion of the economy, as a whole, in the record books, while profits were at the highest share of national income in the record books. That's what they delivered for this country, and that's what Australian households have experienced from the coalition, which is now, in opposition, the 'noalition'. We've taken a very different approach. We know that cost-of-living pressures are real. We know that the Australian people expect their government to take a focused, stable and competent day in, day out approach to tackling those issues, and that's what we've done. We've done it with wages. We've done it with medicines. We'll do it with child care. We're doing it with expanded access to parental leave arrangements. We're doing it with energy. We've done it with a cap on the wholesale cost of gas. We've done it in all of those areas in eight months. That contrasts starkly with nine years of those opposite. Nine years of stagnant wages. Nine years of rising health costs. Nine years of rising education costs. Nine years of rising costs in pretty much every category that you can possibly think of. Yet they now expect the Australian people to forget those nine years altogether, to go through the Men in Black magical device exercise and indulge in the collective amnesia that would see all of that neglect, all of that dishonesty, all of that incompetence and all of that mismanagement put aside so that they can indulge in the same old scare campaigns, the same old blame campaigns and the same kind of negative politics that has characterised them in all of the 21st century. Well, they're getting something different from the Albanese Labor government. It's what people in Australia should expect from government, and it's what they're going to get from us. 16:07 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I do appreciate and have great respect for the member who just spoke, the member for Fremantle, and he knows that. My only concern here is that government is hard, which the government members are now about to find out. It's never easy when you come into the government of this nation, especially in very difficult times. Nobody doubts in this House that these are difficult times. It's an especially difficult times for families who are struggling with the cost of living. I'm probably unusual in this House. I don't know how many others own their own car and pay for their own fuel, but I own my own car and pay for my own fuel—for good reason: I was sick of people tracking everything that I did through my service station results and accounts. It may be a five- or seven-year-old Territory, but it is a lovely car. It's very hard to replace, and it's Australian made. But, of course, I have noticed that my fuel bill has doubled, and I'm not on my own. I can't imagine what it's like for a family in my electorate. The Monash electorate is a large regional electorate—not compared to the electorate of Gippsland or the Western Australians, but it's a large electorate—so my people, my constituents, have to travel. They travel for work, they travel for health care, for aged-care visitation and they travel to take their kids to school. Fuel is a very large component of their outlay in any given week, month or year. Because of that, they're constrained in a number of ways. This is the first time in the last 10 to15 years that this generation of people have understood that interest rates don't only go down and stay down; they go up. When they go up it hurts. From my reading today, it says that average families with a $750,000 mortgage—which was unheard of in my day, but that's what it is today, so I read in the papers as they explain where we are at—have had an increase in their actual outlay of $1,400 per month. So in any household that is an increase of $1,400 per month—an increase. In any household, they have higher fuel bills, they have higher home loan repayments, and I read here that about 50 per cent of people are about to go from their fixed-rate mortgage into their non-fixed rate mortgage. About 40 per cent of people will roll over into non-fixed mortgages. They then too are under pressure, knowing what is coming for them over this next six months as they roll over into a higher interest rate that they will have to pay. On top of that, I don't know whether you have had a look at the price of dog food recently. An honourable member interjecting— Mr BROADBENT MT4 You may laugh, but families actually have dogs and they love their animals. They spend a lot of money feeding them and looking after them. The price of dog food has gone through the roof. It's only one component of what goes in their grocery basket. If you look, fruit and veg that have gone up 23 per cent and a basket load of shopping that has increased overall by 19 per cent, so you now have three configurations. You have the price on fuel, insurance has gone up—if you notice any of your premiums coming through—you will notice that the cost of schooling has gone up, and the cost of daily living in every household has gone up. Government is hard, because people expect government to look after their health and wellbeing. This new Labor government has a responsibility to the people of Australia to do everything they can, without laughing about dog food, without laughing about the cost to households. What will happen in this House is you will learn not to laugh when people are under pressure. You will learn not to laugh at families. And if I don't get a rise from you, it means this speech hasn't been worth giving. Thank you for mocking, and I think the time for this debate has expired. (Time expired) 16:12 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I proudly represent my community in Pearce, which is a large and fast-growing electorate, one of the fastest growing in Australia. Pearce has many young families, eight babies a day born to our residents, a very high youth population, our wonderful seniors, and grandparents raising grandchildren. The reason I provide this information is to advise that I understand and know my communities. I listen to them. I represent them well. I know what we need to do in advocacy. In order to do that, you have to listen. I have just listened to the member for Monash speaking about dogs and families. Nearly every household has a dog or a cat or a bird. We understand that but that's all talk. What we are looking for from the Albanese government is action. Action speaks much louder than words. Local families tell me that they feel the financial pressures of life, understandably so. I don't turn around and say to them, 'The Albanese government has inherited a trillion dollars of debt with nothing to show for it.' What is the point in that? That is a fact. What they want to hear is what we are doing about it. What we hear from our residents is they are extremely grateful for the cost-of-living relief that the Albanese government is providing for them. This is a very clear message that we are doing our job. The Albanese government is a listening government. We understand and we are taking action. One member of our community was so very grateful for the affordable medicines legislation and now having cheaper medicines that she was overwhelmed when thanking me and our government for providing such a welcome measure to make her and her family's life easier financially. As a government, that is just one of the new measures that we have put in place to help and support Australian families. Quite simply, the Albanese government cares; it cares about making life better for everybody. We certainly understand that the cost of living is rising and hitting a lot of Australians hard, after decades of neglect under the previous government. Just as it was throughout 2022, inflation is a defining economic challenge of 2023. It's not something that we've just thought up or something that we dreamt up as we started in May 2022. This has been throughout 2022. This is an impact that we are dealing with. The Albanese government is working constructively with the states and territories to provide up to $1.5 billion in targeted energy bill relief to businesses and households, who have been, without doubt, hit the hardest by rising prices. We are focused on addressing inherited economic challenges, including the rising cost of living, and we have a robust plan. We have a plan for cheaper medicine, cheaper child care, getting wages moving, expanding paid parental leave to six months and more affordable housing. Interest rates started rising before the 2022 election, and the March quarter was the worst for inflation in 2022. I know that many Australians understand that the Albanese government did not create these challenges. They chose to elect us because they had faith and hope that we would take responsibility for addressing these issues, and we are. We have an economic plan, despite what the member for Casey was so keen to articulate. Our plan is a direct and deliberate response to the challenges facing our economy, including the cost of living. An early and important outcome of the Albanese government was to successfully argue for the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation. This helped around 2.7 million Australians—that is a significant number—who, because of this government's decisive and robust actions, have benefited from the wage challenges. We ensured that our budget focused on responsible cost-of-living relief that did not put extra pressure on inflation. We are doing everything in our power to ensure that Australians live comfortably and feel supported by their government representatives. Those on this side of the House listen. We have acted to take some of the pain out of higher power prices through direct energy bill relief in the next budget, including direct support for households and businesses. We are supporting Australians to grow our economy through gaining better skills to enable them to secure good jobs and have better wages. Free TAFE is another important measure that we put in place that helps ease the pressure on families. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has concluded. BUSINESS 43 BUSINESS Rearrangement 43 16:17 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the amendment moved earlier today by the honourable member for Bradfield on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [16:22]
(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. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. 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. 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. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 68 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. 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. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Watson-Brown, E. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 16:26 The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that the motion to suspend standing and sessional orders be agreed to.    

The House divided. [16:28]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 109 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Andrews, K. L. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Boyce, 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. Coleman, D. B. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. 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. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Gosling, L. J. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hill, J. C. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Joyce, B. T. G. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marino, N. B. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Morrison, S. J. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, L. S. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Pearce, G. B. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Plibersek, T. J. Price, M. L. Rae, S. T. Ramsey, R. E. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Robert, S. R. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Swanson, M. J. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thompson, P. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Wells, A. S. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, J. H. Wilson, R. J. Young, T. J. Zappia, A. 17 NOES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Katter, R. C. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 46 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Instrument of Designation of the Republic of Nauru as a Regional Processing Country 46 16:39 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I present the instrument of designation of the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country under subsection 198AB(1) of the Migration Act 1958, together with related documents, in accordance with section 198AC of the Migration Act 1958. I move: That, in accordance with section 198AB of the Migration Act 1958, the House approve the instrument of designation of the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country. At the last election, our Prime Minister spoke of the need to be strong on borders without being weak on humanity. Regional processing is about both. For almost every day that I have been in my role, I have had to deal with the detail of protecting our borders and making sure that our country is meeting its obligations to the world's displaced and persecuted people, and I can say with absolute confidence, from the bottom of my heart, that regional processing is integral to us achieving both of these things. Regional processing is integral to us being strong on borders because it breaks the business model of people smugglers who seek to market an outcome amongst some of the world's most vulnerable people. In doing so, it ultimately saves the lives, thousands of lives, of vulnerable people who would otherwise be exploited and tricked onto leaky boats to attempt a dangerous voyage at sea. That's something that also risks the lives of Defence and Border Force officers who have to deal with the often incredibly tragic consequences of these ventures. I appreciate that there are people in this place who think very differently about this issue, but I would point out that regional processing has been settled policy on both sides of politics for over a decade, for precisely the issues that I have described. Regional processing was a policy formulation that was carefully formed, through a robust and very well done policy process. It was recommended in a report led by the former Chief of the Defence Force Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, along with Professor Michael L'Estrange, the then director of the National Security College at ANU, and refugee expert Paris Aristotle. That panel was charged with making recommendations on how best to prevent asylum seekers from travelling to Australia by boat. The principal recommendation of the work of those three eminent people was the introduction of legislation to 'support the transfer of people to regional processing arrangements,' including in Nauru, 'as a matter of urgency'. They understood, as the Labor government does, that this is a regional problem that can only be solved in partnership with our neighbours and our friends around our region, and that is why today I'm recommending to the parliament to designate one of those friends and neighbours as a regional processing centre. The person who first put in place the regional processing declaration for Nauru was Chris Bowen, the member for McMahon, when he was minister at the time. He said, during that initial debate in 2012: We are determined to expose the people smugglers' business model for what is: a ruthless con. There is no visa awaiting boat arrivals, no speedy outcome and no special treatment. Those words were true in 2012 and they are true now. The government has been very transparent in its position on regional processing. We implemented this policy when we were in government previously. We remained firmly committed to it while we were in opposition, and we went to the election on it. That is because, fundamentally, regional processing breaks the business model for people smugglers. It takes away the product that they are trying to sell and, in doing so, it stops vulnerable people risking their lives on dangerous voyages on leaky boats. It stops death at sea. It is absolutely as simple as that. It is tough. It sends a message that persons who attempt to take a journey by boat will not settle in Australia. It is part of a wider framework in Operation Sovereign Borders that means persons trying to enter Australia without a valid visa will be returned to their port or country of origin. I can say this absolutely clearly to the parliament today, as I will say outside of it: our commitment to Operation Sovereign Borders is absolutely resolute. The best evidence of that is that every person who has tried to come to Australia by boat since our government has been elected and since I have been Minister for Home Affairs has been returned to their port of departure. Our government is determined and focused in its conduct of Operation Sovereign Borders, in a way that avoids politicisation of this issue. And can I say that the style of politics that has been played around this matter for so many years in this country has been fundamentally detrimental—detrimental to the national security conversation, detrimental to the border security conversation and certainly detrimental to the discussion about how we as a country can and should do more to help the world's persecuted people. It is important for us to redesignate Nauru to enable us to create space to do some very important things to assist on the humanitarian front. Let me say a few brief things about the legal framework in which I'm making this recommendation to the parliament. The power is conferred on me by subsection 198AB(1) to designate that a country is a regional processing country, and that is contained in part 2, division 8, subdivision B of the act. Subsection 198AB(2) provides that the only condition for the exercise of power conferred on me by section 198AB(1) is that I think that it is in the national interest to designate the country to be a regional processing country. Subsection 198AB(3) provides that in considering the national interest for the purposes of section 198AB(2) I must have regard to whether or not the country has given Australia any assurances to the effect that the country would not return a person to another country where they would be at risk and that the regional processing country allows assessment of that person to be a refugee. Three key documents have facilitated my consideration regarding Nauru as a regional processing country. The first of those is a memorandum of understanding that was signed between the Republic of Nauru and Australia on the enduring regional processing capability in the Republic of Nauru. That was signed by the former minister, who sits opposite me here in the chamber, on 24 September 2021. The second document is a statement of arrangements that are in place and that will be put in place for the management of persons. And the third is advice received from the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who has been consulted regarding the designation. I spoke about the requirements under the Migration Act for me to determine that it is in the national interest for a country to be redesignated as a regional processing country, and I want to talk the parliament through the five factors I considered when making that decision. The first is that the ongoing operation of regional processing arrangements will deter people smugglers from exploiting and encouraging vulnerable persons to risk their lives at sea. I note that the need to prevent loss of life at sea was a primary object of the subdivision at section 198AA. And, as I stated earlier, regional processing breaks the people smugglers' model in order to help us protect those people and our borders. The second is that regional processing supports the broader objectives of Operation Sovereign Borders, which further deters such ventures by ensuring that persons will not settle permanently in Australia. I note that another primary objective of the subdivision I've referred to is that persons should be able to be taken to any country where their claims can be properly assessed. The third factor is that regional cooperation is the only manner in which the challenges of irregular migration can be addressed, and I want to note to the parliament that through the Bali process we continue to try to manage what is a very significant global issue of transnational people-smuggling and irregular movement. We have a meeting of the Bali process coming up very shortly. The fourth is that Nauru has been designated as a regional processing country for the past decade and has for a number of years accepted transfers under the Sovereign Borders framework, with significant infrastructure and administrative processes that have been put in place to do that properly. I note that in the past there have been real issues and concerns with the provision of services on Nauru, but I also note that over that preceding 10-year period there has been a significant uplift in these services, particularly those that relate to the protection of the health and wellbeing of persons on Nauru—in particular, the efforts the parliament has made to ensure that things like medical evacuation, clinical service provision and appropriate escalation arrangements are in place. This means that service provision is very different now than it has been in the past. In addition, it's also important to note that persons on Nauru are not in any form of detention. So, where an individual has circumstances that require examination and assistance, I've also made it clear that we have the highest expectations of the care of those people and that there are appropriate channels for advocates and others to engage if there are concerns around individuals. Finally, the permanent resettlement of many persons from Nauru to the United States, Canada and now New Zealand demonstrates the ability of regional processing arrangements to ensure durable, permanent pathways for resettlement, while also ensuring that people smugglers are denied their objective, which is simply to make money by marketing Australia as a destination, in an incredibly evil trade that preys on the most vulnerable people in the world. These considerations are in addition to the requirement under subsection 198AB(3) that Nauru has provided assurances that it will not return people to a country where their life or freedom are at risk, and an additional assurance in the memorandum of understanding with Nauru. In conclusion, let me just put this in a little bit of context. When the Prime Minister has spoken, in the period that he was Leader of the Opposition and now as Prime Minister, about the need to be strong on borders without being weak in humanity, he has also talked about the need to respond pragmatically to policies that work. There are lots of different people who bring different values to this conversation. I think it's hard to deny that this policy works. This issue, like so many issues of the past two decades, has been subject to a kind of ruthless politicisation that, as I've said, I think has been extremely unhelpful to the proper resolution of this debate. But we have arrived at it and it does include regional processing. These issues are not best dealt with in an environment of partisanship and posturing. They are complex and they are difficult, and if anyone in the debate is arguing that there is a simple, easy solution to this they are absolutely wrong. The solutions that we have found—the ones that work—carry tremendous responsibility and gravity. But ultimately there is a higher purpose here in trying to stop people dying at sea, something we saw far too much of in the period between 2000 and 2013. The preservation of life, while ensuring persons are resettled appropriately, is at the core of our commitment to regional processing and Operation Sovereign Borders. I am determined every day to pursue those objectives, where required, in turning back boats and returning persons to their country of departure. The continuation of regional processing is essential to fighting the people-smuggling trade, and its deterrence value means that we don't enable people smugglers to exploit people so they undertake this dangerous venture. We have to separate the politics of the past from this issue. This problem has vexed this parliament for decades. It is time to move on. There is a clear settlement on this matter. It includes regional processing, and it includes Nauru amongst the regional processing countries that this parliament declares. I'd really encourage members of the parliament, both here and in the other place today, to ensure that they do vote to support this redesignation. 16:52 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I rise to speak on this unusual and extraordinary motion that we are being asked to consider today. I will speak more in detail to the deeply concerning circumstances of that shortly. At the outset I want to stress that, in the national interest, we will support this motion without amendment. I appreciate the opportunity that I was given yesterday afternoon to be briefed on the significance and the urgency of this matter by the department and at least one member of the minister's office. That happened yesterday afternoon. As always, the coalition will take a responsible approach on national security matters and we will work in a bipartisan way in Australia's interests, but that does not mean a free pass for the Labor government or its inexperienced ministers when things go wrong on their watch. Quite frankly, I was shocked that the enabling motion linked this motion with a mechanism to limit debate on a disallowance motion on superannuation industry regulations. I mean, really? Is that the way that the government chooses to manage the very serious and very time sensitive matter that we are considering with this motion? Is that the importance that this government places on Operation Sovereign Borders and its three key pillars—to couple it with a disallowance motion it wants to guillotine? I mean, seriously? It's quite ironic that the government actually listed those superannuation regulations back on 1 September last year, because, if the government had tabled this legislative instrument in relation to Nauru last September, we would not be having this debate today. Operation Sovereign Borders, the original coalition policy solution that stopped the boats, has three key pillars: turnbacks, when they are safe to do so; offshore processing; and temporary protection visas. Due to Labor's failure, Australia currently does not have a designated regional processing country. We haven't had one for four months. This is one of the very key pillars of Operation Sovereign Borders that Labor let lapse. Quite frankly, this has to put to bed the myth that Labor likes to spout that there have been no changes to Operation Sovereign Borders under Labor. Clearly, they have failed to protect Australia in respect of that key pillar. Let's call it as it actually is; let's call a spade a spade, because it's important. They've also signalled their intention to deliberately dismantle the temporary protection visa pillar. So that's two. They've said that the temporary protection visas will go, and the fact that they did not renew the designation of Nauru as a regional processing centre in a timely manner has put Operation Sovereign Borders at risk. I understand why the Minister for Home Affairs would try to downplay the significance of this issue and what has been created as a result of, quite frankly, the lack of due diligence. But I put on the record again very clearly that we will support continuing the regional processing arrangements on Nauru because it is the right thing to do. I signed a memorandum of understanding with Nauru when I was in the role of Minister for Home Affairs in September 2021 to help ensure that Australia had an enduring capability to maintain regional processing. But, of course, that MOU must have legislative backing in Australian law, and that is achieved through the Migration Act. Designating a regional processing country is the key legislative instrument under the Migration Act to allow Border Force officials to efficiently and legally deal with unauthorised boat arrivals. The fact is that the legislative instrument that allows the designation lapsed on 1 October last year. This was not a secret. The list of legislative instruments due to sunset on 1 October 2022 was tabled in parliament on the first sitting day on or after 1 April 2021, so it was a matter of public record that that particular provision, that instrument, was going to be sunsetting. It's also worth noting the legislative framework for regional processing, including reference to the specific section 198AB, was explained to the Minister for Home Affairs in her incoming minister brief after the 2022 federal election. Did she ask any specific questions? If she did not, why didn't she? The role of the Minister for Home Affairs was severely reduced when Labor came into office. Prime Minister Albanese stripped key parts of the portfolio from her and moved them to a different portfolio, yet the minister still couldn't get across the details of Operation Sovereign Borders. The minister had ample opportunity to understand the various acts and legislative instruments for which she is responsible, but she has not done so. This happened on her watch, and she has no-one to legitimately blame but herself. She could have simply asked her colleague, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who put in place the original designation and would have understood it. After the mess and the confusion that the Prime Minister himself created during the election campaign on offshore processing, you'd think that those opposite would pay a little more care and attention and be focused on making sure they were across the detail. Clearly, that is not the case. It's shocking that such important legislation was allowed to lapse. Now the government is rushing motions through the House to fix its lackadaisical approach to national security. This legislative lapse raises serious questions about whether Australia has potentially been exposed to legal risk for months. Between 1 October last year and today there have been at least two boat arrivals from Indonesia. Although they were able to be turned back, what exactly would have happened if they couldn't be turned back? As I mentioned earlier, this failure is only compounded by Labor's continuing plan to get rid of temporary protection visas. Labor ministers have found time since the election to tweet about how they're working to abolish temporary protection visas. It speaks volumes about what their priorities are. They're happy to tweet about TPVs, but the minister responsible can't actually spend the time to make sure that the legislative instruments that are needed to protect our borders are in place. People smugglers are very familiar with the laissez-faire attitude that Labor tends to adopt in government. They had a booming business under the last Labor government with more than 50,000 people arriving on 820 boats. People smugglers are desperate for any sign of change that would enliven their deadly trade, which is why the circumstances leading to today's motion should never have been allowed to happen. This should have been dealt with back in the weeks we sat last year, while the original designation was still in effect. Labor saw fit to ram through their preferred legislative agenda last year, passing legislation that suited their union mates and recalling parliament at will, but they have failed on the very basics. They have failed to ensure that vital border security legislation does not lapse, and it is, quite frankly, not good enough. It can't be fobbed off. It's a serious oversight, and the minister needs to take responsibility for it. The government has made a lot of claims about transparency. There's a saying: 'You mess up; you fess up'. Let me just share something that Prime Minister Albanese said during the election campaign, when he made one of many blunders: Earlier today I made a mistake. I'm human. But when I make a mistake, I'll fess up to it, and I'll set about correcting that mistake. I won't blame someone else, I'll accept responsibility. That's what leaders do. In the interests of transparency, let us be very, very clear. Today's motion is evidence of a serious mistake by the home affairs minister. In the national interest, we have worked with the government to ensure that the mistake is corrected as quickly as possible, and it will be. We will always act in the national interest, which is why we will always argue in favour of Operation Sovereign Borders and those three key pillars, because they are the most effective means that we have to protect our borders. The government would be very well advised to pay attention to the basics and to do everything in their power to strengthen Operation Sovereign Borders. No government should ever take our national security for granted or make it a second-tier priority. Maintaining Australia's system of regional processing is vital to our border security. That is why the coalition supports the swift passage of this motion while being absolutely appalled at the circumstances by which it is necessary. 17:02 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark The minister will be unsurprised to learn that I cannot bring myself to support the motion before the House. That's for three very, very important reasons. For a start, offshore processing is immoral. We have a moral obligation, as a country of integrity that respects law. When someone approaches or reaches our shores and claims to be fleeing for their life or claims to be fleeing persecution, we have a responsibility to take them in, to give them protection, to hear their claim and, if their claim is accurate, to give them permanent refuge in our lucky country. Secondly, offshore processing is illegal under international law, and that is beyond dispute. For a start, it is a crime against humanity under the Rome statute to forcibly remove any person to a third country and to keep them indefinitely in inhumane conditions without charge. The government would say that the people who are on Nauru live on an open island and can move freely about the island, but that really is to mischaracterise what goes on Nauru. It is a little speck near the equator in the middle of nowhere. It is stiflingly hot. The people who are there by the actions of the Australian government have no opportunities, no future. It is a crime against humanity under the Rome statute, and I would add there is any number of international agreements that Australia contravenes with its current response to asylum seekers. They are agreements that were signed up to and ratified by people in this place who thought they could trust future governments, future politicians, to honour those agreements because they mattered then and they matter now. The government would say, the minister would say, that the current regime of Operation Sovereign Borders and offshore processing works and has stopped the boats. But the end does not justify the means, in particular when there are other approaches we should be considering and exploring. Four months ago was an opportunity for us to come into this place and debate and explore the possibility of other responses to irregular immigrants, to ask ourselves, 'Are there other ways of stopping the boats, stopping drownings at sea, which have integrity and which are consistent with international law?' But we haven't done that. I lament to reflect that I've brought into this place an alternative—my own refugee bill. I brought it in on two occasions and on both those occasions it received no support from the government of the day or the opposition of the day, even though it is an alternative approach that would be consistent with international law. It is consistent with the members of the UNHCR that I have consulted. It is consistent with the lawyers at the Kaldor Centre, when I've consulted with them. In essence, we should be talking about taking this opportunity to end offshore processing and to instead establish a genuinely regional solution in the Asia-Pacific, a genuine regional response consistent with international law and overseen by the UNHCR. That is what I have proposed twice—that we have an Asia-Pacific asylum seeker solution, one where participating countries would establish reception centres where asylum seekers in the region or moving through the region would register and have all their essential needs met. They would have a roof over their head. They would have food. They would have medical attention. They would have legal representation. They would have schools for their kids. It would be something that is humane and consistent with international law. They would be reception centres where asylum seekers could register their claims, and they could also register preferred destination countries. If that destination country's quota allows it, those asylum seekers would be processed and settled there. All this would be consistent with the principles of family unity and the best interest of the child, all the time compliant with all the international agreements we have signed up to. I don't want to take the time of the House for too much longer; I know a number of my colleagues are keen to say a few words. In summary: this was an opportunity to think afresh. This was an opportunity to end offshore processing. This was an opportunity to invent a humane and legal response, one that would just as effectively destroy the business model of the people smugglers. I agree with the opposition, I agree with the government and I agree with what has been said; the villains in this are the people smugglers and the way they prey on some of the most vulnerable people on the planet. I do not defend them one bit. I agree with the government and the opposition that we must do everything we can to disrupt them, to shut them down and to protect people, almost all of whom are genuinely fleeing for their lives. But continuing offshore processing is not the way to do it. We should be the exemplar among the community of nations by showing there are other ways to do this which have integrity, which are consistent with international law and which are consistent with the countless international agreements we have signed up to in good faith but, for years, we have been patently in breach of. 17:08 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert Thank you, Deputy Speaker Georganas, for the opportunity to speak on this. I want to associate myself with the shadow minister for home affairs and all her comments. I welcome the debate from the crossbench as well, and note their keen deliberation in this very topical, humane and important debate. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I think it's a good thing in a place of debate to be able to debate respectfully. I've spent some time in Nauru. I've been there before. I have worked there. Many of my friends from the military who couldn't find employment in the civilian world ended up working in Nauru and on Manus Island. I have seen the great work that our border protection officers, our AFP officers and the people of these countries—whether it has been on Manus Island, in Papua New Guinea or in Nauru—do to support people. I've seen people come via boat with nothing at all. The former speaker said that almost everyone who comes or wants to come are fleeing dangers—almost everyone. There are times when people smugglers come with the boat and don't know who they are. People don't have identification. They're stateless, which makes it even more challenging to work out the supports needed or what we need to do to be able to help people. But, when the boats were coming, before people were getting directed to Nauru, 1,200 people died at sea. They were children, fathers and mothers, who were drowning, on fire or eaten by sharks. I've seen the photos, which I'm sure others in this place have seen as well. It is gut-wrenching, it is heartbreaking and it should not happen. We must have not just a deterrent for people smugglers but also an opportunity to find out who people are. Our No. 1 job in this place is to keep people safe, to protect this nation and to ensure that people who are coming via boat or coming as refugees are legitimate refugees. This process takes time, and often people that are on Nauru or on Manus Island are given opportunities to relocate to other countries or to return home. The majority of the time, and definitely in my experience, they didn't want to return home and they didn't want to go to another country. They wanted to go to Australia. I've seen horrible things. People have sewn their mouths shut or eaten things that would upset their stomach and given things to children in order to be removed and to try and come to Australia. I think that it's to our credit that we can say that we removed children from detention. No-one wants to see children in detention. Like the former speaker, I've served, and I've seen some horrible things in the Middle East. I've also seen some horrible things that people have done to other people in Nauru. I've seen the worst in humanity. I believe that we must have offshore processing centres and I believe that stopping the boats saves lives. No-one wants to see drownings at sea and children being killed. I do think that there needs to be a quick, robust way to find people who have found themselves a way into settlement. That has worked with other nations. But I am a firm believer in the coalition's policy that, if you come by boat, then you won't be resettled in Australia. I do believe in that. I think that has stopped boats coming and stopped people dying at sea. But not everyone agrees with this and that's fine. This is the place for debate. It does pains me, though, to think what may have happened during the last few months when there hasn't been a policy if people were in the middle of the ocean because they've sunk their ship or they've sunk their boat. What would have happened to those children? This government was asleep. We've heard that the immigration minister doesn't support boat turnbacks. He moved a motion in his branch. I do think that the minister for immigration, especially, should address the parliament and address his position. I do think that this isn't a time where long barbs will be thrown—little ones, not long ones—but I don't want to see the boats start again. I do not want to see people dying at sea and I do not want to see horrendous things happen like those that I've seen happen to children who have died at sea. We've got many Border Force officers, Navy personnel and people who have had to pick up these children and these families out of the ocean, and the scars and trauma that they will live with for the rest of their lives is absolutely horrendous. We don't want to see the boats starting again. We want to ensure that we protect everyone inside Australia by ensuring we have strong, robust border protection laws. 17:15 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I rise today to speak in favour of the motion submitted by the minister. This is an extremely important motion. It reflects an issue which some might describe as wicked. It is one of those policy issues where there is both complexity and extremely important consequence, both for individuals and for society. I want to make some comments that reflect the importance of not only this particular resolution but also the government's overall stance. As the minister said when she introduced this motion, this is a topic that has been bedevilled by political sniping for too much time over the last few decades. It is important that this issue be set very much in the national interest, very much in the public policy sphere, and I'll make a couple of observations about that. I also want to make the observation that this is an issue where well-intentioned people can disagree. I'll make some comments on why I disagree with the thoughtful comments of the member for Clark later on in my speech. I also flag that I'm going to speak in a way such that the remaining time on this motion will be divided equally between me and those who are to follow, who I suspect might have slightly differing views. As the minister indicated, this is a topic which should be beyond political pointscoring. What we've heard from those opposite so far are two speeches which you might characterise as 'I support, but'—'I support this motion, but,' and then there is nine minutes of what you could only describe as political pointscoring that I think this important issue doesn't warrant. So I just want to flag right from the start that I think the minister, on a number of occasions in her contribution, flagged this as is one of those issues that are of such importance for individuals and for the country that we as a parliament really need to take them to a different level—a better mode; a better tone of debate. I note that one of the best MPIs that I've ever taken part in was one on a similar topic to this. It was raised by those on the crossbench. It was an MPI where many disagreed, but it treated this topic with appropriate respect. On the substance of the issue and why I disagree with the member for Clark, if you look at this issue I believe we have, at the heart of it, a fundamental need, as the minister and the Prime Minister have indicated, to respect humanity, to be kind, to respect our international obligations but, at the same time, to break this despicable business model of the people smugglers. This is something that was reflected way back in 2012, the last time Labor was in power, when we received the report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers. You could barely imagine a better qualified group of dispassionate experts to look at this issue. Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, Professor Michael L'Estrange and Mr Paris Aristotle covered the full gamut of academic, policy and lived experience in dealing with this issue, and I just want to very briefly refer to that 2012 report. In speaking about the report, they indicated: We recommend a policy approach that is hard-headed but not hard-hearted. That is realistic not idealistic. That is driven by a sense of humanity as well as fairness. I believe that very much reflects the words that the Prime Minister adopted in the lead-up to the last election, which the minister cited. Now, I won't go through all the recommendations, but recommendation 1 contained some key principles, one of which was the provision of incentives for asylum seekers to seek protection through a managed regional system. That is at the heart of the government's current approach. Another is the facilitation of a regional cooperation and protection framework. Again, this issue that we're discussing today is one element of a realistic, workable regional cooperation and protection framework. Recommendation 7, of course, as the minister indicated, recommended: … legislation to support the transfer of people to regional processing arrangements be introduced into the Australian Parliament as a matter of urgency … Recommendation 8 dealt with Nauru in particular. Those were the recommendations of a panel that I believe dealt with this issue both from the perspective of being humane and from the perspective of solving this incredibly difficult public policy challenge of trying to prevent deaths at sea. As the minister indicated, this was the policy of the previous Labor government, it was our policy in opposition and it remains our policy today. We went to the election with that policy. It remains our policy. In terms of all of the legal tests, the minister indicated that she has satisfied herself that this is in the national interest in relation to section 198AB(2). This will deter people smugglers. It is part of our broader satisfaction of the objectives of Operation Sovereign Borders. It is part of a regional cooperation framework. Also, as she indicated, this government will continue to ensure that there is further uplift in services on Nauru. So it ticks the boxes in terms of national interest. There are five key pillars which she has set out. In relation to section 198AB(3), she has received assurances through those key documents she talked about: the memorandum of understanding between the government of Nauru and Australia; the statement of arrangements that are in place; and the advice from the Office of the UN High Commissioner. I conclude by saying that this is, as the minister has indicated, and as I think others who probably disagree with some of my contribution would concede, a problem with no easy solutions. I am firmly of the belief that this is the best solution that is currently available. It is the solution that breaks the back of the people smugglers. I have spoken to people in my electorate face to face who were desperate in seeking to get out of their country but who were abused by the people smugglers; who found themselves on the open seas when their boat broke apart. I've seen at that individual human level what that model can do to vulnerable people. I want to see that model stopped. That is why I support this motion. We should not let this debate be distracted by the political point scoring. We should be voting on this motion on the basis of the policy merits. On that basis, I support this motion and hope this House does too. 17:21 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Let's be clear: successive governments, be they Liberal-National or Labor, have ideologically and doggedly pursued a secret, cruel and punitive immigration detention centre. For 30 years those on both sides of this place have enforced these policies, which have caused death, injuries and untold harm, violating Australia's international legal commitments and diminishing us as a nation and each of us on a human level. Today we see the continuation of these harmful policies. I do not support the redesignation of Nauru as a regional processing centre. The 65 people seeking asylum who are currently held on Nauru do not deserve to face another 10 years of limbo being held in cruel, inhumane and degrading conditions. I met Betelhem Tibebu, human rights activist and survivor of offshore processing on Nauru, last year when the contract, which is based on a despicable business model, was renewed with the American prison company MTC in late 2022, the very one we are further facilitating today. She said: 'The conditions on Nauru are horrible. We lost our future, our dreams were stolen, and now this contract. People should be signing resettlement papers, not detention contracts. It is ten years and people are still there. They should be free, not hiring a new company, not redesignating a country, but giving people a proper life and medical treatment.' In this context, in light of today's debate, let's talk about what's really urgent: 31,000 people, after more than 10 years, are still living on temporary protection visas and safe haven visas in our community, despite the Labor government's commitment made over eight months ago to provide permanent pathways to residency for these people. This is also after an election campaign commitment made by the Labor Party to end indefinite detention, bringing fair processing times back to within 90 days. What action have we seen on this? None. Yet today we've been asked to prioritise this motion as urgent. How can it be any more urgent than the issues that I've just fundamentally outlined? Australians need and deserve the truth about the harm—financially, personally, legally and reputationally—that the immigration system has caused. I back calls from survivors and advocates like Behrouz Boochani, who, ironically, was in Parliament House today and who called for us as a parliament to be courageous. He called for a royal commission to investigate the real cost of this cruel regime. Only a royal commission can compel evidence that we may not wish to hear, but we must, whilst also providing an environment where those who have lived with the consequences of this system can speak their truth. The community chose independent representatives in this place and the other on the basis that we could pursue the conversations that neither of the major parties wish to have. A royal commission, free of the shackles of party politics and with a clear conscience on this issue, is what is warranted. It is beyond time for us as a parliament to turn the light on the Labor, Liberal, and National parties' rotten and cruel policy of indefinite, arbitrary detention of people who have sought Australia's protection and for that policy to come to an end and not to be extended for another 10 years. 17:25 Ms LE 295676 Fowler Unlike many people in this House, I believe I can speak from a very lived experience of being a refugee and being processed in offshore detention centres. I agree with the government that there must be some sort of processing in place for people who are seeking asylum, similar to what I had gone through before I arrived in Australia. I spent four years in refugee camps—Hong Kong camps, Philippines camps—waiting to be processed, waiting for a new life and waiting for safety. I know too well the hardships of waiting to be processed, and of sleeping on the floors, sharing rooms with hundreds—if not thousands—of refugees, but we were processed by the UNHCR, and we applied and waited to be accepted to come to Australia, so I know it's not easy. It's a very difficult and challenging issue. Immigration and refugee policies have often dominated headlines and been used as political leverage on all sides of politics. However, it's important to remember that behind the headlines of refugees and asylum seekers are lives at stake—there are families, mums, dads and children, like my mum and myself. Now that I represent the diverse electorate of Fowler, I know that many in my community who have gone through the same process still have loved ones who have fled Syria, Iraq and Iran, and who are eagerly waiting to be processed—to this day. I agree with the government's stance that we need to make sure that those who enter our country are legitimate refugees, and that we do not encourage people smugglers who are profiteering off desperate people. But I do question the government's decision to sign a $420 million contract with an American prison company to run 'garrison and welfare' on the island. I believe this company, Management and Training Corporation, has previously been accused of gross negligence and security failures. There have to be other solutions and models for processing people who are seeking asylum. The Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law says it costs $3.4 million to hold someone offshore on Nauru. The Refugee Council of Australia suggest offshore processing has cost the government $9.65 billion from July 2013 to the 2021-22 financial year. I support some form of processing, but in a fair way, because we do need to ensure genuine refugees can get the opportunity to be resettled. Continuing to use Nauru for offshore detention in its current state, keeping 65 people who, I believe, have been in detention for a long time—nearly 10 years—just does not make sense. The government has told us that those left on the island either don't qualify as refugees or they have been flagged as some sort of risk. I ask: why, then, are we still spending millions of dollars to keep them detained by an unscrupulous company? Both sides of politics and all sides of major political parties have used refugees and asylum seekers in scaremongering to our electorates. Refugees, like myself, have contributed greatly to this society—I am here, today, in this House. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre reports that since 2013 there have been 14 deaths as a result of offshore detention on PNG and Nauru. There is overwhelming documentation of serious abuses, including child sexual abuse, medical negligence and high levels of self-harm, under the offshore detention system. This is costly to our economy at a time when many Australians are facing a cost-of-living crisis. The government has had since October to find a better solution. I don't believe redesignating Nauru as an offshore processing facility is the way to go. I ask that the government really consider a new model and a new way to process asylum seekers. 17:29 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane Refugees and asylum seekers contribute social, cultural and economic strength to our country, and communities across Australia are eager to welcome them and ready to lend a hand to rebuild their lives, understanding that these are people who have been forced to flee their homes out of threat of persecution. Today is a shameful day for this new government, who have chosen to suspend parliament in order to uphold the inhumane practice of offshore detention that tortures, degrades and vilifies refugees and asylum seekers. As we heard, Labor introduced mandatory detention 26 years ago, and the LNP turned it into mandatory offshore detention four years later. Both have upheld the practice and share responsibility for these crimes against humanity. And I want to say, just because a policy is 'settled' does not mean it is right. The Greens are the only political party committed to drastically improving Australia's approach to refugees and asylum seekers. Today Greens senator Nick McKim introduced a bill to evacuate all asylum seekers who are languishing in Australian offshore detention centres. His bill would bring them back to Australia until they have somewhere that is safe and long term to live. I've also been inspired today by an address delivered inside this very building by refugee Behrouz Boochani. He was one of many refugees the previous immigration minister touted would never come to Australia. So, it was incredible to hear him speak in support of closing the Nauru and Manus Island detention centres, ending offshore detention, and for the permanent resettlement in Australia of all refugees who are currently on temporary protection visas. I speak in solidarity with him and the thousands of lives that have been destroyed by successive governments. All sides of politics should act with basic humanity and compassion and should fulfil Australia's moral and legal responsibilities to provide fair, transparent and consistent treatment to those who are vulnerable, persecuted or displaced from our global community. This is what Australians want. According to Amnesty International and their Australian Human rights barometer of last year, Australians want to end offshore detention. Seventy-four percent of respondents agreed that if people are found to be refugees then they should be settled in Australia, as opposed to settled or detained offshore. A total of 60 per cent of respondents agreed that the federal government spends way too much money on keeping asylum seekers in detention. At a time when Australians are facing extraordinary economic hardship, the Australian government's decision to award a $420 million contract to a United States private prison operator is not only a desperate attempt to continue operation of the government's offshore detention program; it is a huge waste. Let's be clear: these private operators are profiting off of suffering and misery. Our offshore detention camps are a stain on our national conscience, and history will judge us. Today we have had the opportunity to undo decades-long adherence to cruel and inhumane practices against some of the most vulnerable people on the planet, and I'm endlessly disgusted by this decision of the government. I would like to finish with a strong message to those refugee communities in my electorate and across this country that I won't stop fighting for you and your rights to safety and freedom. 17:33 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Labor's been in power for fully nine months, and what have we got? Not legislation to fix the plight of the tens of thousands of refugees on various temporary visas. What we're being asked to vote on today is legislation for Nauru to remain a regional processing centre for another decade. And there is still no plan to medically evacuate the 150 people remaining in those two detention centres and to allow them to reside in Australia while they engage with resettlement options. Why do they need medical evacuation? Because we have broken them. Many of them are so broken that they're immobile and nonverbal. We did that, as a country. The parliament did that. Three-quarters of Australians say that has to change. The Albanese government is spending $632 million this financial year to keep refugees offshore. That's more than $4 million each. That compares with less than $4,000, on average, according to the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, to administer arrangements in Australia for those living in the community on bridging visas—not to mention public money going to a private US prison company accused of pandemic profiteering and the unlawful use of solitary confinement. If the inhumanity isn't enough, look at the cost to the taxpayer. On that basis alone, we should close offshore detention. If the government insists on keeping it—which it does—I say that we must have mandatory short processing periods and no more indefinite detention. It is neither human nor economically responsible. As I said publicly earlier today, I support a royal commission into this whole miserable business. If we want to truly stop the boats and break the business model of the people smugglers, we must develop a regional solution with our neighbours, especially the key transit countries, Indonesia and Malaysia, with record numbers of refugees worldwide and at least a million refugees from the conflict in Myanmar alone in our own region. I hear the minister and the opposition on the many variables here, the national security issues and the risks to those travelling. I have stood on the shore at Christmas Island; I have seen those bodies pulled from the water. But I speak for those many constituents in Goldstein who have raised this when I say that I do not support this tick and flick to blindly extend the life of this flawed system—I cannot. 17:35 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I reject, I should say outright, the words the minister spoke at the despatch box today to find the extension of this miserable program. I also reject the words of the opposition. There is simply no willingness to address this issue properly. It is to continue something that is inhumane. The words that have been said before me by the crossbench truly represent the feelings and views of so many in our community. You are wrong when you say and believe that this is mandated and has support from the Australian community. Like with so many other issues, communities are incredibly dissatisfied with major parties and their lack of courage when it comes to addressing these big issues. Let's be clear: we have had less than 24 hours notice from the government to address this issue. We have had no information as to what alternate proposals or solutions have been considered. Has there been any consideration of an inquiry into offshore processing and the effectiveness of Nauru? We only have words in this place to say that we stopped the boats. I was disgusted, I've got to say, to hear an echo of the opposition's talking of leaky boats and deaths at sea. That is the language that has got us to 20 years of appalling policy. It is time to be brave and generous. That is not what we've got here. We make a mockery of our national anthem every time we extend offshore detention processing and refugee policies. We sing, 'For those who come across the seas, we've boundless plains to share,' and yet, your policy is that, if you come across the sea, you will be turned back and sent somewhere else. So we make a mockery of our Australian anthem. We know that this system is inhumane, and it must stop. The Australian public will judge the major parties, the Labor Party, the Liberals and the Nationals, for this inhumane treatment of those seeking our assistance. We know this problem is going to get worse. We know we are going to have a global problem of displaced populations due to climate impacts, and yet this head-in-the-sand view of let's continue with an inhumane policy. Finally, the Labor Party went to the election with a promise to process those seeking asylum within 90 days. It's been months since the election, and there are still people lingering in Nauru and PNG. There is nothing in this commitment from the government today to say, 'We will extend Nauru.' I ask the minister, who is in the chamber today: will you commit to a limit on how long any kind of detention and processing will take? Your platform said—when you went to the election—within 90 days. Do you commit to the Australian parliament that those seeking refuge and asylum in Australia will be processed within those 90 days and be freed as an international obligation? Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, in accordance with the resolution carried earlier today, I require that the debate be extended for a further 15 minutes. The SPEAKER 53517 The debate may continue, and the member for Warringah can continue her address. Ms STEGGALL 175696 I thank the Leader of the House because I think this is an issue that we should never have had a curtailed debate on. I think that is definitely something many in this place would agree on. It's an issue that is incredibly important and that so many in our communities feel strongly about. It is so disappointing that, with no facts or figures or real information, we are presented in this place this decision to extend something so inhumane for another 10 years with no proper justification to do so. So, like many on the crossbench, I urge and I ask the government to call for a royal commission into offshore detention and processing of refugees. It's time we shone a light on what is really happening and the private and disgusting deals of the business model. The government talks a lot about the business model of people smugglers, which I abhor, but there is also a business model of offshore processing companies, and that needs to stop. 17:40 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Like many of my colleagues on the crossbench and the people we represent, I held high hopes that a change of government might lead to careful, considered reform in the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, whether that be the speedy resolution of people languishing on TPVs or shared visas or indeed a careful reconsideration of indefinite offshore detention. I certainly didn't expect that we'd be here today being asked to ram through this designation, locking in Nauru as, in the minister's words, a regional processing centre for another 10 years—not an interim couple of months; 10 long years. I spoke earlier about my dismay, when I opposed the SSO, which has us now in this managed debate in order to effectively rubber-stamp our approval on another decade of Nauru. Here we are, with an extended but very short debate on this most contentious, most fraught policy, which has seen us in twists and turns in this nation for such a long time. Preventing vulnerable people from falling victim to people smugglers and attempting dangerous journeys by boat to our shores is a matter of the gravest importance and one that people in this House today have spoken to with genuine conviction, including, indeed, the minister herself, who must bear the responsibility of this—an onerous responsibility. I don't take that lightly. I acknowledge the work of the member for Clark. Indeed, I stood in this place twice to second his bill, because I genuinely believe that we need to spend our time, our money, our brains, our heads and our hearts on exploring a better way. I sincerely hope that the minister, with all of her responsibilities, takes the Bali Process to the fullest extent that she possibly can as she represents Australia. People held in indefinite offshore detention are experiencing, right now, physical, emotional and mental harm. Today, as before, we heard from Behrouz Boochani, a man with courage and clarity, who has chronicled the despair of people in indefinite offshore detention. To hear the words from the member for Fowler, a member of parliament who knows exactly what it's like to be a refugee—that is the most compelling witness you could hear. We've heard too about our dismay—and I share it—that the government has just re-signed a contract worth $420 million with a US prison operator to run this offshore detention centre in Nauru, and I'm sincerely concerned about that for all the reasons my colleagues have outlined. Surely, if we're spending money to that degree, we can think: how can we collectively as a region do this better? I appreciate that the Minister for Home Affairs has issued me an invitation to speak to her about these issues—about this broader cooperation. It is difficult, I acknowledge. You carry that responsibility, and I don't envy you for that responsibility, because it is an onerous one. But I welcome the opportunity to speak with you more about this—how we can collectively as a region do better. We must do better. We must have proper debates on things that matter so much to us—not just us, as members of parliament, but the people we represent and, more importantly than that, those people all around the world who are seeking asylum, who are seeking our help, who are escaping the most horrendous situations. I'll be voting against this motion because over and over again my constituents contact me about this, and so often I throw my hands in the air and say: 'If only I could do more, I would. I rarely get the chance.' Today is such a chance to speak to this motion, to make clear on the record, in Hansard, that to put a rubber stamp on 10 more years of Nauru without putting up any protest or any argument to look for something better would be failing them. So, Minister, I look forward to having further conversations with you. I'm sorry, deeply sorry, that we are in this position today, debating an issue of such national and international importance in such a rushed manner. 17:45 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong This instrument designates the Republic of Nauru as a place where asylum seekers who arrived in Australia after July 2013 must be taken while their claims are assessed. The relevant legislation has been allowed to lapse by this government. Now we're told that we should wave this through, that we should give a compliant nod to the continuation of a sad and shameful arrangement. Nothing to see here, just 65 individuals who have waited nine years for an answer, nine years of mistreatment, isolation and medical neglect. Since 2013, 14 people have died in our offshore detention. Hundreds of children and adults have sustained permanent psychological injury from their treatment by our government. This morning in this house we heard Behrouz Boochani describe the inhumane treatment he endured at the hands of our government. It is absolutely perverse that we discuss this instrument today in that context. It is absolutely perverse that we speak of the processing of humans, that we call these 'regional solutions'—solutions?—when we have no humane answers for these people. This government asks us to trust that it will end offshore detention on Nauru and PNG, that it will find homes for these refugees. Yet it has just renewed a contract with a US private prison company, MTC, which has been described as trafficking in human captivity for profit and which has been accused of pandemic profiteering and unlawful use of solitary confinement. Less than two weeks ago, this government gave MTC a $350 million contract to extend offshore detention on Nauru until September 2025. Minister, you have given us less than 24 hours notice on an issue that you have known about for months. How can we possibly trust this government to deal effectively and sensitively with an issue it has known about for years? How can any of us in this place in any conscience support a vote to continue offshore detention on Nauru? 17:48 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I also rise to reject this motion, and I reject it on three grounds. I reject it on the process, on the economics and on the basis of humanity. On process, many of my colleagues have outlined already that to have less than 24 hours to consider something that is really important is an unacceptable use of the parliament. We could certainly have been given a lot more notice to engage in something that's really important to people's lives and to our communities. On economic grounds, others have mentioned that there are $350 million worth of contracts to support Nauru. We are operating in a very constrained budget environment, as we all here know, and when I look at what $350 million could do in so many different communities around this country, it still beggars belief that this is the money and this is the reason that we're spending it. Most certainly, I reject this on the basis of the humanity. Others across the crossbench have raised that Behrouz Boochani already spoke to us this morning, and it was an incredibly moving morning. One thing that he said which really stuck with me was that refugees are carrying invisible violence—not even capturing that, as one of my colleagues said, 14 people have died in offshore detention. Refugees are carrying this violence around with them, and we have created this out of this country. I know that this is a complicated issue. As I said, I don't envy the minister's responsibilities in this area, but the Australian people are asking for more humanity. They don't want black-and-white, simple solutions—an easy tick-box answer. The Australian people have said that there is more nuance there. They are welcoming an open and careful debate about what compassionate but also responsible policy in this area could be. I think that is what my community says. So I think this action is really what the Australian people were rejecting at the last election. One-third of the country didn't vote for the major parties for exactly the reasons that we are seeing today. It's because this is simplifying the issue and turning peoples' lives and humanity into a sort of tick-box exercise: 'I'm posturing about what I care about.' So I reject this on behalf of people of Wentworth who are desperately passionate about being humane to refugees. I reject it on the basis of Kerryn Phelps who stood in Wentworth before me and was one of the people who championed the medevac legislation that was the humane response to allow critically ill asylum seekers and refugees off Nauru. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be agreed to.    

The House divided. [17:55]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 78 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bowen, C. E. Boyce, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Chester, D. J. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Coker, E. A. Coleman, D. B. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hill, J. C. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Khalil, P. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Lim, S. B. C. Marino, N. B. Marles, R. D. McBain, K. L. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Morrison, S. J. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Rae, S. T. Ramsey, R. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Robert, S. R. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Smith, D. P. B. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 14 NOES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. 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.

 Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (Annual Members' Meetings Notices) Regulations 2022 57 Disallowance 57 18:04 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I move: That the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (Annual Members ' Meetings Notices) Regulations 2022 made under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 on 1 September 2022 and pres ented to the House on 5 September 2022, be disallowed. The coalition is moving this disallowance because of the egregious attack on transparency from the government when it was removed. It was removed without a mandate. New transparency requirements, which would show Australians just how their retirement savings are being spent, were removed as the very first act of this government's Treasury. The first act of Treasury is generally the most important thing the new government does. The first act of Treasury of this new government was to water down transparency about how superannuation funds spend members' money. It was not taken to an election and it was not presented to the Australian people. The Albanese Labor government reversed the requirements for super funds to disclose how they spend members' funds on sponsorships and payments—no line items, no transparency and no accountability on tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars of payments of members' money. These payments from super are for things such as multimillion-dollar football sponsorships, corporate boxes and stadium sponsorships. Tens of millions of dollars go to foundation unions for sponsorship, picnics, kickbacks and lobbying. Australians, frankly, deserve to know how their retirement savings are being spent. Surely if members' funds are being spent then members should see what it is being spent on. The changes go against the Productivity Commission and they go against APRA's requirements. If we want to have a serious conversation about transparency for a $3 trillion industry, it should not start with supporting the winding back of transparency measures that are designed to let the sunlight in. All members elected on a platform of integrity, I suggest, must support the disallowance because integrity matters, especially when it comes to members' superannuation. The reforms were put in by the previous coalition government to increase transparency and accountability. They strengthened obligations to ensure that trustees only act in the best financial interests of members, and must provide better information regarding how they manage and spend members' money—in advance of annual members' meetings and through enhanced portfolio holding disclosures. Unbeknownst to everyone before the election, the new Labor government wanted to dismantle some of these fundamental transparency and accountability reforms for super. In fact, as I said, it was the very first act of the Albanese Labor government's Treasury—not cost of living, not workforce challenges and not helping Australians deal with ever-increasing electricity prices. No, staggeringly, the very first act was watering down transparency so ordinary Australians could not see how their money is being spent. There are elements of the super industry that don't support the watering down of this transparency. In fact all the super funds I have spoken with had no problems meeting the previous requirements. They'd already prepared annual member meeting notices that would have delivered the transparency to members. I found dealing with industry and for-profit super funds productive and, indeed, it's been a pleasure to work with them. None of them wanted to hide the transparency. All of the super funds I spoke to were more than happy to provide whatever information was required by law to their members. In that regard, the super funds should be commended. It was only the Labor government that wanted to hide expenditure. All this from a Prime Minister who campaigned on accountability and integrity. The question has to be asked: why? Why has Labor done it? Why is this the first priority of Treasury? A start could be found in reports that the Australian Financial Review reported on—based on FOIs, so information that they had to ask to get—that report a total of $85.5 million in non-donation, non-gift payments by 51 super funds to political parties, namely the Labor Party, and associates, namely unions, over the past five years. Let me say that again: $85.5 million in non-donation and non-gift payments by 51 super funds to the Labor Party and the union movement. That is what is trying to be hidden. Hayne royal commission exhibit 5.368, the KPMG audit into payments made to Cbus sponsoring organisations, is illuminating. I've got exhibit 5.368 in my hand. It goes through the payments from industry super funds to their sponsoring or founding unions. It outlines what those payments are and, secondly, it outlines that the payments double in an election year. Who would have thought? I'm looking at the KPMG report, page 2. In financial year 2010, there was a $1.3 million payment from Cbus through to its sponsoring unions; in financial year 2011, $1.5 million; in financial year 2012, $1.52 million; in financial year 2013, $2.708 million; and in financial year 2014, back to $1.8 million. Why would payments—these are non-donation, non-gift payments—double in an election year? The answer is quite simple: so the union movement can provide the money to the Labor Party to campaign. It's quite simple. It's not hard. The issue is that it's members' money. Members should see where it's spent and, if it's not going to their retirement, when and how it's spent. The legislation and regulations that Labor overturned never sought to stop this expenditure. At no point did the previous coalition government say to industry super funds or other superannuation funds: 'You can't sponsor or support organisations.' It was simply asking them to be transparent to their members, in the same way we ask all major entities to be transparent. After an election fought on transparency, you'd expect that these regulations would have stayed in place, and I expect that the parliament will support this move to disallow what Labor has done, enshrining transparency into law so that a hapless minister acting on the whim of his union colleagues can't change it again. We should always be striving for the very best when it comes to Australians' hard-earned money. This is money that is compulsorily taken from their pay and put aside so it grows to pay for their retirement. There is a key word here, and that is 'compulsorily'. Australians, by law, if they are working, have to put some of their money aside for the future. This is a good thing, something I think we all support in this place—a compulsory saving by ordinary Australians that has seen the growth of the super industry to over $3.4 trillion. That is a great national asset for members—not for government, not for founding union officials, but for individual Australians. The initial intent of super was to take the financial pressure off the government, or off taxpayers, by ensuring Australians could pay, or partially pay, their way through retirement with their own money. Remember that. It's their money, which is compulsorily set aside. That is compulsory and it will remain compulsory under a future coalition government. There are no plans to change that. But we'll always strive to have the best systems that deliver the best outcomes for ordinary Australians and their money. There are three key principles the coalition will adhere to when it comes to super. Firstly, it is members' money. Secondly, performance of those funds matters. Thirdly, there should be transparency and integrity in how those funds report on matters. These principles are the bedrock of what we believe delivers the best possible super system. The previous coalition government delivered some significant reforms to super in our last two terms of government, all built on these principles. The Your Future, Your Super reforms were some of the most significant in the last decade. They were certainly the most significant reforms since the introduction of compulsory super in 1992. The reforms ensure super works in the best interests of all Australians by removing unnecessary waste, increasing accountability and transparency and providing more flexibility for families and individuals. There is no mandate for changes to the regulations as this minister has done. There is no mandate for any changes to super because no mandate was sought at an election. There was no policy position taken to the last election that watered down transparency, that increased taxation, that capped super, that lowered division 293, that changed transfer balance caps. None of that was taken to an election. Therefore none of those changes should be made, because the government has no mandate for that. I look forward to the parliament supporting the winding-back of what this minister has done to lessen transparency in this place. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is there a seconder for the motion? 18:14 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I second the disallowance of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (Annual Members' Meetings Notices) Regulations 2022, which has the effect of reducing the transparency of how super funds are being spent for members. Instead of itemising each sponsorship, political donation, payment to a union and payment to a related entity under the regulations, these are able to be combined and disclosed as a lump sum. The argument for the regulations is that they reduce the reporting and regulatory burden, therefore ultimately reducing members' fees. But super funds are required to keep accounts and record all this information, and the cost of disclosure would be immaterial. It's hard to believe that in the context of billions in fees the cost of transcribing payments made from a superfund's accounting system to a public notice of meeting would be significant. So, I'm not convinced by argument of cost. I'm supportive of Australia's superannuation system. It's an example of farsighted policy with an intergenerational impact. Australians now have more than $3.3 trillion in superannuation, paying about $30 billion each year in fees, either directly or via companies that help manage investments. That is nearly two per cent of Australia's GDP. The Grattan Institute points out that we pay more in super fees than we spend on energy. A household nearing retirement pays average superannuation fees of $3,700 each year. Members of super funds should be able to easily find out how their money is being spent. Spending needs to be disclosed in a way that's digestible and informative. I'm not suggesting that the previous government's legislation about superannuation payment disclosure was perfect, but it's unlikely that reducing the detail will make it better. If the intention of the regulation was only to remove double counting for greater clarity, I would support it. But it goes much further than that to reduce transparency. 'Streamlining' is sometimes used as code for reducing. Since the last election, the government has spoken about its intention to increase transparency and integrity, and I'm pleased to have been part of the parliament that passed the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill. Given the government's relationship with unions, it's important that similar transparency is protected in other systems, including our huge superannuation system. Transparency is the key to rebuilding trust. Australians want to know if their super fund is making political donations and to whom. They want to know if their super fund is providing large sponsorships to sporting teams or other bodies. They want to know if their super fund is making payments to unions. And they want transparency on whether their super fund is making payments to related entities. The requirement to itemise these spending items in the notice of meeting might not provide all the detail, but it at least provides the opportunity to seek further information at the subsequent annual meeting if something doesn't seem right. Wherever there's money and power there's a need for transparency to rebuild trust in our systems. This is true in our superannuation system, just as it's true in our political system. I support the disallowance motion in relation to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (Annual Members' Meetings Notices) Regulations 2022 because our communities want more transparency, not less, in relation to money and power. 18:18 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I'm pleased to be speaking on the matter of superannuation, and I take the opportunity to address each of the issues that have been raised in a thoughtful contribution by the member for Curtin. I disagree with the conclusions that have been drawn and I particularly disagree with the arguments that have been made by the member for Fadden, and there are a lot of reasons that I disagree with the arguments and the motivation. We can separate those things, but in this instance the campaign that has been run by the member for Fadden and his colleagues in this party is built on dishonesty, frankly, and I'll address the reason. It comes in the name of transparency but it also comes from the party that, frankly, refused to tell Australians its prime minister had secretly sworn himself into a whole number of ministries without telling the parliament or the people of Australia. The member for Fadden might argue, 'We didn't know; that error wasn't on us.' But, when they had the opportunity to distance themselves from this behaviour, they backed him in a vote on a censure motion in the parliament. The motion is moved on the very day the parliament has heard the former minister for human services secretly commissioned a $1 million report and then buried it because he didn't like what the report told him. And it's moved by a former minister who, frankly, had to be relieved of his former duties in his portfolio because of his behaviour, which did not meet ministerial standards. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! That's reflecting on the member. Mr Robert HWT On relevance: the minister is required to speak to the motion. He is not allowed to speak widely on other things. He can't reflect on members. He's got to remain relevant. He's breaking at least three standing orders. He's been here long enough and should frankly know better. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 I ask the minister to address the motion. Mr JONES A9B To the matter on the Notice Paper: the reasons I've said are why members of parliament are entitled to be suspicious about the motion and the way it's made its way to this House. We can separate the motivations from the substance of the motion. This is what the member for Fadden knows. He is trying to make a big deal about the fact that this is somehow a set of regulations designed to flush out donations. This is what the member for Fadden knows full well. He knows full well that donations are unlawful. They are unlawful for two reasons. The first is that superannuation trustees have an obligation to ensure that every dollar contributed by members to that fund is used for the sole purpose of the members of that fund. He also knows full well that every expenditure in the fund has to be expended in the best financial interests of those members. He knows full well that donations are unlawful, but time and time and time again in his address just now he used the word 'donation' to attempt to confuse members in this place that that is what this is about. He knows full well that it is not true. There is a second reason why this motion comes through and why it should be rejected: there is absolutely no evidence that funds are being given for the purpose of political donation. I have asked the regulators time and time and time again, 'Is there any evidence of political donations here?' And time and time and time again the regulators say, 'We have found no evidence.' They've said that on the record; they've said that before Senate estimates. I will ask them regularly, time and time again, 'Is there any evidence of donations?' No, there is not. I want to know, because I would have the same concerns as the member for Curtin and any other member in this House if payments were being made from a superannuation fund for this purpose. That would be an improper purpose. It would not fit the sole-purpose test and it would not be in the best financial interest of the members. Donations are unlawful, and there is no evidence they are occurring. That is not from me; that is from the regulator, who has pored over this—sometimes at the instruction of members of the coalition—for many years and found no evidence. Let's go to the issue of transparency. I agree with every word the member for Curtin said on the issue of transparency. If we are to believe the member for Fadden and his motivation—that fund members deserve more transparency and should have an accurate record of how their funds are expending that money and how their funds perform—I agree with that as well. In fact, when this brouhaha came up, I went back to the department, went back to the regulators, and said: 'Let's have a look at the lot of it. How is reporting going on between superannuation funds and their members? How is reporting and the collection of data going on with the regulators? And how does the annual member meeting notice relate to those other three levels of reporting?' I found some gaps. There were gaps in the reporting. There was no legal requirement on registered superannuation entities to publish an annual report. I moved legislation in this House to ensure that that requirement is now a matter of law. In fact, Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022 will require every registered superannuation entity to prepare and lodge an annual financial report. It will also provide the government of the day with the capacity to make regulations stipulating the particularities of that annual report, because if something is worth reporting on it probably should be reported in the annual report. It just make sense. If something is worth declaring and reporting to members, it should be reported in the annual report, because that is the primary document which is the means of accountability between the fund and its members. There'll be a new requirement that didn't exist when the original regulations that the shadow minister wants to restore were made. It didn't exist when I made an alteration to those regulations. It will exist as a result of the new Treasury laws amendment bill and the consequential obligations that will come into place as a result of that. In addition to that, I listened to the argument that was made by the member for Fadden, the crossbenchers, the Greens and others about the fact that the report does not actually provide members with the capacity to compare what their fund is doing and the expenditures that their fund might be making with other funds. As the member for Curtin said in her contribution, members may be paying $3000 or $4000 a year in administration and investment funds. That sounds like a lot of money. How does that compare with every other fund? How do I, as a member, know whether I'm paying more or less than the industry average? The way to do that is to ensure that we have a transparency report which is based on data collected from every fund within the sector. Every registered superannuation entity is required to provide data to the regulator on fees, performance and, in addition to that, political donations—it'll come up with a big fat zero, and the member for Fadden knows that—and any other payment made to related party, such as a marketing payment or an education payment. In fact, I made it specifically clear that every item that was included in the previous annual member meeting notice is going to be reported in the annual transparency statement, and more. What is special about doing it through the regulator is that it has an annual and central point of truth. It is available not just to the members of a particular fund so that they can compare their bond with every other fund; it is available to every journalist, every analyst and every politician in the country. They can pore over it. They can look at it. We will have a single point of truth so that we won't have these spurious arguments year after year and allegations that are untested and, frankly, untrue about how members' superannuation funds are being expended. Here's something that I want members in this place to know: if funds are being expended in a way that is not for the sole purpose of the members of that fund or does not meet the best financial interest test, not only will the regulator be all over it but I, as the minister, will want to know, the Treasurer, as the responsible portfolio minister, will want to know. In fact, every member of the government and I'm sure every right-thinking member of this place will want to know, and they will have that information, because it'll be published in a single point of truth that is able to be analysed and is available to everyone. As a consequence of this, though, it will not add one iota of additional transparency. It will add more red tape and more confusion but not one iota of transparency. 18:29 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo In November last year I spoke of my complete disbelief in how the government was pushing through its signature Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. I said: I, and every other member in this place, was elected as part of a democratic process that is the envy of many countries around the world. Internationally respected democracy does not and should not stop on election day; however, the treatment of this bill is, in my view, undemocratic and seriously undermines the parliamentary process. The government is deliberately rushing this bill through the parliament. I said that last year, and here we are again. It's like Groundhog Day. We're commencing the 2023 parliamentary year where we left off in 2022. Again, we're in the position where we have insufficient to no opportunity to properly scrutinise legislation presented by government. Again, we are told that it's urgent and will consequently be rushed through this House with limited opportunity to speak to it. I remember when the government sought to change sitting hours to allow the opportunity to have these urgent bills. They said they would be few and far between—absolute rarities. We are seeing them with enormous regularity in this place, and it is not a good thing. This is not a good practice. This is thwarting democratic process. I want to work collaboratively with the government, but it is a difficult task when I'm provided with no notice, no briefings and no explanation as to why such bills and regulations must be dealt with in the manner that is proposed today. It's simply not good enough. These regulations seek to unravel changes made by the former government that were introduced to provide greater scrutiny and greater transparency in relation to the reporting of promotional, marketing or sponsorship expenditure by superannuation funds. It's disappointing that the minister isn't even in the chamber for this debate. We've got only an hour of debate. Surely the minister could spend his time in the chamber for that hour. I ask a simple question of the government. Why would the government wish to remove such transparency? For most workers, superannuation will be their largest asset outside of their home. The industry funds frequently advertise the importance of superannuation and the financial benefits of industry funds over retail funds. They draw attention to savings and administration fees and their impact over time on retirement fund balances. Funds understand the compounding effect that small amounts have over long periods and, through their advertising, industry funds have appropriately educated superannuation fund members. But we need to know exactly what they're spending their funds on. Sure, we have education, but not all the money associated with promotion, marketing and sponsorship expenditure is well spent. We have to keep reminding ourselves that this is a compulsory product, and we need transparency. Every one of us in this nation has a super fund, and we need to know what these funds are spending their money on. One Sunday morning, I was watching Merv Hughes Fishing. It's a good show. I love my fishing shows. Dr Mulino 132880 Relevance? Ms SHARKIE 265980 It is very relevant, because it was sponsored by Cbus. Everybody on the boat had their Cbus shirts on and they were all talking about Cbus super. I thought to myself: 'I wonder if the people who have Cbus super funds actually know that their money is being spent on a fishing trip. I'll turn it on again next Sunday.' Again, there we had Cbus spending their money on a fishing show. How is that value for money for those who have Cbus super funds? The Australian Financial Review reported: … aggregated data taken from the Electoral Commission shows a total $85.5 million in non-donation and non-gift payments by 51 funds to political entities and associates over the past five years. Let me repeat that number: $85 million over five years by 51 super funds for non-donation and non-gift payments. That's a pretty expensive dinner. It has to be a very expensive dinner. Why should the people whose money it is not know what it's spent on? Coincidentally, it always surges during election years. But they're not political donations—no, not at all! I do not support these changes; I do not support the continual erosion of our parliamentary processes; and I do not support any move in this place that thwarts transparency. We need more transparency, particularly around our super funds and how they are treated as cash cows largely by the union movement. I want to see more work done in this space, not less. 18:35 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I rise today to speak against this motion. I will reflect on some of the arguments raised by the minister previously in this debate. I want to start with a bit of context. As the minister said when he rose to speak, this is not a debate where we want to descend into overfocusing on the motives of people on different sides and what might be underlying the position that they take, but the context is important. This is the start of my second term. I've had a bit under four years in this place, less than many people who will be contributing to this debate. Even in that time, I feel as though I've experienced enough debates and enough public forums in which superannuation has been discussed that the kinds of arguments being raised—and, I might say, particularly by those opposite—are part of a broader agenda. It's when you look at them in that context that the veracity of those arguments becomes clearer, the meritoriousness of those arguments becomes clearer and, I might say, the lack of merit of the arguments becomes clearer. The context is this: when we look at superannuation, there are a range of first order issues that we debate in this place routinely that are key underpinnings of the sector. For example, performance and sufficiency are two of the absolutely key underpinning aspects of the system. Performance by funds: How much are they returning to members? What are their risk-adjusted returns on a long-term basis adjusted for fees? What is the sufficiency of what members will receive in the long run to support them in dignity in retirement? They are absolutely key indicators of whether the system is working. Transparency is also important. The reason I raise performance and sufficiency is that, in my time in this chamber—in the previous term, in this term and in my time on a number of committees, particularly the House Economics Committee—we've spent an inordinate amount of time asking, I might say, not the entire superannuation sector in a uniform way but some parts of the superannuation sector disproportionately: 'Did you spend money on tickets to the tennis? Did you spend money on this or that aspect of marketing? How much money did you spend on directors' fees to union representatives, where there might be working representatives on boards of directors?' It was interesting that we didn't spend nearly as much time looking at things like the long-run risk-adjusted rates of return to members and their performance. We didn't spend anywhere near as much time talking about sufficiency. We spent an incredible amount of time talking about assertions about the fact that some super funds spent money on marketing. It was interesting to me that there was no evidence put forward that super funds were spending more on marketing than, for example, other parts of the financial services sector. It's absolutely clear that banks, insurance companies, all sorts of major companies in the financial services sector that need to build connections with new customers and maintain an awareness with existing customers, spend money on marketing of various types. What struck me is that those opposite routinely spend an inordinate amount of time attacking any kind of marketing, again, from a particular part of the superannuation industry. That is, I think, a very important piece of context, because when those opposite come to this debate, I do query, at times, whether they're looking at this from a serious policy perspective. More often than not, they seem to be drilling down—and often with a lot of hyperbole and huffing and puffing—on particular aspects of a sensationalistic view of the industry, without ever wanting to get to what I see as the really important long-term prospects of members. And, I might say that the funds that were dragged in front of committees I was on, in the last term, were quite often the funds that hadn't been found in the royal commission to have behaved badly. They'd had the best performance and were providing for the best efficiency, yet we ended up asking them question after question after question on issues that, frankly, didn't at all deal with, or relate to, these issues. As the minister indicated, all too often, in this debate, the word 'donation' slips in. Perhaps those opposite haven't used it in this debate here today; I'll go back and look at the Hansard. But all too often, the word 'donation' is used in a way that is very sloppy and imputes all kinds of relationships in ways that I think aren't appropriate. Those opposite say that more transparency is always better. I think everybody in this place would agree transparency is important. As I said, performance is important, sufficiency is important and transparency is important, but, frankly, it's not just with super but with all complex products. I've got the most experience with products in the financial services space, but it's not just in financial services; it's right across the gamut of consumer products. But, particularly in financial services, one has to balance drowning people in reams of data—in different contexts—in ways that don't necessarily add to their understanding of the product or the situation that they're facing. Those opposite say it's absolutely critical that we have nth degree order detail when it comes to all aspects of promotion, marketing and sponsorship—when, as I say, they've dealt with those issues, in my opinion, in a very sensationalistic way in the past. I query the extent to which putting that in the AMM is going to add to members' understanding. I'd much rather we focus on giving members a much better understanding of measures such as their risk-adjusted returns net of all fees and all costs. That, to me, is actually a much more important bottom line. And, to me, if we're really going to discuss this in a serious way in this chamber, we should be moving towards a system where members have a much clearer understanding of that, rather than trying to use this as way to attack this or that fund because, perhaps, they spent a bit of money on this or that marketing, when it's clear that marketing is something that's used right across the sector. As the minister indicated, there are going to be all sorts of reams of data submitted through annual reports, transparency statements and other measures, and that reporting will be done publicly. That is a very important step forward, and I think the minister is right in saying that there is a balance to be achieved here. The final thing I'll say is that I also find it a bit ironic that those opposite come into this place and huff and puff so sanctimoniously around superannuation, when they've, basically, over the last 20 years, opposed almost every single increase in the guarantee. When it comes to their relationship with all the fundamentals of super—with what kinds of returns it will provide and what kind of retirement nest egg it will provide the average worker—those opposite really don't have a leg to stand on. And I think those opposite also come into this place from a position of real weakness on fundamentals when they try to undermine another foundation of the system, which is preservation. Last term, we saw the ATO approve 4.55 million applications for over three million people, totalling over $37 billion in early release, and who did this affect? This affected the young, it affected women and it affected some of the most vulnerable people. How many people, how many tens of thousands of people, went to zero balances or less-than-a-thousand-dollars balances? Those opposite continued with policies which use this kind of simplistic, highly misrepresentative approach to superannuation in their last budget reply. Those opposite come in here constantly looking at sensationalistic approaches to superannuation, frankly. I do query their motives when I don't see them coming in here with sensible, detailed approaches to what I see as the key pillars of this system, which, as I've said before, are performance, sufficiency and preservation. Those opposite are nowhere to be seen on those. I think that we do have solid measures when it comes to transparency. We have all sorts of measures in the regulatory arrangements, we have the best financial interests and, as the minister said, it's a solid arrangement. 18:45 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I speak in support of this disallowance motion. Last year I spoke about this bill to this House. I observed then that it would end the requirement for superannuation funds to tell their members how much they're spending on marketing and sponsorship expenses, political donations and payments to industrial bodies. The requirement for itemised information on payments to unions and industry bodies has been abolished. Australian super fund members deserve that information. In 2021, Australian super funds paid $13 million to unions. It's been suggested that that amount may increase to as much as $30 million a year. In an interview late last year, the minister said that those payments to unions and industry bodies were payments for services and that they should be treated consistently with other types of payments. He added that, if members had questions about those payments, they could attend their annual members meeting and request additional information about them. How very generous of the minister! Data taken from the Electoral Commission in September 2022 identified more than $85 million in non-donation and non-gift payments by 51 super funds to political entities and their associates over the past five years. That is an extraordinary amount of money. It's the sort of amount of money that can sway an election. We've heard a lot about electoral donations in this place in the last year and we will hear more this year. It's a real issue in this country. We need more donation reform and we need more transparency about our political donations. This bill will deliver less. Our voters sent all of us a message last year. They asked for sunlight in politics, and for integrity and transparency. This bill takes us backwards. This is not integrity. This is not an exercise in cleaning up unnecessary red tape, as the minister would have us believe. This is not making members understand how their super funds are spending their money. This is the opposite. I'd also like to note that today this government has rushed this bill back to the parliament without proper notice, to avoid further scrutiny. Debate about the legislation has been truncated. I'd like to quote a much-respected member of this place about the importance of unimpeded debate in the House. He said last year: It's actually about the millions of Australians who didn't vote for Scott Morrison. They deserve a voice in our parliament—but this is a government that doesn't want to hear any voices but its own. … Governments of both persuasions have used their numbers to silence the other side from time to time—but not like this, not systematically, not as a matter of course. This is the second time today that we've had a truncated debate in this place. Those words were spoken in this House last year by the current Leader of the House. He's not here now—very few members of his government are—and that's a bit of a shame because this is a really important issue, on which we've not been given much time to speak. I have committed to the people of Kooyong that I will demand of their government due commitment to the democratic process and to detailed debate and discussion. I've also pledged to work in this place to improve the integrity and the transparency of all of the bills that we legislate. For those reasons, and for my reservations both about the process used and the substance of this bill, I cannot support it. 18:50 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I hadn't planned on speaking on this motion but this is just quite extraordinary what's happening here. This is one of the situations where the government should just walk in and tell the truth. The government should walk in and say: 'Yes, we are deliberately restricting the ability of super fund members to find out what is happening to their money. We are doing that deliberately. We are seeking to do that and we're doing that because it's inconvenient for our friends in the union movement for these marketing payments and other payments to be disclosed. We don't want people to know about that, so consequently, we're moving this change to the regulation.' I must admit I felt a bit sorry for the member for Fraser—who is quite an accomplished person and a good contributor to this place—tying himself up in intellectual knots trying to justify this, but it is ridiculous. What sort of government takes an existing rule which is about transparency and allowing people to find out what's happening to their money, which they must compulsorily contribute through super, and says: 'Let's not do that anymore. Let's take that away.' That is outrageous. You can see from the breadth of concern about this legislation, right across the chamber, that this is a regulation that is unusually bad and completely unacceptable. For a government that was elected, to a significant degree, on a platform of integrity—so-called—to make one of their early moves to literally tie a blindfold around the eyes of superannuation fund members so they can't find out how, specifically, their funds are being spent on things like marketing payments to unions is absolutely outrageous. We all know that. We could tell by the very contorted contributions of those on the government side that they are embarrassed by this regulation—perhaps not the minister, but the rest. They should be embarrassed because it's shameful. I very strongly support the shadow minister's motion in this regard. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The question is that the motion be disagreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until the first opportunity the next day. Debate adjourned. BILLS 64 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022 64

Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022

Returned from Senate 64 Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 65

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022

Report from Federation Chamber 65 Third Reading 65 18:55 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 65

Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022

Report from Federation Chamber 65 Third Reading 65 18:56 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 65

Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022

Report from Federation Chamber 65 Third Reading 65 18:57 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 65

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022

Second Reading 65 18:58 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I'm delighted to be able to continue speaking about the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill because it is a very important bill. From 1 July this year, this bill will deliver six key changes to the paid parental leave scheme in Australia. It will combine the two existing payments into a single 20-week scheme. It will reserve a portion of the scheme for each parent to support them both to take time off work after a birth or adoption, which is really important. It will make it easier for both parents to access the payment by removing the notion of primary and secondary carers, and that is a really significant shift. It will expand access by introducing a $350,000 family income test, which families can be assessed under if they exceed the individual income test. It will increase flexibility for parents to choose how they take leave days and allow eligible fathers and partners to access the payment irrespective of whether the birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements. These are significant changes that send a clear message that treating parenting as an equal partnership supports gender equality. Our government values men as carers, too, and we want to see that reinforced in our workplaces and in our communities. This bill is about acknowledging that care is fundamental to all of us in communities, no matter the gender of the person providing the care. It is also an important step in breaking down gender stereotypes that do unfortunately exist and often do harm in limiting possibilities for people to make choices about the kinds of families they build, jobs they pursue and lives they lead. When fathers take a greater caring role from the start, it benefits mums, dads and their children. This is a reform to benefit the whole family. This paid parental leave reform is good for employers, it's good for the economy, and it's good for parents and children. This reform is great for communities right across the country, including my own community of Chisholm. Unfortunately, Australia has not been tracking that well when it comes to gender equality. We can do so much better. I know that our government wants to do so much better. We've been working hard to deliver more for everyone in our country, including women, and this bill is an example of that. The facts are pretty dismal. Let's have a look at what Australia's situation currently looks like on the gender equality front. Last year, Australia came 43rd on the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Index. In 2014, we came in at 24th. We have been going backwards. That is really dreadful and shameful, and it makes me really angry. The national gender pay gap stubbornly sits at 14.1 per cent. That's not good enough. The median undergraduate starting salary for women is 3.9 per cent less than men, despite women graduating in greater numbers from university courses. Women's super balances are 23.1 per cent less than men's as we approach retirement age. Sadly, older women are the fastest-growing cohort of people experiencing homelessness, and women over 60 are the lowest earning of all demographic groups nationally. Women's workforce participation lags behind men consistently by eight to nine percentage points. This is a grim, dismal picture, and, unfortunately, we've lost a decade under the previous government for meaningful forward momentum. Instead, on key indicators, as a nation, on gender equality, we've gotten worse. It genuinely makes me really angry and upset to see that in this country, a country that was one of the very first in the world to give women the vote. There is now a real commitment from our government to change, and we are on the road to improvement. This bill addresses some of the issues of gender inequality in this country. We're also tackling this problem through our industrial relations reforms that passed the parliament last year. Pay secrecy is no more. Measures for feminised workforces to be properly remunerated are finally coming to pass. Cheaper early childhood education and care also mean we are doing more to boost women's workforce participation. We are a modern government. We value equality. We care about community, from our very youngest people to our very oldest. Our agenda, as the Albanese Labor government, has been about delivering crucial reforms for a forward-thinking, ambitious, optimistic Australia. The changes to paid parental leave are but one part of that, and a very significant part of that—the work of building a better future for all. I am so pleased and so proud to support this bill. 19:04 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 is the leading edge of a step-change for women, families, the economy and for the ongoing pursuit of gender equality in this country. Now that we are here, though, let's make it a giant leap forward, because not many policy levers have this power to bring about the sort of cultural change that's needed to elevate Australia's recent poor record on gender equality. To say it's needed is an understatement. Once a leader on gender equality, Australia now sits 43rd in the world in the global gender gap index. While ranked equal first in the world for women's education, we rank 38th when it comes to economic participation and opportunity and we have a gender pay gap of 14.1 per cent. Australia has one of the most gender-segregated workforces in the world, and our rate of female part-time employment is almost 10 per cent higher than the OECD average. The recent women's senior executive census found that progress of women into the most senior leadership roles in the nation's top companies over the last six years has been negligible. In the last year, representation has actually gone backwards. We like to think we're leaders. In this we are not. We can be, we should be and we must be. In fact, Monash University's recent women's health and wellbeing scorecard found that, at the current rate of change, it will take more than 200 years to achieve gender equality in Australia. I don't have the patience for that, nor does my daughter, nor do the women and girls of Goldstein. We can't sit back and wait for things to happen organically. We need to shift our thinking about how we divide up unpaid care work now. Stop looking at the cost; start looking at the benefit. Women have already been paying the cost emotionally and financially. Systemic structural and cultural factors perpetuate gender inequality in Australia. These things are interlinked. Systemic violence against women too is linked to how they're valued. Until we address workplace and economic imbalances, broader equality will not simply arrive. So much of that inequality is linked to women doing most of the unpaid care work and society not valuing the caring work that women do—paid and unpaid. As I explained to my 14-year-old daughter recently, girls and boys are born into gendered norms. Society embeds those norms. Gender stereotypes lead to discrimination. Women take on most of the caring responsibilities. As a result, they're under-utilised in the paid workforce. Women make up higher levels of part-time work—gender segregation by job type. This all leads to a gender pay gap, with a lack of women in leadership positions, less superannuation in retirement and, increasingly, poverty for older women—not an attractive snapshot. The penny dropped for my daughter. I don't want that future for her. I want her to dictate the life she leads, the job she wants and how much time she wants to work. I want her to live in a society where unpaid care work is evenly shared and seen as important. I want her to be valued equally to a man. The Parenthood's 2021 research report Back of the Pack—How Australia's Parenting Policies are failing Women and our Economy found that, compared to global peers, mums in Australia fall behind in work participation after children and never catch up. Achieving a more equitable division of unpaid care between men and women is fundamental to achieving gender equality. This is what the paid parental leave amendment bill sets out to do. Removing the notion of primary, secondary and tertiary claimant and the requirement that the primary claimant be the birth parent creates greater flexibility, allowing families to decide how they will share the entitlement. The bill combines the previous dad and partner pay with parental leave to increase parental leave pay to 20 weeks. Two weeks of parental leave pay will be reserved for each parent to use it or lose it, to encourage more fathers and partners to access the payment. The use-it-or-lose-it element is a critical piece and will help foster a culture where men's role in care giving becomes accepted and encouraged. The importance of this can't be overstated. Taking time out of the paid workforce to care for a child should be part of the usual course of life and work for both parents, and in Australia at the moment it's simply not. Currently, 88 per cent of parental leave is taken by women, which takes them out of the paid workforce and, for many women, it is then hard to pick up where they left off. But having a more flexible paid parental leave scheme that encourages men to access it is about more than women fulfilling their work ambitions. It also supports the nation's wellbeing by bonding fathers with their children and boosting the economy. Leveraging women's participation is one of the most effective actions to improve our economy and productivity. The National Skills Commission estimates the need for 1.2 million additional workers across the economy by 2026. A large majority of these roles are in highly feminised industries, such as health and early childhood education and care. Women are an untapped workforce who can play a vital role in meeting these labour shortages. The Chief Executive Women and Impact Economics and Policy paper 2022, Addressing Australia's critical skills shortages: unlocking women's economic participation, found that halving the workforce participation gap between men and women would represent an additional 500,000 full-time skilled workers with postschool qualifications. The report said that engaging women in paid work at the same rate as men could unlock an additional one million full-time skilled workers in Australia. I commend the aim of the bill to make paid parental leave more accessible, more flexible and gender-neutral. But the amendments don't go far enough, and they are too slow. These changes—which, in effect, combine existing provisions rather than extending them—will not roll out fully until 2026. I stand here as a member of the crossbench to challenge the government to push for more ambition, to go to 95 per cent—100 per cent—not to stop at 75 per cent. Women must be enabled. The time frame is a failing in this bill and should be brought forward. Three more years of waiting is too long. We also know from international experience that the key to men taking parental leave is the 'use it or lose it' component for an extended period—that is, more than two weeks. In Denmark, 'use it or lose it' provisions saw a significant increase in men's uptake of parental leave, and men were subsequently more likely to continue shared care of their children throughout the early years. This is the step change that we need. The evidence shows that, as a result of policies like this, workplaces and communities are more accommodating and accepting of sharing the care between men and women. The use of parental leave by fathers in Australia is very low by global standards. Fathers in Australia take less than 20 per cent of the parental leave that their international peers take and receive just 0.04 per cent of all publicly provided parental leave. Because care patterns are established in the first year of a child's life, this entrenches stereotypical gender roles. According to the World Economic Forum's Global gender gap report 2020, the gap between how mothers and how fathers work, care and earn after a baby is more pronounced in Australia than in comparable nations. We should be encouraging men to take up parental leave, to normalise flexible work and shared care responsibilities and to strengthen women's workforce participation and financial security. And it's healthy for men. When fathers take parental leave, they as well as their children and their partners benefit from stronger relationships. This is why I favour a nontransferable six-week 'use it or lose it' provision when paid parental leave entitlements grow to 26 weeks by 2026, to encourage greater shared caregiving by both parents and, importantly, to incentivise men to access the leave. I know the government has asked the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce to come up with the best model for the expansion to 26 weeks, which will be legislated separately from the current bill before the parliament. I look forward to seeing where it lands and will hold the government to account on the 'use it or lose it' provision. I also urge the government to extend the superannuation guarantee to paid parental leave. Paid parental leave is one of the only types of paid leave to which the superannuation guarantee does not apply. When mothers take time out of the workforce to care for their children, not only do they struggle to maintain a meaningful connection to the workforce; they can go for years without receiving any super. On average, women accumulate 47 per cent less super than men. A paid parental leave scheme that includes super will help redress the imbalance. This must happen if we are serious about this. It's time we stopped punishing women for the burden of unpaid care work they carry. The Goldstein community elected me on a platform of gender equality, among other things, and I will continue to fight for a society where women and men have equal economic and social choices and responsibilities. This bill goes some way to achieving that by shifting gender norms. Next, 52 weeks of paid parental leave to bring us up to par with global leaders in this space. It's time to not only share the load but enable women and girls to take that great leap forward. 19:15 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I am so proud to stand here today in support of this brilliant legislation, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, that will have such a great impact on so many Australian families. This is the first step of us building on our Paid Parental Leave scheme and extending it to 26 weeks by 2026, making it more flexible for families to have more choice in the way they use this very special time in a family's life. I want to thank the Minister for Social Services, the Minister for Women and the Prime Minister for bringing this important bill to the House. Paid parental leave is a proud Labor legacy, introduced by the Gillard government in 2011 under the former minister for social services and my former boss, the Hon. Jenny Macklin. Back then, Australia was one of only two OECD countries without a national paid parental leave scheme. Labor fixed that. It's a proud moment to be standing here almost 12 years later speaking about the Albanese Labor government's plan to further strengthen and fix the access, flexibility and equity issues in the current scheme. It is amazing to think there is a whole generation of parents and children—some now almost in high school—who have benefited from the Paid Parental Leave scheme since its introduction. It was a monumental change for Australia. It was good for Australian babies, good for Australian families and good for the Australian economy, and very, very good for Australian women. The objectives of PPL, as set out in the Productivity Commission's review at the time at which it was based, were dual objectives around maternal and child health but also around women's labour force participation. For many mothers it was the first time they had access to leave of any sort; it was certainly the first government scheme. But to this day many people don't have access to employer funded leave. For some people, particularly those in low-paid work and casuals, this was a monumental change—to be able to actually take that time after having a baby to be at home with that baby to bond with it and to recover. It also increased women's linkage to their workplace, meaning they didn't have to leave their job at the time of having a baby and would remain in touch with that workplace and could return to the job after taking the government funded leave. Ultimately, it increased participation in the workforce. In her speech introducing the bill, Macklin said: As a nation, we cannot continue to ignore the barriers to greater participation by women … The paid parental leave scheme removed one of those biggest barriers. Today, the Albanese Labor government removes even more barriers. We are committing to maximising women's economic equality. This is the legacy of Labor governments—progressive change, a better future for Australians. This legislation shows Australians the Albanese government is listening to them. Last year at the Jobs and Skills Summit, paid parental leave reform was one of the most frequently raised proposals. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all agreed that reform would boost productivity and participation, and today Labor delivers on those requests. As the Prime Minister has said: … a parental leave system that empowers the full and equal participation of women will be good for business, good for families and good for our economy. I was so proud that our government made paid parental leave a centrepiece of its first budget. This bill will benefit around 181,000 families, including an extra 4,300 Australian families who were previously ineligible but will gain access to PPL for the first time. As I mentioned, this bill will iron out issues with access, flexibility and equity in the original scheme. One such issue with Parental Leave Pay is the 18-week payment for the primary carer. The eligibility criteria for Parental Leave Pay limits access for non-birth parents, restricts parents' choice about how they structure leave days and transition back to work, and can disadvantage families where the mother is the primary income earner. In particular, the current scheme provides minimal support for fathers and partners. This bill will expand that access, improve flexibility, encourage shared care and deliver on six key changes. These six changes are: combining the two existing payments, the 18-week Parental Leave Pay and the two-week Dad and Partner Pay schemes, into a single 20-week scheme; reserving a proportion of the scheme for each parent, to support them both to take time off work after a birth or adoption; making it easier for both parents to access the payment by removing the notion of primary and secondary carers; expanding access by introducing a $350,000 family income test under which families can be assessed if they exceed the individual income test; increasing flexibility for parents to choose how they take leave days; and allowing eligible fathers and partners to access the payment, irrespective of whether the birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements. The changes in this bill send a clear message that treating parenting as an equal partnership supports gender equality. Many of these issues have been raised with me by constituents here in Canberra who have been frustrated by their inability, particularly where the mother might be the primary income earner, to access the scheme when that made the most sense for their family. This addresses that issue, and I'm really proud that we're doing this so soon in our term of government. I firmly believe that it is only when parenting and taking time out of the workforce to care for children is seen as normal for both mothers and fathers that we will truly address gender equality in the workplace. We are seeing the fruits of that already, as more dads are taking that time off. In my own experience, it was a wonderful thing that my husband's employer provided him with a substantial amount of paid parental leave. I'm very thankful for that. It really enhanced his bond with our children, and it was wonderful in terms of sharing the load of both work and family at that time. I think the fact that we have always seen the primary caring role of looking after a baby, or kids as they grow up, as the mother's has also robbed fathers of time with their children. I think sharing between both men and women, both parents, is a really important step for families and for our economy, so I'm very proud of the changes in this bill. The shift to a gender-neutral claiming process is also more inclusive and recognises that Australian families are diverse. The government values men as carers, too, and we want to see that reinforced in our workplaces and communities. When fathers take a greater role in caring from the start, it benefits mums, dads and children. When they take that greater caring role from the start, patterns of care are established that continue throughout a child's life. In addition to benefits for women and their economic equality, there are important physical, mental and social benefits for men and children. We know that, while access to employer funded leave is growing, dads are still missing out, with the majority of eligibility remaining with female employees. Among all employer funded schemes, 50 per cent of women have access, but only 36 per cent of men have the same access. We know that employer provided paid parental leave is more common in female dominated industries. Only half of organisations in male dominated industries offer any form of parental leave, compared with 75 per cent of organisations in industries dominated by women. It is important that we have a paid parental leave scheme that complements the schemes offered by employers. They should work in unison and it should not be an either/or. At the time of the introduction of the scheme, I think one of the greatest benefits was the signal that this is something the government supports. Many employers took that as a trigger to offer leave to their employees for the first time or to build on what was offered by the government, so that people could build up to having more leave. Offering people that leave for the first time meant that that detachment from the workforce didn't happen to new parents. Australian men have the second-lowest uptake of primary carer leave in the developed world, and that is something I really hope we will work as a nation to address, because not only is it bad for the economic participation of women but it is robbing fathers of that opportunity and robbing children of time with their fathers. I think that this is really something we are seeing change. Government has a role in providing the policies that will enable the transition to a more inclusive and balanced form of parenting, and I think that is exactly what we are doing here with this bill. The current scheme does not do enough to provide access to fathers and partners. It limits flexibility for families to choose how they take leave and transition back to work. The eligibility rules are unfair to families with the mother is the higher income earner, as I mentioned. This bill fixes all of these issues. It gives more families access to the government payment, it gives parents more flexibility in how they take the leave and it encourages parents to share care to improve gender equity. These changes, to commence in July this year, are just the first stage of the Albanese government's reforms, and lay the foundation for the expansion of the scheme to a full half-year, or 26 weeks, by 2026. This was, of course, always the recommendation of the Productivity Commission, who did a report and recommended the scheme. The scheme that was introduced in 2011 was largely based on that. We were always hoping to expand it to 26 weeks. I am really pleased that this commitment has been made, because 26 weeks was recommended as a minimum for maternal and child health, so it's really good that the government scheme will be extended to that by 2026. I'm really excited that this will begin from July this year, and that families will be able to begin to look forward to that extra time with their babies, which is of course such a precious time. I know that all the parents here in the chamber will identify with that. That is a time where it really would be very hard to have to worry about getting back to work because you might not be able to maintain your job because you took time to be with your baby, or because you can't afford the time. I believe you should never have to be forced out to work because you can't afford to take that time, and that's what the scheme is about—enabling people to take time with their baby, to bond with that baby and to get used to having a child in the family. The important feature of it is to maintain connection with your employer so that women can return to those jobs after their leave. This is another great Labor achievement, a progressive change that has delivered for the women of Australia and Australian families. The Gillard government had many fantastic achievements with lasting impacts for the Australian people. That's what Labor governments do. That's certainly why I joined the Labor Party—to be part of a party that is about change, that is about reform, that is progressive, that is always looking to the next thing that we can do to improve the lives of Australians. That is what this scheme does. As I said, before this was introduced in 2011, there were many people who had access to no leave at all. They had to face resigning from their job or having no income after the birth of a child, and that is a very daunting and concerning thing to face at that already quite daunting time for new parents. So I'm really thankful to that great reform of the Gillard government. I'm proud that we are today implementing some further improvements to the scheme and that by 2026 we will be able to provide 26 weeks of leave to Australian families to be with their new babies. This is being looked at currently by the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce as well, who will be coming up with the recommendations around the best way to share that leave between both parents so that we can, as I say, provide families with a better opportunity to balance the way that they flexibly manage their leave. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 70 ADJOURNMENT Victoria: Timber Industry 70 19:30 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland People and wildlife die in poorly managed forests, and Victorian Premier Dan Andrews's plan to shut down the native timber industry is a plan to kill country towns, to kill wildlife and to kill Australian jobs. The combined impact of judicial activism, environmental protest, green lawfare and the abject failure of the Victorian Labor government to support our world-class and environmentally sustainable timber industry is devastating regional communities across Gippsland. Every worker who loses their job, every family facing financial stress—and the difficult decision to leave the community they love—has just one man to blame, and that man is Premier Dan Andrews and a Labor Party in Victoria that doesn't care about blue-collar workers anymore. The native hardwood timber industry has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. It's now a sophisticated, world-class and environmentally sustainable industry that supports Australian jobs, protects our communities and wildlife from bushfires and reduces our carbon footprint. The alternative to harvesting local timber on a long-term rotational basis is to import more timber from countries with poorer environmental protocols. Victorian Labor's failure to support the timber industry is already costing jobs. We've seen jobs lost in Australian Paper, which is no longer producing white copy paper in Australia. Australia now imports all its white copy paper. So much for Labor supporting the manufacturing sector! A sustainable Victorian hardwood timber industry is part of the answer to reducing Australia's carbon emissions—as timber products sequester carbon in our floorboards, furniture and other timber products. Regrowing trees can increase and maintain the role of forests as carbon sinks, and is the ultimate renewable resource. It's important to note that our most environmentally important forest areas are already protected, with more than 3.3 million hectares of conservation areas that can never be harvested in our state. We can all be proud of the fact that Victorian old-growth forest areas are already protected, enhancing biodiversity in our community. Every tree that is harvested by the timber industry is regrown, by law, and VicForests harvests and regenerates approximately 3,000 hectares each year from multiple-use public forests. Apart from the 21,000 jobs, which are essential for country towns across Victoria and the furniture industry in Melbourne, the skills of the Gippsland timber industry workers help to keep us safe during bushfires. If the industry is shut down, as Dan Andrews plans, they will be lost forever. Going back to where I started, people and wildlife die in poorly managed forests. All of the Black Summer bushfires started on public land that had incredibly high fuel loads after decades of mismanagement due to a chronic lack of staff and resources and a lack of commitment to protecting our community from wildfire. We need active forest management in our region which allows for multiple uses such as camping, hiking, prospecting, beekeeping, fishing and a sustainable native hardwood timber industry. The skills of the timber industry workers should be utilised further, to maintain forest access roads and strategic fire breaks around critical assets like water catchments, towns and highways, with the timber harvested for the benefit of everyone. We need more boots and less suits—that's more boots on the ground doing the fuel reduction work and the other practical environmental activities, and less suits in Melbourne making excuses and stupid, politically motivated decisions which endanger the lives of locals and visitors. Under Labor's plan to shut down the native hardwood timber industry by 2030, I am worried about all jobs at Australian Paper's manufacturing plant and every town with a timber manufacturing industry or workers who support the harvest and horti sector. It's not just me making this point. Labor's own supporters in the unions are disgusted by the way this premier is treating timber families. Michael O'Connor, from the CFMEU, wrote: … federal Labor's task of convincing blue-collar workers and communities they will be looked after is threatened by the approach of the Andrews government toward timber workers and their communities. Because these workers are being thrown on the scrap heap. When Daniel Andrews announced that his government would halve the Victorian native forest industry from 2024 and shut it down completely by 2030, it was a hammer blow which blindsided thousands of Victorian timber workers, their families and communities, and shocked and devastated an entire industry. That's Michael O'Connor from the CFMMEU. He went on to say: The only type of transition that the current Victorian Government proposal offers for the worker, their family and community is a transition into poverty. This is from the union movement, not from the National Party. At least one federal member of parliament, Senator Raff Ciccone in the other place, took the time to visit Gippsland and understand the industry. It's a pity none of his Melbourne Labor mates in the Victorian government could be bothered driving two hours to find out more of the facts. As the member for Gippsland, I will continue to make the case to save Gippsland timber families from Dan Andrews's plan to ban them into poverty. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 71 19:35 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara At the heart of the Voice lies a simple truth: the pathway for a better future for First Nations people must be shaped by First Nations communities themselves. The Voice recognises the wisdom, experience and cultural expertise that comes from within the oldest continuous civilisation on Earth. Who better to help shape policy and advise government on the decisions that affect First Nations people than the communities themselves? The Uluru Statement From the Heart is a hand outstretched, seeking friendship and support. It's a big-hearted statement that asks Australians to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. The referendum to establish the Voice is a chance for unity. It's a chance to unify Australia around empowering First Nations communities and responding to their outstretched hand. Underneath the Voice is a premise that the answers to a better future for First Nations people will come from within the First Nations community. It's about respecting who they are and what they can offer to not only the policy decision making in this place but the lives and the futures of First Nations people around the country. Compare that to what is being proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has not supported the Voice; in fact, he supported a different proposition. He's been calling for a royal commission into sexual abuse against Indigenous young people. Of course everyone in this place abhors sexual abuse. There is no place for it in Australian society. It is an abhorrent act. No-one is questioning that. But underneath the premise of calling for a royal commission into sexual abuse of Indigenous young people is the Leader of the Opposition saying quite clearly to the Australian people that there should be an investigation into First Nations communities around the country. Instead of marking this year with respect and giving respect to First Nations communities, Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, is calling for an investigation into First Nations communities. It's a dog whistle and it needs to be called out. If Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, wanted to help, he would have offered to help the Voice campaign. If he wanted this thing to succeed, he'd be offering to help it succeed. But he hasn't done that. What the Leader of the Opposition has done is try to undermine the Voice campaign. He's tried to create doubt and he's tried to hold back, frankly, what I believe is his position that he's trying to destroy the Voice. I understand there are many views around the country, but we have to ask ourselves: what takes us forward? What gives us a chance for unity? What gives us the Australia that we aspire to be? Is it going back to a dog whistle and an Australia that targets and vilifies and discriminates against First Nations people, or is it a big-hearted Australia that answers the Uluru Statement from the Heart to walk alongside and with our First Nations communities? I know where I stand. I know that in my community of Macnamara there are many big-hearted people who are ready to walk side by side with First Nations people. There are many challenges that Australians are going to face this year. There are families that are going to have a difficult year. But I know that, despite the challenges Australians will face in their day-to-day lives, there is room in the Australian people's hearts to walk alongside and have this opportunity for unity with our First Nations people. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity we all have to be a part of this year. I would urge the Leader of the Opposition to end the dog-whistling, to get on board and to be a part of a unified Australia, an Australia that can right the wrongs of the past to recognise our First Nations people in the Constitution and consult them on matters that affect them and their communities. Medicare 72 19:40 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane Working in the United States and experiencing their healthcare system is the reason that I got into politics, to defend the principles of universal free health care. Access to quality health care, including mental health care, is a basic human right, and ensuring all people have equitable, affordable and accessible quality health care should be one of the government's main priorities. Our government exists to serve people and communities. Despite this, rising out-of-pocket costs for health care is an issue that the government has not adequately addressed. Countless residents from my electorate have contacted me in distress, unable to afford or access timely health care, including bulk-billing GP services. I've heard from Patricia, who suffers from a chronic health condition and receives a low income but earns just enough to be ineligible for the healthcare card. She is forced to pay $40 out of pocket for each GP visit, which adds up even faster as other expenses rise. I've heard from Mark, who reports that he is struggling to afford required GP referrals for specialist appointments such as a dermatologist for skin checks, which is essential for people living in a country with some of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world. I've also heard from many local GPs who have shared the challenges of bulk billing to keep up with the running costs of their clinics and the provision of quality care. Unlike public hospitals, GP clinics are forced to generate an income to pay for wages and cover costs and struggle to do so through bulk billing because the Medicare rebate is too low. This means that GPs often have to undertake administrative work relevant to patient care after hours and are forced to churn through patients or charge extra. While many GPs want to maintain bulk billing to provide for everyday people, sustaining this essential service carries a risk of burnout. Furthermore, right now, millions of Australians aren't seeking the preventive health care they need because they can't afford it. Over two million Australians skip seeing the dentist each year, while millions are locked out of seeking mental health support because of the cost. These are the consequences of the undermining of our public healthcare system by pushing people into the private health insurance industry, which is run for profit and not for people. We need a system that is designed to keep people well and not just treat them when they are sick. A universal, fully funded public health system is the most equitable and efficient way to resource and deliver health services, including mental health services. That is why we advocate stopping the handouts to big private health corporations and reinvesting that $59 billion in public money where it belongs, in the public health system. The LNP and Labor's $244 billion of the stage 3 tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country could be spent on funding essential healthcare services and other social services for the public good, especially while we recover from housing, employment, environment and healthcare crises. After all, an effective health system must be based on primary care and preventative measures, such as health promotion, disease prevention, risk reduction and early intervention in order to manage chronic diseases. This saves money but also reduces hospital admissions, and, more importantly, it saves lives and improves quality of life. We could bring dental and mental health into Medicare and eliminate out-of-pocket health expenses in diagnostics and tests, including X-rays and MRIs. We could reduce waiting times, invest in a high-quality workforce and improve access for people living in regional and remote areas. We could provide free and universal access to GPs across Australia. There are solutions before us, and I want people in Brisbane to know I am fighting for those solutions. We just need the political will from this government to make it happen. Environment 73 19:44 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My electorate of Newcastle is home to a beautiful and rugged coastal environment. Located on the traditional lands of the Awabaka and Warramay peoples, our wetlands, rivers, creeks and beaches are the envy of the world, home to diverse wildlife and beautiful bird species and enjoyed by Novocastrians year-round. My community knows better than most the importance of ensuring this beautiful environment is protected, but our current environment laws are not working as they should. Nature is being destroyed and businesses are waiting too long for decisions. Things have to change. That's why the Albanese Labor government has announced the biggest environmental reform agenda in a generation. We are seeking to turn the tide on this country from nature destruction to nature repair. As announced by the Minister for the Environment and Water, Hon. Tanya Plibersek, in December, we will build our legislation on three basic principles: clear national standards of environmental protection, improving and speeding up decisions and building trust and integrity. The Albanese Labor government will establish a new Environmental Protection Agency to make development decisions and properly enforce them. The new Environmental Protection Agency will take the politics out of decisions and help restore trust to a system that badly needs it. We will introduce new national environmental standards, against which conservation protection and major development applications will be measured. We will improve conservation planning and direct funding where it's needed and we will ensure there is transparency and openness around decision-making and environment data. Our plans to overhaul the country's environment laws have been welcomed by environment, business, community and First Nations groups. As Glenn Walker at Greenpeace Australia put it, these reforms 'present a major opportunity to set Australia on a path to stronger environmental protection and should bring hope to all Australians'. And we won't stop there. We're funding the Environmental Defenders Office for the first time in nine years. We're supporting an additional 1,000 new Landcare rangers, doubling the number of First Nations rangers and supporting new Indigenous protected areas. We are committed to protecting, restoring and managing Australia's unique biodiversity, including threatened species and their habitat. The Albanese government's commitment of $224.5 million for the Saving Native Species program will help to protect threatened species. I know my community of Newcastle will be particularly pleased to hear this. The diversity of landscape in the city, coastline, wetlands, flood plains, forest ridges and gullies are home to a diverse range of ecosystems and native flora and fauna. We are committed to zero new extinctions on this continent, and we have pledged a national goal of protecting 30 per cent of our land and 30 per cent of our oceans by 2030. The Albanese Labor government is backing a recycling and circular economy with new funding and stronger laws. We're investing $250 million in infrastructure to sort, process and remanufacture materials such as mixed plastic, glass, paper and tires into valuable commodities. This includes $60 million of hard-to-recycle plastics such as soft plastics. Led by the federal environment minister, Hon. Tanya Plibersek, environment ministers from across Australia have agreed to reform the regulation of packaging by 2025 to ensure that all packaging in Australia is designed to be recovered, reused, recycled and reprocessed. We recently announced the formation of a ministerial advisory group on the circular economy. A healthy environment sits at the heart of our national legacy. Australians understand this. Novocastrians understand this. They voted for the environment in the last election, and after a wasted decade, the Albanese government will not waste another minute. Taxation 73 19:49 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks As we start the parliamentary year, here's a prediction: the Treasurer's national conversation on the budget will finish in May with the sentence, 'Here are your new taxes.' The grave declarations about the nation's finances are a softening-up process so transparent that it can be seen from the moon. But there are some inconvenient truths in the budget. Take this one: on the government's own figures, income tax revenue will be $40 billion more three years from now than it will be this year, even including the impact of the stage 3 tax cuts. Income tax revenue, which is supposedly not enough for the government, and is a big problem, will actually grow by 14 per cent over the next three years. But that entire growth in income tax will be more than offset by the increase in just one area of government spending: social security and welfare. Income tax will grow by $40 billion, but social security and welfare spending—only one line item—will grow by $42 billion. Between now and the May budget we'll be told repeatedly that hard decisions have to be made and that the government is engaged in thoughtful analysis on the best way to address the situation. There'll be round tables, there'll be working groups, there'll be consultative committees, and there'll be press conferences with furrowed brows. The faux crisis atmospherics will be reinforced by the usual suspects, who will call for changes to so-called tax concessions and various other so-called reforms. This supportive phalanx won't call on the government to control spending of course; it never does. From slightly different vantage points they'll all say the same thing: 'More tax, please.' Now, the government will seek to frame the entire budget around the need for more revenue. It will not seek a debate about spending; it will not seek a debate about the benefits of tax cuts; it will seek to create a narrative that budget equals structural problems equals a need for more revenue equals ways to get more revenue. And it will then, with feigned reluctance, legislate to increase tax in the May budget. We don't know the specifics, but we can be sure that this will occur in one form or another. There'll be no meaningful reductions in spending growth and there will be nothing at all on real tax reform. The well-established fact that tax cuts can drive productive investment won't get a mention, much less a policy. But no serious budget can consider only one side of the tax equation. After all, we've got a good recent example of how targeted tax cuts can support productive investment. Back in 2016, the former government took action on a range of tax cuts that have unquestionably helped investment in the Australian technology sector. Tax was cut for investments in start-ups and, as a consequence, investment in that area has grown dramatically. Of course, those tax cuts aren't the only reason that tech investment has boomed, but they definitely helped. There's more that could be done in this area. Today, if you're a small or medium-sized business owner seeking outside investment, the odds are stacked against you. The capital gains tax treatment of investment in many small and medium-sized businesses is exactly the same as if you bought an investment property or shares in Macquarie Bank. So, if you're a business owner seeking investment, what you're really asking is this: 'Please invest in my company. If it doesn't work out, you lose. If it does, the government will take its share in capital gains tax.' That's not a great proposition, especially when you're competing for capital with Australia's obsession with real estate. It would make sense to consider changing the tax system to provide more incentive to invest in Australian companies. For instance, Australia could abolish capital gains tax for investments in some small businesses. We should be looking at reducing capital gains tax, not increasing it. Australia wasn't built by big government think tanks, and our future shouldn't be given over to them now. A reflexive focus on how to get more tax from the economy forgets that you need to have a strong economy in the first place. In order to tax the thing, the thing must first exist. It's best to focus on its existence and its success. Lunar New Year, Steffen, Emeritus Professor William Lee (Will) 74 19:54 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I have two quite separate matters to briefly address in the adjournment debate tonight. First, many Australians, over recent weeks, have been celebrating lunar new year, which is something that I'm sure many honourable members participated in. The Year of the Rabbit received a lot of attention, but I want to focus tonight on the Year of the Cat. The Year of the Cat did not receive as much attention in the media for reasons I understand. Of course, many people would not know that we even have a Year of the Cat, but, at midnight on 21 January, I had the great pleasure of attending the Phuoc Hue Temple in my electorate which is literally around the corner from my house to welcome in the Year of the Cat which is the Lunar New Year celebrated by the people of Vietnam. \ I very much thank the Phuoc Hue Temple for the celebration that they put on, as they always do. The Most Venerable Thich Phuoc Tan, Senior Venerable Thich Phuoc Vien, Senior Venerable Thich Ahn Chi , Venerable Thich Phuoc Quang and Henry Dang, the president of the association. It was a wonderful night, as it always is, with lots of celebration. There were big crowds out at midnight celebrating the Year of the Cat. Just as, quite rightly, we celebrate the Year of the Rabbit, I want to put on record my celebration of the Year of the Cat. I do note that, on social media, when I celebrated the Year of the Cat, some people were quick to say that I was wrong and that there is no Year of the Cat. Sometimes it pays to check cultural issues and sensitivities before making that comment because, in fact, the Year of the Cat is very much celebrated by many Australians of Vietnamese heritage, as the member for Gellibrand very well knows. Mr Watts 193430 Chuc mung nam moi! Mr BOWEN DZS He participates and wishes his constituents chuc mung nam moi, as much as I do my constituents. Quite separately and differently, it is appropriate that we take a moment in the House to mark the passing of Mr Will Steffen. Will Steffen was a first-class climate scientist and a world-class communicator of the climate crisis. I know that the Australian broad climate family—if I could use that term—is mourning his passing very deeply. He served as a climate adviser to the Australian government in the Climate Commission, and was then a founding member of the Climate Council after the abolition of the Climate Commission. He was a renowned professor and the inaugural director of the Fenner School of Environment and Society at ANU. I know the member for Fenner knew Will Steffen well, and he has corresponded with me about his tragic passing. Professor Steffen was a contributor—and this is no small thing—to five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, assessment reports. It is a serious undertaking for the scientists who contribute to the IPCC reports. It's a massive commitment of time, energy, and, frankly, scientists who contribute lay themselves open to all sorts of personal attacks and conspiracy theories that somehow they're in it for themselves. We've all heard those tropes; we've heard them all too often. I want to pay tribute to Professor Will Steffen. His passionate advocacy to advance action on climate change and his narrative as a skilled scientist and equally skilled communicator are sorely missed in Australia. He was dedicated to fighting for better climate action and he kept his life's work up until almost the very end. I know that Professor Steffen mentored many people throughout the climate movement, which is probably one of the reasons why he is so missed and so mourned. He took people under his wing and talked to them about the challenges of communicating action on climate change. I know that many people in the Public Service in many different organisations were mentored by him. He was a pioneering advocate of the concept of the Anthropocene and planetary boundaries—no small concepts, I know, but ones which are important contributions to the debate, and they are well-understood concepts now around the world. We can be very grateful that Will Steffen made Australia his home for a number of years. He contributed so much to the climate debate, working with governments and with non-government organisations. He is sorely missed, and I give my condolences to all who knew him, his colleagues and his family. May he rest in peace.. His was a life very well lived. House adjourned at 19:58 NOTICES 75 NOTICES Presentation 75

Tuesday, 7 February 2023

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 79 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Asylum Seekers 79 16:00 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin A few weeks ago, I met with Marian Hillam and Jan Ali Haidari. Marian is 80 years old and is a member of Grandmothers for Refugees. She's also active in the Uniting Church of Nedlands's group that supports refugees and asylum seekers. Jan is a Hazari Afghani refugee, who has been staying with Marian for the past six years. Jan arrived in Australia by boat at the end of 2011. He has been recognised by the United Nations as a genuine refugee. Jan was initially granted a temporary protection visa in early 2017 and subsequently applied for a safe haven enterprise visa in 2020. Jan works hard as a tiler in Perth—he often works seven days a week—and pays all his required taxes. When he's not working, he studies English and volunteers with refugee support groups. Jan has a wife, Sadiqa, and four children, about the same age as my children, in Hazara Town in Quetta, Pakistan. He has seen them only online in the 11 years it has taken for them to grow from toddlers to teenagers. They, too, are acknowledged as refugees, and there's an offer of sponsorship from the Nedlands Uniting Church. Jan is extremely distressed that he has been apart from his family for over 11 years. He has been living in an endless cycle of uncertainty, with no way to plan for the future. Jan is one of 20,000 refugees on TPVs and SHEVs who were excited about the change of government, but are still waiting for a path to permanency. National advocates have told me that every day they are being contacted by people on TPVs and SHEVs who are getting increasingly desperate. In the words of Behrouz Boochani, who spoke to a number of parliamentarians here this morning: hope is not enough; we need action. I told Jan and Marian that I would use my voice in the parliament to advocate for refugees and asylum seekers in Australia. We need to provide a clear path to permanency for temporary visa holders, end offshore detention, end mandatory indefinite detention and increase Australia's humanitarian case load. In the meantime, I'm grateful to people in my electorate like Marian and the Grandmothers for Refugees who advocate and provide care for Jan and the many other refugees in Australia who are living in limbo. As a country, we can and must do better than this. We must show that we will be compassionate, give people a fair go and embrace the international responsibilities that come with our extreme good fortune here in Australia. Hunter Electorate: Local Sporting Champions 79 16:03 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter The Hunter has produced some outstanding sportspeople in the past, and it is important that we support the next crop of our local sporting talent. Unfortunately, succeeding in sport doesn't just take talent and determination; parents also often have to put their hands in their pockets to get their children to competitions. The Local Sporting Champions program provides financial assistance to young people to compete, coach or umpire in their chosen sport. Sport is important in the development of young people. It teaches them lifelong skills like teamwork, it keeps them fit and healthy and it allows them to excel in something they love and enjoy. I know firsthand how expensive your chosen sport can be, especially when you're competing on the state, national or international stage. These small grants make a lot of difference to the athletes and their parents. I want to congratulate our recent local sporting champions: Benjamin Frost of Fassifern, from the Toronto Tigers Baseball Club, who competed in baseball at the Australian youth championships; Charlotte Tarleton of Dora Creek, from the Erina Hockey Club, who competed at the national hockey championships; Elise McLean of Balcolyn, from the Hunter Ice Skating Club, who competed at the Australian Figure Skating Championships; Ben Jenkinson of Toronto, from the Macquarie Shores Swimming Club, who will compete at the 2023 Australian age swimming championships in April; Julie Brummer of Fennell Bay, from the Central Coast Hockey Association, who competed at the Australian national indoor hockey championships; Kiara Jackson of Muswellbrook, from the Newcastle junior darts club, who competed at the Australian Junior Darts Championships—and I just want to say: 'One hundred and eighty!'—and Seth Charter-Smith of Barnsley, from the Maitland softball club, who competed at the Australian national softball championships. Congratulations to all of these local sporting champions. Sport is at the very heart of our community, impacting on our culture, society and economy. Sport has the ability to improve the health and wellbeing of all who participate, regardless of age, ability, background or gender. The benefits of sport go well beyond just health. You can't underestimate the positive impact sport has had on our culture, society and economy. Our communities are strengthened when we come together to play sport, building a sense of belonging and feeding our national identity. Southern Ocean Surf Reef, Albany Motorsport Park 80 16:04 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to applaud the hard work of the sporting groups behind two major infrastructure projects set to benefit the people of the far south coast in my electorate of O'Connor. Albany Boardriders and the Great Southern Motorplex Group have spent two decades developing the Southern Ocean Surf Reef and Albany Motorsport Park projects. The surf reef will deliver a more consistent wave at Albany's Middleton Beach. Boardriders, including Peter Bolt, Dave Beeck and Tony Harrison, have spent years building a watertight business case for this project. It has been great to work with the boardriders, the City of Albany and, particularly, Councillor Greg Stocks, who has played an integral role. While Albany's 145-kilometre-long municipality has wonderful surf beaches, there is no consistent surf break close to town. This hinders the growth of surfing and tourism on Western Australia's scenic south coast. Hence, before the 2022 federal election, I announced a $5 million commitment to the surf reef. Thankfully, two weeks later, the Labor candidate matched that commitment. Today, eight months after the election, the money is yet to come through. I know that the Albany boardriders are champing at the bit to build their reef, and I'm sure they will get cracking the minute the Commonwealth opens its coffers. Turning to the Albany Motorsport Park, I'm thrilled that construction work of this much-needed facility commenced last week. Spearheading the project is a group of motorsport enthusiasts, including Theo Newhouse, Mark O'Keefe, Matt Pearce, John Brade, Jack Fuller and Robbie Sutton—that would be Councillor Robbie Sutton. Albany has had a long connection with motorsports, with the town reportedly the first to bring European motor racing to Australia. The distinctive 'around the houses' event dates back to 1936. As a kid in the 1970s, I fondly remember embracing the idea of a homegrown event similar to the Monaco Grand Prix. This race is still held annually on the hilly streets of Western Australia's oldest neighbourhoods, set against the backdrop of the majestic Princess Royal Harbour. Work has now started on a state-of-the-art motorplex on the outskirts of Albany. The 2.4 kilometre motocross circuit will be built as a priority, seeing as Albany's motocross community has not had a home for many years. This initial stage will also include a four-wheel-drive training area. Down the track, the project's crowning glory—a 3.25-kilometre sealed race circuit—is envisaged. This project is benefiting from $4.95 million from the Building Better Regions Fund, which was axed by federal Labor. I can only hope that whatever funding alternative Labor comes up with is equitable and supports quality infrastructure projects for regional Australians. I close by congratulating everyone involved with the Southern Ocean Surf Reef and the Albany Motorsport Park projects for their vision, hard work and persistence. My family and I look forward to enjoying these world-class facilities, along with many other families from throughout the Great Southern. IndigiGrow 80 16:10 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith On 21 January, I was proud to open the IndigiGrow native bush foods and plant nursery at Matraville Sports High School. IndigiGrow is a thriving First Nations business, established by Peter Cooley and Sarah Martin, specialising in native plants and bush tucker. I have been proud to see it truly flourish in our community. They started out with two employees. They are now up to seven apprentices; all of them are Indigenous, and many of them have come through Matraville Sports High School into this business. They've also got three senior staff members providing meaningful and culturally safe employment for Indigenous people in the La Perouse community. They have developed 15 partnerships with local organisations and businesses, creating more opportunities to grow jobs and provide work experience for school students and apprenticeships for Aboriginal youth. The project is dedicated to the propagation, growth and revival of Australia's native plants and bush food, particularly species from the critically endangered eastern suburbs banksia scrub, with a view to caring for country with respect by cultivating endangered native varieties. It's been a pleasure to support the growth of IndigiGrow through funding from a number of Commonwealth programs, including a grant for just under half a million dollars through the Strong and Resilient Communities program in 2019 and ongoing support through the Kingsford Smith Stronger Communities grants and volunteer grants programs. The opening of the new wholesale trade nursery and online shop is a significant achievement. IndigiGrow's mission is to empower, to educate and to engage Indigenous youth in culture and connection to country and to teach them how to care for country, helping them to make positive choices about their future. They facilitate volunteering and education sessions for corporates, garden clubs, schools and other groups, as well as educating the broader community about the benefits of growing locally endangered plant species and how people can help restore eastern suburbs banksia scrub by nurturing native plants in their gardens and yards. I want to thank First Hand Solutions and their team, particularly Pete and Sarah, for this project. It comes on top of the Blak Market that they run at Bare Island on a regular basis. It's a very successful endeavour. They've been in operation for 10 years, and they're working to build resilient Indigenous communities and businesses and help to promote culture, employment and economic development. I'm very proud to be associated with them. Shephard, Mrs Muriel, Drysdale, Ms Denise, Sowter, Ms Ania 81 16:12 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I rise to give thanks to three unsung women of Tamborine Mountain, in my electorate of Wright. All of these women go about their business very quietly without wanting to seek accolade or fanfare, making our special Tamborine community a better place to live, and it's right that today in this place we acknowledge their contributions. In no particular order I'd like to acknowledge, firstly, Muriel Shephard who has dedicated much of her life to preserving and promoting the rich cultural heritage and history of Tamborine Mountain and its surrounding areas through the Tamborine Mountain Historical Society. Muriel, who has served the society in a number of capacities, is always working to help educate the community about the area's beautiful history, preserving important artefacts and documents and promoting a deeper understanding and appreciation of the mountain's unique character. Muriel, thank you for what you do in preserving our rich local heritage. Of course, there's Denise Drysdale from The Manor. She is the co-owner of a resort and restaurant function centre on the mountain. The Manor offers guest accommodation in unique country Victorian style suites and fine dining, which would be expected of any country manor. Always providing fine service with a smile, Denise works tirelessly to make visitors on the mountain feel at home. She showcases the beauty of the Scenic Rim and its unique attractions, particularly those in Tamborine Mountain, for the thousands of guests that go through her property each year. Finally, I acknowledge Ania Sowter of The Polish Place. She and her husband opened The Polish Place some 40 years ago, and it's quickly become one of Tamborine's premier locations for accommodation, dining and the taste of all things Polish. Regrettably, in 2016 The Polish Place tragically burnt to the ground, and in early 2017 I visited Ania and Phil with the ambassador of the Republic of Poland and a message from the then Prime Minister of the nation. To stand there and proudly see Ania's resilience in the face of adversity and her determination and persistence to rebuild was awe-inspiring and worthy of note. Such is Ania's determination, along with a healthy dose of community support from the mountain, that in 2020 this iconic Queensland guesthouse reopened to much fanfare, and it has since welcomed many more guests and many more diners to experience this real-life phoenix story rising from the ashes. The stories of Muriel, Denise and Ania all exemplify exactly what the mountain's about: kindness, beauty, a wonderful place to visit, its rich sense of history, its resilience and its enormous community spirit. Come to Tamborine Mountain and see the women who contribute to such a beautiful location in Australia. Macquarie Electorate: Condolences, Macquarie Electorate: Australia Day Awards 81 16:15 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie The mountains have mourned this January, with the deaths of three active community members. Wayne Levi was from Katoomba and was one of the most energetic campaigners I know. He was committed to many progressive causes and was an enormous part of my campaign last year in the upper Blue Mountains. Artist and Mount Victoria local Marie Morris is also being remembered. The mountains had been her home for decades, and she initiated the very successful Springwood Art Show at Springwood High. And Henk Luf, who I first met at 2SER FM in the 1980s when he was reviewing motorbikes, was an active and engaged member of the Valley Heights Rail Museum. All three made significant contributions to the community in their own way, drawing on their talents and their skills. They'll be very much missed, and my sympathies go to their grieving families and friends. In the Hawkesbury, the extended Watson family is dealing with the loss of their beloved dad, husband, grandad and great-grandad Alan, who was married to Dharug elder Aunty Edna Watson. I've known Uncle Alan for about a decade, but it was a privilege to hear much more about his earlier life at his funeral. It was a celebration of a life well lived, with some hard work and stories of how he never gave up and was always there for his friends—a bit of mischief and quite a bit of humour, but no-one was ready to let him go. The last time I was with Uncle Alan was on Sorry Day last year in Windsor, where he was presented with an award to mark his and Aunty Edna's decades of community contribution. It was an honour to recognise their work at that time. Rest in peace, Uncle Alan. I'd like to congratulate the Macquarie citizens who were recognised in the honours list last month. Blue Mountains resident and unstoppable force Jennifer Scott is now a Member of the Order of Australia for her significant service to the community through a range of organisations. As Jennifer said, she was going to contribute to her community with or without a medal, but I think we're all delighted that her Rotary work, as a member of Central Blue and internationally, plus her contribution as the former chair of Varuna, the National Writers House, has been recognised in this way. Squadron Leader Del Gaudry adds a Conspicuous Service Cross to her medals, for outstanding achievement in the implementation of the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security and for her work supporting to welfare and mental wellbeing of RAAF members. She is also a volunteer firefighter. I'm in awe of Del's determination to support women in the ADF. Corporal George Wallace was also awarded the CSC for his outstanding achievements as an avionics technician, supporting the C-130J Super Hercs, the much-loved aircraft operating out of Richmond. Congratulations, all. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16 : 18 to 16:41 Nicholls Electorate: Agriculture 82 16:41 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls The year 2022 was very difficult in my electorate. We had a huge rain bomb that caused a very difficult flood event. That caused widespread damage across farmland—dairy, broadacre and horticulture. We are only just recovering from all of that at the moment. The good news is that it's filled the catchments, but there has been a lot of damage. And the year didn't end well for horticulture. There were summer hailstorms. One was on Melbourne Cup Day, which sent down a lot of what we call 'rice hail'—and I'll talk about that—but then there was a devastating hailstorm just before Christmas which concentrated on the Tatura and Ardmona and Bunbartha areas, which are wonderful fruit producing regions. The hailstones were so big that they smashed the sides out of the growing pears and apples. That has caused devastation for orchardists and some real difficulties for the economic drivers of my region. I know how much everybody loves Australian fruit. Those opposite enjoyed some of the apples and pears I dropped off to the government party room before Christmas. I did the same in the joint party room for the Opposition. We love our Australian fruit, our apples and pears. Our growers love to produce that fruit—healthy food for Australians—but they have been smashed by this hailstorm. What can we do about this? I think supermarkets and consumers have a role to play in that there is some fruit that whilst it has some small damage it still tastes great. It might look a bit different. I am hoping the supermarkets work with their customers and explain what has happened with this hailstorm so the growers can still get some marketable fruit onto the shelves and everybody understands what has happened. I like to say some of this fruit is 'kissed by nature', but it's still great stuff. The other thing is the previous coalition government started a great program called the Horticultural Netting Program. It was established to assist horticultural primary producers to increase their resilience to exposure to crop damage through the purchase and installation of netting—so you put the nets over the top of the orchards. Growers were eligible for up to 50 per cent of the cost of purchase and to have a third party install new permanent netting, up to a maximum of $100,000. My understanding is, and I have spoken to the minister for agriculture, there is some unspent money. But I have written to him and urged him to expand this program so that the people who produce that wonderful fruit in Australia can get access, particularly in this time of financial difficulty for them, to some government subsidies to help net their orchards and make them more resilient against the effects of future weather events. Paterson Electorate: Energy 82 16:44 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Last week I welcomed Minister for Industry and Science, Ed Husic, to Energy Renaissance in my electorate of Paterson. Energy Renaissance is committed to creating and making an all-Australian lithium ion battery, from cells to complete battery solutions, to help accelerate Australia's transition to a clean energy superpower. For many years, the Hunter has been the backbone of the Australian energy sector, and our coal has been the backbone of that energy. As we deliver climate and energy transformation, the Albanese government is turbocharging opportunities for local businesses like Energy Renaissance to be at the frontier of the changing energy landscape in Australia. I was delighted to join the minister in officially launching the consultation round for the country's first national battery strategy. We've never had such a strategy before, and now we do. And it's going to be integral to helping Australia transition to a decarbonised economy, deliver on our ambitious emissions target, foster Australian innovation and support Australian industry. Our strategy will ensure industry has the confidence to deliver and ensure large-scale uptake and manufacture of batteries that will be vital to transitioning us towards net zero. New battery capacity will help support grid-scale capacity, power our homes and electrify our transport sector. We know our success relies on companies like Energy Renaissance. Our shared goal is only achievable with the ingenuity of Australian businesses like theirs. Australia's unique domestic access to critical minerals provides substantive opportunities to manufacture lithium ion batteries and presents us with opportunities to export this technology to the world. I just want to commend the Energy Renaissance co-founders—CEO Brian Craighead, Su McCluskey and Julie Frikken. Thank you so much for having the foresight. As Brian said in his fabulous Irish accent to us all the other day, 'It's a little bit like wool—we send the wool to Italy and then we buy the jumpers back.' Well, we want to be able to mine and refine our own lithium, and that's what we're working towards in the Hunter with things like the Australian Battery Strategy. Energy Renaissance is one of the many companies in my electorate who are working towards net zero, working towards keeping the lights on and providing good, well-paying jobs. Logan Electorate: Small Business 83 16:47 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde We woke last month to a couple of local businesses sadly being destroyed by fire. These two successful businesses, Struddys clothing factory and the neighbouring SJJ Creative, dance and acting studios, were burnt down in a fire, the cause of which is yet to be determined. So intense was the blaze that the building itself was so damaged that demolition was required to commence later that afternoon. Struddys was the most impacted by the fire, losing their entire factory. Those who follow rugby league would know the name Ross Strudwick, who is a local legend and who has contributed enormously to the field of football over many years. As a former player and coach, Ross played for St George and Fortitude Valley and represented his country and state throughout the seventies. Following his playing career, Ross coached teams in Queensland and the UK, and in 1975 Ross founded Struddys, which has proudly manufactured Australian-made products since its inception. Struddys produce a range of sportswear, schoolwear and corporate gear for local clubs, schools and businesses. In the aftermath of the blaze, I reached out to Ross. I'm pleased to say that our local community has come out in support of Struddys following the devastating fire. Imaging Solutions, another fantastic local Logan business, which manufactures high-tech medical imaging and diagnostic equipment and personal radiation protection, took the opportunity to reach out to Struddys and offer them some spare factory space they had, as they're moving to new, bigger premises. Their CEO, Glenn Honey, provided Ross and the Struddys team with this spare space for them to recommence their operations within a week of the fire. I'm pleased to say they're now back, operational, and meeting the orders that they have leading into the new footy season for both the clubs and the schools. SJJ Creative Dance and Acting Studios was also heavily impacted by the fire and, equally, has received a wonderful response. Founder Sarah Jane Jones started the studio in 2014. In almost 10 years of operation, SJJ has provided a variety of dance and performance classes, ranging from beginner to advanced, for so many of the local young dancers in our community. They have successfully moved into a business next door to recommence their operations. In addition to the great work they do with our local dancers, they've also done work at Warner Bros. Movie World on the Gold Coast and a range of festivals and sporting events across Logan and Queensland. Both Ross and Sarah are greatly appreciative of the great community support. Despite the tragedy, it shows what a wonderful community we live in in Logan. I want to thank everybody involved in helping these two businesses get back on their feet as quickly as possible. Schools 83 16:50 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome back students and teachers for the new school year. The return to normal in 2022 saw schools holding award ceremonies, multicultural events, excursions and sporting events and opening new buildings. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank all the principals, staff and parents who made these ceremonies such special occasions for the students and also to thank them for inviting me to attend. It's always a joy to see the excitement of the children when they get an award, but it's especially fun to see their parents' faces when their hard work is rewarded. Best wishes to the teachers and principals who moved or retired at the end of last year. Your work with our students was very much appreciated. You may not know the difference you've made, but you certainly will have made one. A special shout-out to David Martin, who was at Lurnea Public School as principal for 12 years. Best wishes on your new appointment. I know our Lurnea community will miss you very much. And congratulations to the year 12 cohort of 2022. The excellent results so many of you received will set you up for the next challenges in life, whether they be university, TAFE, working or taking a gap year. I was pleased also to visit a newly opened school in the Werriwa electorate last week. Edmondson Park Public School opened to the relief of many parents, as they can now walk their children to school instead of driving their children to a school over five kilometres away. Whilst there are still some final touches and construction going on at the school, it will be home to 700 students, with 200 kindergarten students starting tomorrow. Good luck to the parents and the teachers. I wish the new students, the teachers and principal all the best for the new year. It is certainly special to be the first at a new school. The incorporation of Indigenous languages into the new uniform and the class names is a great innovation. The Albanese government recognises that more support is needed in schools and for students, so it is delivering $203 million to support student mental health and wellbeing as well as $270 million to improve school facilities across Australia. It's also incentivising more people to join the teaching profession. I've spoken before in this place about the need for more schools like the new Edmondson Park school in our part of Sydney. With so many people moving to the growth areas, I'm pleased that NSW Labor has committed to building new high schools in Austral and Leppington to meet the needs of the students and families moving into the area. NSW Labor has a bold plan to address the chronic underfunding of public education in Werriwa, and our community deserves the best. Good luck to everybody starting school this year. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 176304 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 84 BILLS Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 84

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022

Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022

Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022

Second Reading 84 16:54 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur This package of three bills—the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, the Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 and the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022—is really important. The package is a way of modernising and improving how patients who have private health insurance can access implantable devices as treatments for things such as fractured hips or cardiac abnormalities. This includes cardiac valve replacements and a whole range of prostheses. This is very important because Australia has an almost unique health system that is one of the best, if not the best, in the world. It's being assailed at the moment by the cost pressures not just of the pandemic but also of increasing medical costs around the world and of increasing age, which puts further pressure on our health systems. And of course the pandemic, by itself, changed health care in Australia dramatically. There's also been lots of publicity recently about access to primary care and the effect the coalition's 10-year freeze on GP rebates has had on not just access to GPs now but also recruitment of medical students into the GP training schemes. That has been absolutely decimated by the coalition's policies. People don't like to hear about the effects of governments past, but this has really had a dramatic effect on our healthcare system. It has put enormous pressure on our health system's ability to provide services. Our government, the Albanese Labor government, is in the process of trying to repair the neglect and the damage that has been caused by 10 years of very poor coalition oversight of the health portfolio. I grew up in the health system. It's a bit scary to think that I have now been a member of the AMA for over 50 years. I started my private practice in Campbelltown and Camden in the same week that Medicare started, 39 years ago. It is a bit scary to think of those figures. I still see myself as a young boy with a dream, but that's probably not how others see me! This is a very important bill, and I must commend all stakeholders for coming together, agreeing that this bill is necessary and appropriate and working in a way that will help our health system in the future to deal with all the many, many challenges of a health system. It's a complex issue. I must admit as a practising doctor I did often find it difficult to explain why the costs of, for example, hip replacements were so different in the public system versus the private system and why different devices seemed to cost more money here than overseas—and, in some cases, I must say, vice versa. Just as an example, the hip joint replacement available now in Australia can cost more than $4,000 for some people, and similar devices in countries like the United Kingdom and New Zealand cost less than $2,000 in the private system. So there are differences in costs. This bill is an attempt to try and make the costing more transparent and make these devices available to Australians at a cost similar to overseas. The Medical Technology Association of Australia has agreed to work very collaboratively with the government in getting what we would call fit-for-purpose reform in this area, and I commend them for that. They certainly have worked very hard with their members to make sure that Australians are getting devices at the most appropriate cost in both the public and private system. There will still be some cost differences between the public and private systems. The public system is able to order in bulk and is able to have much more simple supply chains, whereas private insurance tends to work in smaller numbers and has a wider variety of ordering capacities and supply chain capacities. These bills will attempt to simplify some of that, and there will be cost savings for both the private health insurance industry and also for the government. I would also say, though, that it is important to understand the importance of maintaining a private health insurance industry. In the health industry, we know that chronic and complex illness tends to be better managed in the public hospital system because of time constraints, cost constraints, the availability of a variety of different services to deal with other social impacts that chronic disease often inflicts upon sufferers. So the public hospital system will always be needed to deal with chronic and complex illness, particularly in multisystem diseases, and for people who are getting older and who don't have as many social supports as in the days of the nuclear family. It is sometimes the case that as people get older they lose those family supports. The public hospital system often has to provide things other than acute medical treatment. However, the private hospital system and the private insurance system do volume very, very well. They are able to very efficiently deal with short-stay admissions to hospital, day surgery. These days, for joint replacement surgery, hospital stay time is often very short, and the private health industry is very efficient in the way it deals with these sorts of issues. We know that there are already enormous pressures around the public hospital system. Because of that, we need our private health insurance to be maintained and we need to have people in the private health system. If we don't, the pressures on our public system will be completely overwhelming. We are already feeling those pressures. We know there are huge cost-of-living pressures. Today, interest rates went up again, in particular for housing mortgages. My electorate of Macarthur has one of the largest mortgage stress and rental stress populations in the country. We know with cost-of-living pressures there is a temptation for people to drop out of private health insurance. It is very important that, whatever we do, we encourage people to stay in the private health insurance system. These bills will help that by reducing the costs and, hopefully, reducing premium rises in the future and that is very, very important. We have to ensure that we have that combination of public and private health systems working together. That means that I am committed to private health insurance. I have private health insurance myself and I have encouraged my family, who are now all adults, to have private health insurance as well. Many people think that they are very similar systems, the private and public, but they are very different, they deal with different things and they are better dealing with different things. Australia has been a profitable and good market for many of the medical technology manufacturers and they, indeed, have done well out of Australia. However, the world is changing. Increasingly, we have a larger middle-class population in South East Asia and to our north. India has a middle-class population of over 200 million people. We have large middle-class populations in South East Asia, in China and in Japan et cetera, and they also will want to use the best medical technology they can. Therefore, Australia will become a small proportion of the market. It is important that we maintain our access to the latest medical technology in Australia to make sure that we get the very best treatment. Recently I was involved in lobbying for listing on the Prostheses List a multichannel cardiac catheter used to treat a cardiac rhythm abnormality called atrial fibrillation, where the heart's top two chambers don't pump properly. They vibrate without pumping the blood, the blood can cool in the heart, and clots can form. They can go to the brain and cause a stroke. This multichannel ablation catheter can be used to treat this atrial fibrillation and prevent stroke and that is really important. But it took years, literally years, to have this approved in the system. We don't want to see that continue to happen. We want to get access to the newer technologies as soon as possible and we want those companies that produce these devices, most of whom produce them overseas, to feel confident to bring them to Australia, to make them available to the Australian population. It is important that we make our systems as efficient as possible so that we do get these newer technologies available to the Australian people as soon as possible. They are not only life saving but they are lifestyle saving. Quality of life is really important and it can enable people to get back to work, can get them out of hospital very quickly and can prevent stroke with a catheter. There are other devices, such as joint replacement, that have changed dramatically since the days I was a resident and assisting in these operations. So it really is important that we do get this right. I congratulate the health minister and the Albanese Labor government for bringing this bill to the House. It seeks to improve not only how we fund our devices but gives more transparency in how we fund them and it will allow the private hospitals and the private insurance providers to understand better the costs and reduce their own cost, which will, in time, reduce premiums and premium rises, and will encourage people to stay in private health insurance. I know that there is a lot of pressure to reduce costs across the board and I congratulate the private insurers, the MGAA and the private hospital system for working collaboratively to try and get the best results. This will also allow choice in the private system for patients and for doctors using implantable devices and treatments. This can be very important with things like choosing what sort of artificial heart valve to use, choosing these days minimally invasive treatments via catheter rather than open-heart surgery. It also means that there will be better and longer lasting joint replacements for things like hips. Recently there has been new technology developed for shoulder replacement rather than shoulder reconstruction, which can lead these days now to much faster recovery, better recovery, less surgery time, less hospital time. It is important that Australians have these things available to them. There are also some new techniques in the management of congenital heart disease that can be done by minimally invasive therapy. Via a catheter, we can now replace heart valves and repair holes in the heart. It obviates the need to have open-heart surgery on tiny newborn babies. So it is important that Australia does continue to have available the very latest technology. On a couple of occasions I have visited companies like Edwards Lifesciences in the member for Bennelong's electorate. I have actually been able to practise using their minimally invasive surgical techniques for closing holes in the heart and for heart valve surgery, which is absolutely remarkable. It is important Australians do get these devices available to them, because if you have a newborn baby and you can prevent open-heart surgery, it will save lives, reduce hospital time, and reduce the risk of other complications like neurological damage. We must continue to have these devices available and that's done by introducing bills like this. This is a way that the Albanese government, as part of its complete overhaul of the health portfolio, will be able to make these treatments available for Australian children and their families. In summary, these measures, these bills, support our goal as a government to make sure health care remains a priority for us in providing services to the Australian people. I commend the bill to the House. I thank the health minister for presenting this bill and I thank you for your time. 17:09 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay I'd like to acknowledge the member for Macarthur's words and to commend the work that he does in the health field and his passion for health. Thank you. I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 because, as the co-chair of the newly formed Parliamentary Friends of MedTech along with the member for Macarthur, I know how much technology is saving lives. The progress in this country is quite extraordinary, and we should be supporting that innovation as best we can. I would like to start by saying from the outset that the opposition does not oppose this legislation. I understand that the bills are only the beginning of the process of much-needed reform. But I also point out that I understand that stakeholders need a bit more consultation on these bills. I hope the government will listen to these stakeholders and provide the substantive legislation quickly, with greater detail, so that the industry can properly and appropriately administer any changes that come about due to the introduction of this bill. The part that I would like to particularly focus on in my speech today is around prostheses, also known as artificial limbs. These are devices that are designed to replace or support a missing or damaged body part, and they play a crucial role in helping people with disabilities to live a more active and independent life. The legislation sets out the requirements for the design, manufacture and supply of prostheses and ensures that they meet certain standards of safety, quality and performance. The Prostheses List also specifies reimbursement levels for prostheses—I'm going to have a fun time saying that word multiple times in this speech!—provided under the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the private health insurance arrangements. The Prostheses List legislation is important for several reasons. Firstly, it ensures that people with disabilities have access to safe, high-quality prostheses that meet their needs and allow them to live a more active and independent life. By setting standards for design and manufacture, the legislation helps to minimise the risk of adverse events and ensures that people live and receive the best possible care. Secondly, the list legislation, if managed properly, could help to control costs and to make health care more affordable for patients. By specifying the reimbursement levels provided under the MBS and the PHI arrangements, the legislation could ensure that people receive the care they need without incurring prohibitive costs. The Prostheses List legislation has the ability to promote innovation, which is very important in the medtech fields, by encouraging manufacturers to develop new and improved prostheses that meet the standards set out by the legislation. It helps to spur the development of new technologies. I know people who use these technologies are always on edge waiting for a new thing that will improve their lives a little bit more. From experience, I know this is very much the case. The PL legislation is an important piece of legislation that helps to ensure, as I said, the access to safe, high-quality prostheses that meet people's needs. By controlling the costs, it promotes innovation. As I've said, the legislation plays a critical role in helping the lives of people in Australia. Medical technology is critical to ensuring the Australian community has all the benefits of modern, reliable technology for better health outcomes. The medtech industry in Australia represents manufacturers and suppliers of medical technology used in the diagnosis, prevention, treatment and management of disease and disability. It's so broad in its range, and it provides the majority of non-pharmaceutical products used in the diagnosis and treatment of disease and disability in this country. The companies that are here and the healthcare professionals doing this extraordinary work play a critical role. I hope the reforms, if managed correctly, will improve the affordability and value of private health insurance for Australians by keeping downward pressure on premiums while still maintaining access to high-quality medical devices. It's important to note that Australia's medtech industry has led the way and played a key role in reducing private health insurance premiums and is working through a phased reduction of prosthesis prices with the government through the Prostheses List reforms program. My friend and former colleague, the Hon. Greg Hunt, when federal health minister, vowed to pave a smoother way towards reform. He signed a memorandum of understanding with the Medical Technology Association of Australia in March 2022. The MTAA's chair, Mr Maurice Ben-Mayor, was thankful for the agreement's focus on recognising what he said was 'the explicit distinction' between the public and private markets that still guarantees patient access and doctor choice. He was also thankful for the former minister's decision to lead the reforms 'away from abolishing the Prostheses List' and towards a process that would provide greater certainty for medtech companies. Reform is necessary in the medtech industry, and there's certainly a need for fit-for-purpose and effective reforms to the PL that would reduce premiums while protecting the patient access and doctor choice guarantee of the PL. I would also like to further talk about to work of former minister Hunt and the coalition government's track record in the Prostheses List space. The former coalition government's budget over four years was $22 million to reduce the cost of medical devices used in the private healthcare space. This was also to assist in streamlining access to new medical devices to improve the affordability and value of private health insurance for Australians. Our plan included lowering prices for medical devices to allow for savings to flow through to customers. Our government was committed to its support for choice, value and high-end quality services for patients and their clinicians in the private health space. We wanted to continue work to ensure a simpler and more cost-effective private health sector and deliver record-low premium changes for Australians to access private health insurance. When we left government, private health insurance membership was at record levels, with more than 14 million Australians being covered. Our reforms delivered the 2022 premium change, which was the lowest in more than 21 years and the eighth successive decline in premium changes since Labor's last year in government in 2013. We increased the investment in the patient rebate for private health insurance from $5.4 billion to $6.9 billion. We implemented new, easy-to-understand classifications for private health insurance through the standard clinical definitions; better access to mental health, which I'm really passionate about; better care in rural and regional Australia; lower prices for medical devices; and more flexibility for families and people with disabilities to receive their care. I'm really encouraged that the member for Macarthur likes private health insurance, because it's not something the Labor government is particularly known for, but the coalition recognises that Australia's health sector is strongest with both the public and private systems working together, hand in hand, to ensure access to health care for all Australians. Despite the coalition's support for this package of bills, there are some concerns with the lack of detail provided by the government on certain key areas. The transparency that's required, with important, substantive details sitting beneath the legislation that has been put forward to this parliament, needs to happen. There are a significant number of issues that may be subject to regulation under these bills and are yet to be resolved, including eligibility criteria, listing pathways and specifications for the calculation of cost recovery, regrouping and payments for removal items, to go into the technical details. In addition, the department has not yet provided to stakeholders the updated prostheses listing guide, although the bills confirm the regulatory status of the guide. The government seems to have also backed away from the coalition government's commitment to enabling a clear and standard pathway for non-implantable devices to be assessed for inclusion on the Prostheses List. Across the bills included in this package of measures, it was unfortunate that stakeholders were given less than one week to consider the exposure draft of this legislation. The bills provide little detail about the extent or the specific powers to be implemented through unsighted, subordinate legislative instruments and mechanisms. The department has also flagged that PL changes will be implemented via an update to the PL rules, but it has not shared these proposed amended rules. We need to see further details on the subordinate legislation. We need answers to questions like where are the regulations? What are the next steps in the reform agenda? Will the government provide more detail so these issues of equity and affordability can be fully understood and debated? The call is to have more detail, less focus on headline announcements and aspirations, and a consideration of the important details that are necessary for the implementation of those announcements. We are supportive of this bill, but we're putting the government on notice: they cannot continue to expect us to pass bills without seeing any of the substantive detail. I urge the government to address the significant challenges the industry faces, and to engage with them and to provide in a timely way those details that are currently missing. It's a critical industry and it's also critical that this industry understands how items on the list will be costed, setting in place a process to reduce the gap between the cost of medical devices in the public and private health sectors. It will be the patients of Australia who will suffer if this isn't done with the utmost concentration on the provision of details. I know the medtech industry is behind it, ready to support and help, but we do urge the government to please provide those details as this legislation comes forth. Thank you. 17:21 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I rise to support these bills as they seek to implement and modernise and improve the private health insurance Prostheses List. We know that the proposed legislation would amend private health insurance legislation to better define the items for which set benefits are paid by private health insurers so that these benefits are only payable for medical devices or human tissue products that meet specific definitions. Importantly, these bills also update the cost recovery arrangements to provide fees for service and levies that are consistent with the Australian government's charging framework. They continue the work of the 2021-22 federal budget, where $22 million over four years was committed to modernising and improving this measure. The government has agreed to continue with the Prostheses List reform activities on the basis that the objectives are aimed at improving value for money for privately insured Australians. Naturally, we'll proceed with these reforms through our lens. Labor recognise that both public and private sectors play a critical role in Australia's world-class health system. We are a government that's concerned that Australians are abandoning private health insurance due to increasing costs and declining value. The bill's intent is to preserve clinician and patient choice in the private health system, assist in reducing benefits paid to private health insurers and put downward pressure on private health insurance premiums. All of those are very good things. They would update cost recovery arrangements to provide fee-for-service arrangements and the imposition of a cost recovery levy on each kind of medical device and human tissue product listed in the instrument. Passage of the bills before 1 July would allow the implementation of these actions, which is also a positive outcome. Deputy Speaker Chesters, you may or may not know, and as the member for Macarthur mentioned, some of the biggest medical device manufacturers and their peak industry body, the Medical Technology Association of Australia, are based in my electorate of Bennelong. As you can probably understand, they've taken a little bit of interest in this legislation and, thankfully, have been intimately involved in the report reform process. I'd like to thank them for bringing me, a new member, up to speed on this issue in a very short time. Had you asked me on 20 May 2022 what the Prostheses List was, I could've said, hand on heart, 'I have no idea what you're talking about'! But, thankfully, I'm a bit more across it now, from items on the general list to category and price bundling. I now know who and what IHACPA is, which is exciting! And I feel that I've learnt a lot about this issue in a very short time. Ultimately, what I understood very quickly was that this was an area of health policy that needed reform. The list can be arbitrary; the definitions are sometimes too narrow; and it is in desperate need of modernisation, given the extreme advances in technology that we see in this sector each and every day. I look forward to being part of a government that will continue on with this reform over the next few years. This package of legislation represents the first chance the parliament has had to consider this reform that was announced in the 2021-22 budget. As we heard, this is the first step in a longer process of enacting the reforms. I guess the main message from my local constituents—be they those who work for these companies or the companies in the medtech sector themselves—is that it's important that every area of the private health sector plays their part in ensuring that the cost of private health insurance comes down. Medical devices represent one-tenth of private health insurance benefits paid and nine per cent of premium revenue growth since financial year 2013. Growth in device benefits is driven entirely by clinician and patient demand. Private health insurance sustainability must be achieved; and it can be achieved, through wide-ranging reforms of which the Prostheses List is just one. This list is an important regulatory tool to ensure that patients in the private hospital system have access to this life-saving medical technology. It provides clarity in the delivery of health care by providing healthcare providers with a list of medical devices that will be covered by health insurers for policyholders with appropriate levels of hospital coverage. As mentioned, this reform is aimed at making private health insurance more sustainable. As we all know, cost-of-living pressures are hitting family budgets. Reducing the price of health insurance and putting downward pressure on insurance is a positive thing. This is part of broader and more urgent reforms to strengthen Medicare and resolve the crisis in primary care that we saw overseen by the former government. I've had the opportunity to visit many of these companies. The member for Macarthur mentioned Edwards Lifesciences. There's also Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson and Abbott. At the risk of not naming them all, I'll stop there. There are plenty. It's great to see that they're big employers locally, and that they deliver great outcomes for patients across the country. I've also had the pleasure of meeting with locals in Bennelong whose lives have fundamentally benefited from access to this same medical technology. In the first few weeks after being elected, I met Andrew from West Ryde. Andrew was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when he was just eight years old. Type 1 diabetes has completely dominated Andrew's daily life, particularly restricting his ability to hear, see, walk, work and drive. Four out of the five members in his family have now been diagnosed with type 1. He was one of the many passionate locals in Bennelong I met with before the election and after it who've received access to subsidised continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring products, which this government was proud to subsidise from 1 July. His ability to access a constant glucose monitoring system has saved his life and made his life more livable. Devices on this list which we're talking about today, and devices that seek to be added to it, are life-saving. I have visited and spoken to these companies and seen their commitment to their patients and their role in innovation, training and research. As employers, they are also committed to sustainability, equity and diversity. The feedback that I have received from them and many of those who work with them is that they're very supportive of these reforms and their objectives. They would like to see the cost of private health insurance go down. The medtech sector, like any businesses, operate at capacity when they have certainty. They want to keep delivering innovation and better outcomes for their patients. I understand the sector, through the MTAA and individually, are having ongoing discussions with the Department of Health and Aged Care about the implementation of these reforms. Although I understand a number of areas remain outstanding, I'm confident that they'll be resolved in a timely manner. It's welcome that the minister announced that the government will ensure that an alternative funding mechanism for the products that will be removed from the list will be mandated. That's positive. But the industry notes the details are still to be determined. I'm confident that they will be resolved in a timely manner. I would like to use my time speaking on this legislation to encourage the department and the medical device sector to continue to engage in good faith and in a transparent manner, as they have been. Where detail is sought from the department, I'd encourage them to provide those details as quickly as possible. And, where the department requires cooperation, I'd encourage all stakeholders to reach common ground. At the end of the day, there are some really, really positive elements to this legislation. Let's not forget about them. This reform will deliver savings to private health insurers, and if those savings are passed on they'll result in costs of living easing for policyholders, and that is a really, really positive thing. I'd encourage all parties to ensure that those savings are passed on. Savings to policyholders are welcome and they are good. I look forward to receiving updates from the department about the ongoing process to simplify the Prostheses List and ensure it offers a fit-for-purpose pathway to assess medical technology. I also look forward to receiving positive news that all involved can have certainty throughout this process so that they can go back to focusing on innovating for better patient outcomes. I will be one of many, I can tell you, who will be following this process as it comes to implementation on 1 July. 17:32 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to speak in support of the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 and related bills. Collectively these bills implement the first stage of long-awaited amendments to better administer medical device and prostheses pricing in Australia. They clarify the items that may be included on the list under the Private Health Insurance Rules and update cost recovery arrangements, implementing a levy for medical devices, which will provide for the cost of assessing and administering applications. These are positive steps. Private Healthcare Australia advises that we in Australia pay some of the highest prices in the world for medical devices, on average 30 to 50 per cent above the United Kingdom, Europe, South Africa and New Zealand. Australia's increasing private health insurance premiums are, in part, due to these costs. Case studies include a bolt valued at $45 with a list price of over a thousand dollars. The egregious cost to consumers before this was resolved has never been recouped. And this is not a new scenario. My former Centre Alliance colleague, former senator Stirling Griff, was determined to address rampant overpricing in this area. Senator Griff fought for a Senate inquiry into the industry to look into the cost of medical devices and prostheses here and elsewhere, other potential pricing mechanisms, and opportunities to create a more competitive basis for purchase and reimbursement of these items. Senator Griff argued that the failure of Australia's medical device pricing arrangements to keep pace with advancements elsewhere was costing Australian health consumers millions of dollars in higher premiums. The other issue related to this is all the people who left private health insurance because they just couldn't afford the premiums anymore. They are then on long hospital waiting lists, and they are often in excruciating pain for a long time, particularly with respect to hip and knee replacements. There have been some improvements in scrutiny of the list, which has saved consumer dollars. In 2021-22 the former government committed to a number of initiatives to help further reduce the cost of medical devices for private patients. This package does go some way to assisting this and bringing former senator Griff's work to fruition. However, I would be keen to see more done to support a robust compliance framework. The Therapeutic Goods Act provides for criminal and civil offences for misleading the Therapeutic Goods Administration about placing therapeutic goods on the Australian register. Conversely, I'm told that there are no penalties for misleading the Department of Health to have an item placed on the Prostheses List. Private Healthcare Australia is of the view that until the legislation is amended to include penalties for false and misleading statements in relation to the list, health funds and their members will continue to pay millions of dollars more in benefits each year than they should. I am therefore pleased to hear that the government is currently exploring future work on a more robust compliance framework, and I encourage the government to move as quickly possible on this to further reduce health insurance premiums and lower the cost of living for millions of Australians. I commend this bill to the House, and I support it. 17:36 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper Firstly, I would certainly like to thank the member for Macarthur, the member for Lindsay, the member for Bennelong and the member for Mayo for their wonderful contributions to debate on and for their support of the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery Recovery) Bill 2022. We heard from members with a great deal of experience on this, including the member for Macarthur who has years of experience. I thank the member for Lindsay and the member for Mayo for the hard work that they do on this issue and the member for Bennelong who said he's just learning about this issue now. It's good to have him on board. This package of three bills supports the implementation of the 2021-22 budget measure modernising and improving the private health insurance Prostheses List. These bills represent the first tranche of legislative changes required to fully implement measures that will support modernising and improving the private health insurance Prostheses List. The first bill I introduced was the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery Recovery) Bill 2022. The bill inserts definitions of medical devices and human tissue products into the legislation, which will better define the kinds of products that, along with the additional criteria contained in the legislative instrument, will be considered eligible for set benefits from private health insurers. The bill also provides for the renamed Private Health Insurance (Medical Devices and Human Tissue Products) Rules. This new name is reflective of the modernised and amended scope of the legislation. The bill also updates the cost recovery arrangements to support predictable and sustainable fee-for-service arrangements. The second bill I introduced is the Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022. This bill provides for levies payable by medical technology sponsors for the listing of medical devices and human tissue products. These levies are essential as they allow my department to administer the listings in a financially sustainable and appropriate manner. The third bill I introduced is the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022, which is only machinery in nature and does not change any current requirements or obligations. These bills will modernise and improve administrative processes and cost recovery arrangements. These long-awaited improvements will assist in keeping downward pressure on private health insurance premiums by reducing the costs associated with medical devices and human tissue products. The results will be improved affordability and attractiveness of private health insurance for consumers. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 There being no further speakers, I put the question that this bill be now read a second time. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 91

Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022

Second Reading 91 Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 91

Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022

Second Reading 91 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 91 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Annual Climate Change Statement 91 17:41 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie It is hard to remember that less than a year ago advocates for action on climate change, including Labor, had to warn the government of the time about the impacts of global warming. Students, the fire chiefs and business all had to warn the government on this issue, and they were met with tin ears. That the government of the day, the Liberal-National government, couldn't agree to act seriously on this issue has been a real stain on Australia's history. What a contrast that now we have a government that recognises reality. We know that no Australian is spared from the impacts of climate change. In areas like mine—the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury—we know that we're on the front line of extreme weather events. The Hawkesbury River has always been vulnerable and is now even more vulnerable. The mountainside has always had fires, but we now see them at such extreme levels. We face disasters frequently in my community. There have been three natural disasters in the last three years. But what we see is that these disasters are becoming increasingly devastating, increasingly frequent and increasingly unnatural. If the trends continue and no action is taken, the temperatures that we experienced during the 2019-2020 summer will be the norm by 2040. That's what we'll get as an average summer by 2040. By 2060, they'll be considered a good year. That is just totally untenable for my community, because it means that, for the 150,000-plus people who live in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, it really won't be a place where you can happily live. Our suburbs and villages, our towns and our farms would likely not be habitable. Australia has wasted a decade in taking action, and now it's up to us, Labor, and it's urgent. Eight months ago, we were given a mandate by the Australian people to implement our climate change and energy policy, and since then we've acted. The minister's statement on 1 December last year, the Annual Climate Change Statement to parliament, was a very strong symbol of how we'll do it differently. I want to summarise some of the things that we have done in those eight months, but I notice I only have seven minutes left. There is no way I'll be able to get through everything that we have done in putting our climate plan into action, but let's see how we go. We passed the Climate Change Bill, which was the first real climate change bill in a decade. It tasked the Climate Change Authority with providing advice and it legislated our targets—a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2050. That was one of the first things we did. We then got endorsement from the Pacific Islands Forum leaders to take forward a bid to co-host the COP 29. We want to be on the world stage, working with the world and saying, 'Here's how we've done it. Let's share these ideas and let's all push each other to do more.' Energy ministers from around the country, from each state and territory, put emissions reductions goals into the National Electricity Objective. We have opened up the dialogue with the states on how we do this across the country. We got agreement to the Australian Energy Market Operator's Integrated System Plan to upgrade our electricity grid. We introduced the priority gas market reforms package so that we can avoid shortfalls, because we want to do this in a way that supports businesses going forward. We want our businesses to keep thriving and we want people to transition. We've made sure the Australian Renewable Energy Agency cannot invest in things like coal and gas. We should not have had to do that—it really should have had absolute bipartisan support—but we did. We're reforming the safeguard mechanism to reduce emissions from Australia's biggest emitters. Again, it would be terrific to see bipartisan support on that because it's essential to our way forward. We also have a review underway so we can have confidence in our carbon credit system. We passed the electric car tax discount through the House of Representatives to make electric vehicles more affordable, and I saw today that there has been almost a doubling of the number of EVs in Australia in the past 12 months. We have Australia's first real national electric vehicle strategy; that's a 21st century thing that we could have had 20 years ago. We have limited the amount of sulphur in our petrol, saving millions in health related costs. This is all part of ensuring that we move towards renewables. We have expanded the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme to support stronger energy efficiency provisions in the National Construction Code, another place where energy efficiency can be achieved, and that will help our climate. We've announced the first areas for offshore wind development in Australia to continue our path to becoming a renewable energy powerhouse. This is another opportunity that these changes give us. We've appointed an Australian Ambassador for Climate Change. We've delivered a $67 million package of reforms to modernise energy market regulation with the states and territories, and I congratulate the states and territories—of all colours—for working with us on these measures. The Community Batteries for Household Solar Program is worth $224.3 million, and I'm very pleased to see that it is open for expressions of interest. My community will benefit in the first pilot round, with two of those community batteries—one in Hobartville, in the Hawkesbury, and one in the mountains, in East Blaxland. People in these areas have invested in rooftop solar panels but haven't been able to invest in their own solar battery, so this is a sensible way to allow communities to share in a piece of infrastructure. We'll provide the infrastructure, and they can pump their solar into it and pull it out when they need it. There will be opportunities for other communities to be involved; our first 400 community-scale batteries will support up to 100,000 Australian households. There's also the $102 million for community solar banks. This will assist 25,000 Australians living in apartments, rentals and low-income households across Australia. It is hard for renters to get the same sorts of energy savings, especially those who want to do their bit to reduce emissions. The government has also invested $63 million in dispatchable storage technology such as large-scale battery projects and $62.6 million for an energy efficiency grants program for small and medium-sized businesses to reduce energy use and to lower energy bills. I'd urge people to look into that. There's $83.8 million to develop and deploy First Nations community microgrid projects for remote communities. There's $5 million in successful grant applications for R&D for low-emissions feed supplements for grazing animals. Australia has joined the Global Methane Pledge, and what that shows is we have a spread of projects here. We on this side recognise that no one sector is the answer and, while we want to see 82 per cent renewables in the electricity system, we know that we have to work across all the sectors. We have also, significantly, signed a partnership to jointly fund the critical Marinus Link transmission project—that's the one between Tassie and the mainland—recognising the power that Tasmania has in renewable energy. We have signed agreements to jointly fund Victorian offshore wind projects. We have tighter noxious emission standards for new trucks and buses, again, demonstrating it isn't just the energy sector; it is also the transport sector that we are helping and supporting through this process. We have introduced guaranteed minimum stock levels of traditional transport fuels because we know consumers have to be protected from major disruptions. This transition not only involves initiatives to take us further but also things to support business and individuals to help them transition through. We have fundamentally restored— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— 18:08 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Discussing the first Annual Climate Change Statement tabled during this 47th Parliament is a historic moment—one my community of North Sydney fought long and hard for. To have the advice which is being used by this government to inform its climate policy made publicly available for all to see is an important step in ensuring greater transparency and accountability in our legislative processes. Ultimately it will contribute to sound decision-making and faster action on climate change led by facts, not politics. I'm proud to say my community's advocacy played an integral role in enabling this transparency. On 4 August last year, on behalf of my North Sydney community, I moved a successful amendment to the climate change bills, to strengthen parliamentary transparency over advice provided to the government, by ensuring a copy of what is provided is not only published on the website but also officially tabled in the House. This may seem like such a simple, obvious amendment, but it fundamentally strengthened our democracy. We have a steep road ahead of us. Strong ambition requires even stronger action, and I'm here today to reiterate my community's commitment to that action. Now is not the time to settle. It is the time to press on. I acknowledge that 2021-22 was a landmark year in Australia's progress towards our climate goals. The legislating of net zero by 2050 and a stronger 2030 target are significant developments, as is commencing the implementation of the government's Powering Australia plan. I note the government's announcement of Australia's disaster recovery fund to contribute to national climate change risks and the creation of the first National Energy Transformation Partnership. I also note the government's commitment to fast-tracking offshore wind industry and renewable energy zones and accelerating Australia's renewable energy transformation. I also want to acknowledge the gaps present in the government's response to the authority's advice. The advice is that Australia needs to address the practical barriers to success in supply chains, workforce capacity and project approval time lines. The advice is that Australia needs a long-term strategy for emissions reductions, a strategy that sets expectations for when, how and by how much emissions should be reduced across different sectors of the economy. The advice is that the government needs indicators in place for detailed sector-by-sector emissions reduction plans, not only in the electricity industry and carbon farming but in all newly extended targets for industrial facilities covered by the Safeguard Mechanism. I specifically want to address the advice provided by the authority which calls for a radical shift in momentum towards decarbonisation. The advice itself says 'Australia will need to decarbonise at an average annual rate of 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year' to meet its climate goals, which is 'more than 40 per cent faster than it has since 2009'. It concerns me that, despite this advice, the government has not put a halt to new coal and gas extraction projects. Fossil fuel production in Australia is projected to grow through to 2030. How can this be consistent with the government's ambitions? Scientific evidence tells us that fossil fuels must stay in the ground for the world to remain within the bounds of irreversible global warming. Yet in Australia we seem intent on writing our own version of the truth. Right now in New South Wales, Australian fossil fuel company Santos has federal and state approval to develop a new coal seam gas field on over 95,000 hectares of the Pilliga state forest and privately owned farmland south-west of Narrabri, which is in northern New South Wales. Pilliga Forest is recognised as one of the most important areas for biodiversity in eastern Australia. It is home to at least 300 native animal species and more than 900 plant species and is the largest remaining area of native forest west of the Great Dividing Range. Pilliga sits on top of the Great Artesian Basin, one of the largest artesian water basins in the country. The multibillion-dollar Narrabri Gas Project includes the drilling of 850 gas wells and a gas pipeline which will run from Narrabri to Newcastle. Around each one of these 850 wells, a piece of land the size of a football field will be cleared. Liverpool Plains and Pilliga Gas Projects desperately need federal intervention, not approval. If the government is serious about meeting Australia's ambitious climate targets with real action, projects like this cannot simply be given a green light without significant national scrutiny. The tabling of the first Annual Climate Change Statement is indeed a historic moment, but now is the time for embracing the independent advice and stepping up to the challenge of faster action on climate. Thank you. 18:13 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Australians voted at the federal election last year to end a decade of denial and delay on climate change. In my electorate of Corangamite, which includes the Great Ocean Road, the Bellarine, the Surf Coast and parts of Geelong, people were fed up with government inaction on climate change—the most significant threat of our time. They were frustrated by a government which had 22 attempts at an energy plan but failed to land on any of them. People across our nation are rightly concerned about the state of the environment that their children, our children, will inherit. They worry about the changing weather patterns and the environmental damage they see in their communities across the nation and the globe. Climate change has moved from a theory to a prediction to a reality, and that's why it's crucial that we act decisively now, and that's precisely what the Albanese government has been doing. In a relatively short space of time, since being elected last May, we've hit the ground running. The Albanese government's climate change legislation passed through parliament last year. It enshrined in law an emissions reduction target of 43 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050. The government brought together business, industry, unions, farmers, and community and conservation groups, all of whom have asked the parliament to put Australia on the path to net-zero emissions. The legislation ensures accountability through an annual update to parliament by the climate change minister on the progress being made towards the target. It also empowers the Climate Change Authority to provide advice to government on future targets. This government is showing the world that Australia is open for business, with a stable investment environment to unleash billions of dollars of renewable energy investment and zero-emissions technology and the jobs that come with them. As promised, the Albanese government is being open, accountable and transparent, having tabled its first annual statement on climate change, together with the accompanying advice of the independent Climate Change Authority. In contrast, the previous government left their projected emissions reductions by 2030 at only 30 per cent. The projections tabled by the minister show the actions and policies of the Albanese government have increased this projection to 40 per cent so far—that is, we've lifted the outlook by a third in the first six months of the Albanese government. As the Climate Change Authority advice makes clear, to achieve this target we will need to achieve the same emissions reductions in the next seven to eight years that have been achieved in the past 18 years in total. Since 2009, Australia has decarbonised its economy at an average rate of 12 million tonnes of carbon a year. To achieve a 43 per cent reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050, this decarbonisation rate needs to be at least 17 million tonnes of carbon a year, a 40 per cent increase. Increased dispatchable storage will also be essential. After 10 years during which four gigawatts of dispatchable generation left the grid and only one gigawatt of dispatchable capacity entered the market, we will need to install much, much more clean, dispatchable power in the coming seven to eight years. Of course, this all comes in the shade of the biggest energy crisis ever to face the modern world—bigger even than the oil crisis of the 1970s. Our long-term plan is to power our economy with the cheapest form of energy, renewable energy, and in turn to harness the economic opportunities which come with it. Currently, a third of Australia's emissions come from our electricity system. Over the next seven to eight years, we will need to transition our electricity system to 82 per cent renewables from the current base of around 30 per cent. The most important thing we can do is to rewire our nation, because there will be no transition without effective transmission, and there will be the jobs that go with that. Our first budget allocated the necessary $20 billion of investment. Importantly, we've finalised agreements for the first projects. The Marinus Link, which has been talked about for years, is now going to be a reality. The two cables between Tasmania and the mainland will see the Apple Isle move from 100 per cent renewables to 200 per cent renewables. This is the equivalent in emissions reduction of taking one million cars off the road. Likewise, our investments in the link between Victoria and New South Wales, KerangLink, and the co-investment with the Victorian government in renewable energy zones and offshore wind are vital in our efforts. In addition, the budget funded our commitment to 400 community batteries, and the program is underway. I'm pleased to say that one community battery will be installed in my electorate of Corangamite, in the Sands Estate in Torquay. It is a brilliant outcome, and I thank the people for their advocacy for that battery. I am looking forward to more submissions. Last year's budget also abolished the failed Underwriting New Generation Investments program and replaced it with a new program to help finance new renewable energy storage. So we are doing a great deal. There is so much more that needs to be done. But we won't reduce emissions unless we reduce those of our top 200 industrial emitters. So we need to reform a safeguard mechanism which governs the emissions of our biggest industrial emitters. A process has begun to enable credits to be provided to large industrial facilities which come in under their safeguard mechanism baselines, incentivising them to innovate and adopt emissions reduction technology. Around 70 per cent of facilities are owned by companies committed to net zero. They account for over 80 per cent of safeguard facility emissions. It is essential that the reforms commence from 1 July this year. This is ambitious but achievable. How we move around our country has a big impact on how we emit emissions. Our government inherited a situation in which just two per cent of car sales were electric. That's five times below the international average. Last year parliament passed our electric vehicle tax cut, cutting $9,000 a year from the cost of the tax and providing Australian business opportunities for a $50,000 electric vehicle bonus to employees. The budget also funded our Driving The Nation Fund for investments in cleaner and cheaper transport, including a national electric vehicle charging network to roll out a faster charging system, one that goes for 150 kilometres before you get your next charging on our highways. We have to work on that as well; we need more charging stations. We're delivering solar banks to provide access to renewable energy to low-income families, and we're leading by transforming our own federal government to be net zero by 2030. We've also committed to practical actions in the land and agricultural sectors, driving abatement and incentives through carbon markets that have integrity and cut pollution. We're also returning our country to full international engagement and leadership on climate. The Climate Change Authority recommends that the government begins work on a plan to guide the nation's efforts towards achieving net zero, which we agree with and will prepare. The authority also points out that while technology exists to meet our 2030 targets, there are significant labour market and supply chain challenges as every country around the world strives to meet their targets. Again, we agree. Providing the trading and investment in clean energy and decarbonising our workforce was a major focus of our Jobs and Skills Summit last July. Our policy of 10,000 new energy apprentices, which we're implementing, is a great start, but we know more needs to be done. Right around the country, Australians are living with the consequences of climate change right now, so we need a comprehensive plan for adaptation and climate risk assessment. Working closely with the states and territories that's exactly what we will do. Our regions have experienced some of the worst climate change impacts, and they also have the opportunity to be at the heart of our clean energy revolution. That's why regional Australia is at the core of our government's plan, to ensure Australia takes advantage of the economic opportunities that come with climate change action. In tabling this report, the minister emphasised the costs of climate change that we are already facing. It will get worse. It's not too late though to avoid climate emergency, and it is our job to act with urgency. Australia truly needs a Labor government to ensure we become a renewable energy superpower. 18:23 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth The first legislation I spoke on in this place was the Climate Change Bill 2022. This was a critical piece of legislation that enshrined our country's commitment to net zero by 2050 and helped to provide the kind of policy certainty that businesses across Australia need to invest for the future. One of the most important provisions of this bill is the transparency required from government on the progress Australia is making towards its emission reduction targets, transparency measures that were significantly strengthened by amendments made to the bill by members of the crossbench. Today, I am pleased to see this transparency in action. The evidence is clear that this parliament, with an expanded crossbench in both houses, has already delivered much stronger climate action than the last and it has delivered on several areas that matter most to my community in Wentworth—in legislated climate targets, action on the fossil fuel price crisis and a commitment to the National Electric Vehicle Strategy. While this statement shows that progress has been made in the last eight months, it also makes clear that the government's approach is insufficient to even meet its modest target of 43 per cent. Under the baseline scenario, which reflects policies actually implemented, we're only likely to see a 32 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. Even with the strong execution of current policies we will only see emissions reduced by 40 per cent, and in some areas like transport our emissions are still rising and not expected to fall below current levels for well over a decade. And so the first point to be made clear from the annual climate change statement is that the government must do more. And there are two golden opportunities in front of us, opportunities that could reduce our emissions and save Australian families money on their energy bills. The first of these opportunities is to electrify Australian households and power them with the cheapest home energy in the world—rooftop solar. By switching out our expensive gas appliances for more efficient electrical alternatives, like heat pumps and electric stove tops, the average Australian household could cut its energy use in half. And if these appliances were powered by rooftop solar, with a back-up battery in the garage for when the sun isn't shining, the average house in Wentworth could go zero emissions and save more than $3,000 a year on their energy bills. Rewiring Australia estimate if we add that up across Australia's 10 million households, we could cut around 40 per cent of our emissions in the domestic economy and save more than $300 billion between now and 2035. That is good value for money and it's a real impact for real people. As a CEO of Sydney Renewable Power Company, I've seen firsthand the massive positive impact that cheap rooftop solar can have on energy bills and emissions, and there are numerous examples across my community in Wentworth. Nick in Bondi electrified his home with solar and saw his power bills plummet as a result. The Holdsworth community centre in Woollahra has a solar array that means they now spend less on power bills and more on delivering services like child care, dementia support and NDIS advice to the people who need them most. But to seize this opportunity we need governments to make it easier for households to get off expensive gas, and we need it to make it easier for families to overcome the up-front cost of these technologies. In supporting electrification we need to go beyond one-size-fits-all policy measures that work for detached houses in outer suburbs but don't provide meaningful support for those living in high-density inner-city areas like Wentworth. Because it's those people living in apartments—often young people, often renters, often those without much money to invest in upgrading their home—who have the most to gain from an electrification opportunity but are the least likely to be able to seize it because either they're reliant on their landlord to install solar or they're faced with a dizzying array of regulations when they try to get together a strata committee to make the change themselves. That's a situation facing many people in my electorate of Wentworth, 60 per cent of whom live in apartments, more than half of whom are renters, and nearly 40 per cent of those are under 40. That same situation is facing nearly three million Australian households across the country who live in rental properties. So the government needs to be ambitious in pursuing electrification opportunities, and it needs to ensure it provides tailored support for people in apartments and rental properties. If the government is serious about climate and if it is serious about reducing cost-of-living pressures, May's budget must be the time it seizes this electrification opportunity. The budget package must include direct incentives for households to electrify, either in formal concessionary finance or tax incentives. It must broaden the remit of its existing solar banks program so that strata managers and owners corporations can access zero interest loans to install shared solar behind the meter on apartment rooftops. And it must kick off a serious process of regulatory reform to break the barriers facing renters who can't access rooftop solar, including by developing a national regulatory framework to share the power bill savings between landlords, who pay the upfront costs of installation, and renters who live in the property. Beyond household electrification, the government must also follow through on its commitment to design and implement an ambitious National Electric Vehicle Strategy. That means urgently legislating strong fuel-efficiency standards so that Australian consumers have access to a broad range of cheaper EVs, and it means putting its foot on the floor in ensuring there are EV-charging infrastructure. We need an estimated 130 of these fast chargers in Wentworth by 2030 so that we don't continue to see power cords strung across the pavements because people in apartments have nowhere to charge their vehicles. The first annual climate change statement shows the progress the parliament has made so far, but it also shows that we have much more to do. Turbocharging household electrification, in particular the installation of solar on apartment buildings, is a key part of this, as is accelerating the rollout of EVs. But let's not forget: 43 per cent is an unambitious goal. As we look forward, the government also needs to get a climate target that is aligned with the science, and so I urge it to set a 75 per cent emissions reduction target by 2035. It's aligned with the Paris Agreement, it's backed by the Investor Group on Climate Change and it will enable us to unlock billions of dollars in capital for the transition to cleaner, cheaper renewable energy. 18:30 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley This is a historic document. For the first time ever this parliament is taking climate change seriously, and I am so proud to be a part of it. It is time to stop arguing about climate change, to stop putting road blocks up to this country becoming a renewable energy superpower; otherwise, history is going to judge this parliament and the members in it as being part of the problem and not part of the solution. The annual climate change statement and the measures that Minister Bowen has put in around that statement are a quantum leap forward for this parliament to speak positively about the solutions. We have a long way to go in this country, there is no doubt. But with goodwill and application from everyone, with members of this parliament choosing to work together for the good of the future and not take idealistic and road-blocking positions from either side of the debate—from the climate change deniers to those who would put the perfect before reality—we can actually achieve a better future, both in the protection of our planet and in the smart, well-paid rewarding jobs that we know can come from a manufacturing industry that focuses on renewables and renewable energy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T It being 6.30 pm the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 96 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wellbeing 96 18:33 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley I have been thinking a lot lately about wellbeing. Many people know that the concept of Australia adopting something that looks like a wellbeing budget or, as the Treasurer is talking about in the consultation he has open at the moment, measuring what matters, is something that I have been interested in and talking about for a number of years now. But it is clear that wellbeing is a concept that is ill-defined in some ways in debate. It is a little bit like resilience, which is something I have also been thinking a lot about. We often use these words with an assumption that everyone who is listening to us thinks about them in the same way, that it means the same thing to everyone. But wellbeing can mean a whole raft of things, depending on what is happening in a person's life or in their community or in their country. Wellbeing can mean physical health. It can literally mean whether or not you have an illness or a disease, an acute or chronic condition. It can mean whether you are fit, whether you have a good diet, whether you smoke or drink to excess. Wellbeing can mean how your emotional and mental state is faring, whether you're lonely and disconnected, whether you're positive and happy. Wellbeing, many people have contended—and I am one of them—can mean how your community is faring. Is your community connected and happy? Are there enough jobs? Can people get the sort of work that they want, which has good conditions and is well paid? Can small businesses thrive and compete with the conglomerates? What's your local economy like? Wellbeing is whether you can walk in the park and breathe in clean air—whether you have a park—whether your native flora and fauna is thriving or dying, whether the oceans are swimmable and the mountains are still there to climb and the ice is still there if we want to visit the poles of our globe. Wellbeing can mean that the economy of a country is thriving, because that's essential to deliver not just economic wellbeing but houses that people can live in and water that people can drink and those well-paid jobs and industries. Wellbeing, I think, means all of those things, and they are all connected and indivisible. And I don't think in this parliament, perhaps—and I mean this place, not just the current parliament with the members in it—that we always think deeply enough, or have the time and the space to think deeply enough, about what wellbeing is and whether we're here to try to help deliver it, and, if we are, how we would go about that. I know it's one of the reasons that the Treasurer has said a budget or a process that counts what matters and reports on what matters is something that he is working towards implementing in this parliament and for our country. Recently I was talking, as I do, about metastatic breast cancer. The Breast Cancer Network put out a report at the end of last year to emphasise that, whilst we have national registers, for example, that note when a person is diagnosed with cancer and when they die of cancer, we don't record on registers when people are diagnosed with metastatic cancer, particularly metastatic breast cancer. So there's no national record of how many people in this country have metastatic breast cancer, although some modelling would suggest it's currently about 10½ thousand people. The phrase that comes from some of that that I've been thinking about is: if you aren't counted, you don't count. It's very hard to know whether we have enough resources directed towards support for the people who have metastatic cancer and for their families and whether those supports are adequate and are doing what they should be doing if we're not counting how many people have metastatic breast cancer and using the data to see what's happening. I think that's the concept that goes back to wellbeing. Obviously, how well and how long you can live with a chronic condition like metastatic breast cancer is a part of wellbeing, but counting what matters and amplifying what matters is how we will get better at delivering wellbeing. I've used this quote a number of times in this parliament in things that I've written, but I've yet to find anything that I think better encapsulates what I'm trying to talk about. It's from a 1968 speech by US senator Robert F Kennedy where he's talking about his approach to measuring success of a country. He says: … the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. That's why I come back often in my meandering thoughts—a little like my meandering speech today—to why we should be not only measuring gross domestic product, which is essential, not only talking about the economy growing in Australia but we should be talking about things like the economy growing in a sustainable and equitable manner, about it delivering for everyone, in particular those who are worse off, and we should be talking about economic growth being a vehicle for us to support everything that makes life worthwhile. Innovative, inclusive and resilient Australia should be a bipartisan objective, and I think it is. But I come back to where I started: it might depend on how you define those words and how you use them. Resilience is used at the moment for everything from a quarantine facility in the Northern Territory to helping children who are struggling to return to school after years of COVID shutdowns. We talk about it a lot in the context of the climate change debate. We talk about it a lot in the context of people who have suffered serious health conditions and seem able to get on with their lives. We talk about it in terms of businesses and whether they can survive. But what does resilience really mean and how is it connected to wellbeing? Does resilience mean we accept more floods, more bushfires, more extreme weather events by building more resilient infrastructure that can resist such events? Does resilience mean that we build an economy that is resilient to the use of non-renewable energy sources by fighting the impacts of climate change? I don't have the answers to all those questions, but it's a conversation that's worth having more broadly. Environment, Australian Society, Economy 97 18:43 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth Today I want to talk about what is ahead for what I am trying to pursue in Wentworth. I will start with someone I've talked about a lot, a guy I met back on the campaign trail, Sean from Bondi. The meeting is still vivid in my mind. I was on the promenade by Bondi Beach and he was wheeling his two- or three-year-old on a tricycle along the promenade. I said to him, 'What's important to you?' He said: 'For me, the environment's really important. I live in Bondi because I love the natural environment and I want to give this to my children.' He said, 'I want us to live a kind society, a decent society.' Finally, he said, 'I'm a small business owner, and economics and the cost of living are very important to me.' Those values are still so true for the whole of Wentworth. They were true on that day and they have stuck with me. Today I want to try to outline what I'm hoping to achieve with and for Wentworth this year. I'll start on climate, the environment, because that's what Sean identified. What I've seen in talking to people in Wentworth is: they want ambition on climate change. They want us to have targets which are science based but which can also be deliverable—practically deliverable—for the economy as well. So that is why I am advocating for a 75 per cent reduction by 2035, because it can achieve both those things. But they also want to be able to make that change themselves, in their local community. I think there are really three key things here. That's about household electrification; that's about rooftop solar, particularly for people in my community who are renters and apartment dwellers and live in stratas; and then, finally, that's about EVs—electric vehicles—and electrical charging infrastructure. That's going to be the focus of what I'm going to do, because we've consulted the community. We had Wentworth's climate action summit last year. We've sat down with the state members and the local councils. There's a real appetite for change on these local issues, but also for making a change at a national level. And that's what I'm seeking to do: work on national issues, but then take local action. On household electrification, we want to turbocharge the uptake of efficient electrical devices powered by rooftop solar, which is the cheapest electricity in the world. To drive that, we'll need concessional finance in the budget, to help low- and middle-income households to electrify, in particular, and also for the bulk retrofit of public and social housing. On rooftop solar, there's a critical missing piece—a gap—for renters and apartment dwellers who cannot access rooftop solar. Almost 10 years ago, I was involved in Sydney Renewable Power Company, and we set up a solar company purely to deal with renters and apartment dwellers who couldn't access solar. But, 10 years on, they still can't access the benefits of solar on apartment roofs or if they are renters. So that is a critical area for change. That means broadening the remit of the existing solar banks program, so that strata managers and owners' corporations can access the loans as part of this. We need regulatory reform to break the barriers facing renters who can't access rooftop solar. And we need mandatory information disclosure on household energy bills when renting. Then the final piece on climate is EVs and EV infrastructure, including driving the uptake of EVs across the country, through things like strong mandatory fuel efficiency standards and targeted investment; through supporting the investment, public and private, in charging infrastructure, particularly on the streets of Wentworth, because so many of us don't have garages or off-street parking; and through an electric vehicle task force, to coordinate a national uptake in electric vehicles. So those are some of the key priorities for me, in terms of climate. But I will also be supporting key actions on the environment, such as the review of the EPBC Act and an end to native forest logging. The second piece that Sean asked me was to be kind. He wanted an inclusive, kind society. There are some things that people in Wentworth have said are really important to them. They want action on refugees. They want to end the indefinite detention of refugees, and they want to give those on temporary visas a pathway to permanency—a pathway to putting down permanent roots in this country. Now, I am disappointed that, so far, while the government has made commitments, particularly on giving people a pathway to permanency, we have not yet had the detail or the action. So I will be keeping up the pressure on the government in relation to refugee policy, particularly on the abolition of TPVs and SHEVs. A lot of people talked to me about the health system. There's real concern about GP access, and, 'What does it mean to have a kind society if people can't access GPs?' An issue that I remember was raised a lot with me in the electorate was around youth mental health. I heard a lot of that in the election time. I remember, very vividly, one woman coming out of a polling booth holding her daughter's hand and saying to me, with tears in her eyes: 'I just voted for you. My daughter is 13. She could not access mental health support for her eating disorder, and it has absolutely torn our family apart. I want you to do something about that.' I think that it's not just eating disorders. Youth mental health is an absolutely critical issue for the community, but also for Wentworth in particular, because the annual rate of death by suicide has risen from 10 per 100,000 young people to 14—a 40 per cent increase in the last decade. We are getting richer, but our younger people are killing themselves in record numbers. While it's more typical for males than females, the rate for females has almost doubled over the decade, from 3.7 to 6.6. This is a youth mental health crisis. It's also an issue that particularly affects young men, as well as young women. I think young men haven't had a strong voice in this area, and I will be working with my community on youth mental health. Lastly on a kind society, there are two other things I want to mention. One is about a second public high school. My community in Wentworth wants us to invest in their community, and they want to have great educational choice. We have wonderful private high schools and a great public high school. We have great public and private primary schools. But only one public high school in an electorate like ours is really disproportionate, and we know that families are seeking additional public education. I will also be very much supporting the Voice to Parliament, and my community group, Wentworth for the Voice, are absolutely passionate about that. As part of this kind society that Sean and others have asked me to pursue, I think that the Voice to Parliament is absolutely critical, and I am looking forward to engaging the community on this. Finally, don't forget that Sean said he's a businessperson and that's one of his most important priorities. Certainly, as a businessperson, as someone who studied economics, it's also one of mine, and so I will also be leading discussion on economic policy. Frankly, we haven't had economic reform in this country for around two decades, and that means that we are missing out on opportunities to better enable people to access the prosperity that comes with strong economic reform, as well as to ensure that we can supply great services. The first area I'll be pushing on is monetary policy. We have a huge challenge of getting inflation under control. The RBA, for example, has raised rates again—I think it's for the ninth time—for families, and this is not going to be the last time. We have a huge challenge here. So we are reviewing monetary policy. We also then need to look at fiscal policy. At the moment, the high level of government spending—it's at a record level of 27 per cent of GDP—is part of the reason why inflation is so high, and we absolutely need to address that. Fiscal policy pays for really, really important things that we all value, but there isn't enough focus on: Is the dollar that we're spending the most effective use of that dollar? Are we getting real value for that? One of my colleagues spoke just now about 'measuring what matters', talking about measuring outcomes that really matter to people, like wellbeing, like health, like education outcomes. They're really important, but we should know whether the dollar that we're spending is getting the best possible outcome for that investment. So I'll be advocating for greater scrutiny and accountability on existing spending projects, including infrastructure spending. I also will be advocating and have been advocating on tax reform. Again, it's not an area that everybody's interested in, but tax experts, Treasury and international groups like the OECD all agree that we need to change our tax mix, particularly with this high level of inflation. Australian people and Australian workers are paying more and more tax as their bracket creeps up with the really high inflation. It is time to address that for the community. For me, this is about making sure both that we're a productive nation and also that we're fair to the generation that comes underneath. The last piece I'll be focusing on is ensuring that Australia is the best place to do business. It's going to be a big year ahead, and those are just the things I'm going to try—a lot else will be thrown at me—but these are some things you've asked for, Wentworth. Fraser Electorate: Australia Day Awards 99 18:53 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I would like to pay tribute to the residents of Fraser who have been honoured with medals of the Order of Australia this year. Underpinning their longstanding community service are personal stories of resilience, generosity and determination. Their stories go a long way to explaining why they continue to give back so much to the community. Many of those honoured are from migrant communities who have repaid many times over the faith that Australia invested in them decades ago. Elizabeth Drozd, the CEO of Australian Multicultural Community Services, was honoured for her 30-plus-year service to Victoria's multicultural communities. A mentor, a leader and a champion of anti-ageism, she is also a fierce advocate for multicultural communities. Elizabeth fled Poland as a 21-year-old just months before martial law was imposed. Having lived all her life under communist rule with no freedom of speech, no freedom of association, the living in fear, the constant rationing and the empty shelves, Elizabeth could see no end to suffering. She still remembers the day she was handed her passport, the first in her family to be granted one. She said: It felt so much bigger than winning Tattslotto. It meant freedom. There's no price you can put on freedom. All her plans had to be made in secret. She still remembers saying goodbye to her family at the bus stop and her mum asking, 'When will I see you again?' Elizabeth never saw her again, as she died six years later. The price of her escape was high. Her five siblings were punished for four years and denied permission to travel. It took 10 years before they were granted permission to leave the country. After spending nine months in a camp on the outskirts of Vienna, Elizabeth was granted a humanitarian visa for Australia. Elizabeth arrived speaking three languages—Polish, German and some Russian—but not a word of English. She did not know a single soul here. She was put up in the Midway Hostel in Maribyrnong, and on her third day she started work in a factory, installing 3,500 screws a day into car dashboards. By her side constantly was a Polish-English dictionary. Every spare moment she had, she listened to English tapes and memorised thousands of words. Her dream was a university education—the same dream as her parents, who had been denied that opportunity because of World War II. At times Elizabeth was full of despair at her future, but she focused that despair into a determination to master English. Finally, at the age of 28, her English was sufficiently fluent to study a humanities degree in multicultural studies. She later completed a master's in social sciences. Elizabeth says she never takes for granted a single day of her life in Australia. She never forgets the opportunity that she has been granted. Then there's Long Nguyen, who has served the veterans' and Vietnamese communities for many years as president of the Footscray RSL, the Victorian branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association and the Victorian chapter of the Vietnamese Community in Australia. Long still remembers the day he landed in Australia in May 1983. Surrounded by a sea of white faces, it felt like a dream, he says, after his five years detained in a labour camp for serving as a navy officer in the Republic of Vietnam armed forces and fighting the Viet Cong. When the war ended in 1975, as a newly married man, Long was detained in a camp near the Cambodian border. Fed barely a subsistence diet, he was put to work felling forests and planting rice. Upon his release, Long started planning his family's escape and that of some other families. Because of his navy experience, Long was made the leader. On the fateful night in December 1982, Long, his wife and their two toddlers headed to the rendezvous point with 32 others. But when his wife and children were captured by police, Long faced an impossible choice. He remained responsible for fulfilling the dreams of the whole group, and he felt he had to proceed with the plan. After seven days and seven nights at sea in their 12-metre boat, the group reached Indonesia. Long spent six months in the UNHCR-operated Galang camp before being flown to Australia. However, while Long felt grateful for his new start and the safety of Australia, the trauma of the family separation remained. It was another two years before he and his family were reunited. Long worked for 24 years at Holden's Port Melbourne factory, and he says the family remains fiercely loyal to the Holden brand. Another deserving winner in this year's category of OAMs was Charlie Desira. For 23 years, Charlie Desira has been the driving force behind the Loaves and Fishes food bank, a lifeline for literally thousands of people in Melbourne's west. A ten-pound Pom, Charlie left Malta at the age of 18 in 1963. After starting work in a cardboard factory, he climbed the ranks, eventually retiring from an operational role at Australia Post. Even while working full time, Charlie always found time to volunteer, primarily with the Starlight Children's Foundation, which supports sick children. He had also been involved with his local church, the Holy Eucharist parish, supporting refugees, finding them places to live and delivering food parcels. When the local priest asked Charlie if he wanted to start a food bank, he didn't hesitate. Charlie and his team of 24 volunteers spend their days picking up donated food, handing out food parcels from the St Albans church or delivering them directly, and constantly trying to raise money to cover their costs. He says, 'I thank God that he gave me the opportunity to do this. I enjoy it.' Valentina Brjozovsky was also awarded. Valentina arrived in Australia as a four-year-old with her Russian parents, who had been forced to work in German labour camps. In her teens, Valentina became involved with the Russian Orthodox church and began decades of volunteering. She and her friends started a sports club and ran dance groups. When the Chernobyl disaster hit, she was a founding member of the Chernobyl Relief Fund, raising money and collecting supplies for family in Ukraine. Now 70, Valentina has been volunteering for more than five decades. Every Easter she and her fellow volunteers continue to make hundreds of Easter breads to distribute to their local community because keeping alive cultural traditions remains so important. While all the award recipients are grateful that their work has been recognised, I must note that they are also all quick to point out that it was having a strong team around them that made it possible for them to achieve what they did. Gary Lee has called Melbourne home for more than 20 years after moving from Malaysia as an international student. He had been in Australia just one week before he nominated for a position on the RMIT association of international students committee, and so began his long community involvement. Passionate about the wellbeing and interests of culturally and linguistically diverse communities, including international students, in 2016 Gary was awarded the 'New Australian of the Year' award, which recognises the contributions of migrants and refugees in Australia. Samuel Parker competed in the 1960 Olympics and is Australia's most successful wrestling coach. His coaching career began in 1965, and he has trained numerous wrestlers at the highest international levels. Sam was convinced that local Australian wrestlers could win at the world level if given the proper training, and he travelled the world to garner coaching skills and provide competitive opportunities for his wrestlers. All of the people that I've just talked about won the OAM award. Guy McCrorie won the Australian Fire Service Medal. He was awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal for his long involvement with fire services. Guy joined the Metropolitan Fire Brigade in April 1986 and was promoted to station officer in 1991. He became a senior station officer in 2003 and started in his current role as community safety and emergency management commander in 2010. Guy has fought major fires over a very long period of time and has also worked as an incident controller at large structural fires and hazmat incidents. Gary, very meritoriously and deservedly, was awarded this year with the Australian Fire Service Medal. I would like to congratulate all the recipients of these awards for all that they have done and continue to do in the Fraser community. Lyne Electorate: Energy 101 19:03 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise today because we noticed in question time our energetic energy minister was talking about a massive amount of capital going from the federal government into state government hands to expand the grid, and I would like to talk a bit about this stage of the transition and what is likely. I have before me the fact sheet regarding the decommissioning of Liddell Power Station's closure to turn it into an energy hub site. But I note that 1,500 megawatts will vanish in April 2023, after the Easter holidays, and the last time we had an unscheduled loss of even 500 megawatts there, followed by the loss at Callide Power Station because of an accident where hydrogen gas in the generator blew up, we had energy chaos and the National Electricity Market was suspended. I can't see how that won't happen again when this planned closure happens. Our reserve margin is wafer thin, many times potentially negative, and this will precipitate blackouts in some shape or form. Not necessarily the whole grid, they will just prune supply to the edges of the grid to keep everything running. I would like to point out that the bring forward and even the planned transition haven't adequately planned for another replacement reliable generator. It is really quite scary. You only have to look at what is happening in Germany. They relied on a lot of gas from Russia and on energy coming from France and other places. All of a sudden they have opened up over 20 coal-fired power plants which they had kept in care and maintenance. In fact, the oldest station in Berlin was constructed in 1928. The moral of the story is: I think we are mad to let Liddell be destroyed. We should put that in care and maintenance because we will need— An honourable member interjecting— Dr GILLESPIE 72184 I know, but we are meant to be the sensible ones. I know individual companies are as part of their plan, but it is part of what's keeping the modern industrial city complex called Sydney and the rest of New South Wales going and there is not an adequate replacement. They managed to maintain all their assets. Even though they have nuclear power plant's opening up, they have repowered these coal plants. That is the approach we should be adopting. Again, Eraring with 2.9 gigawatts—that is 2,900 megawatts—has had its closure brought forward and is now scheduled to close in 2025. An honourab le member: Possibly. Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Well, that is what they have announced. A lot of people are adding up installed capacity of replacement renewable generators, planning on the mythical economic hydrogen appearing and a solar thermal plant at Liddell. But as many people may not realise, solar thermal is not just a solar concentrating thermal plant; it has to have a backup gas plant as well. So we are just replacing coal with perhaps gas and, on the occasions it is nice and sunny, which on average is about 20 per cent of the time, we will have some replacement electricity. But, as we all know, the wind and the sun are randomly variable. You've got to disconnect from measuring the installed capacity of a solar farm or wind farm with what is actually delivered. So installed capacity might be a 1,000 megawatts solar farm but that doesn't mean it produces 1,000 megawatts all the time. Some days and every night, every evening, it produces nothing. But many people are just adding up the installed capacity and think it is a like for like. Wind capacity is a bit better at 30 to 35, depending whether you are onshore or offshore. But there are plenty of times in Australia—there are three months—which are low-wind months. You can go to the wind maps data bank and you can see there are many days where for more than 17 hours there is next to no wind. So you can have all the wind in the world but then you can have none for six to 12 hours. In four hours it can change. The other issue is a lot of this renewable energy is asynchronous and can only be generated when it can be incorporated, so they are having to whack in these huge synchronous condensers to try and make up for the loss of those huge 150-tonne generators that are spinning at exactly 50 hertz. It is getting increasingly complex for any of the operators to maintain that frequency, voltage, and inertia control that is critical to keep the grid stable. Most people don't realise that what goes into the grid has to match what is going out. If there is too much, sparks fly. If the frequency goes up or down, plus or minus one hertz, you can find machines stop working. The National Electricity Market wasn't always the National Electricity Market. Back in the day when states used to act like self-reliant institutions and built freeways and dams and roads, they also built the modern grids, state by state. A lot of young people don't realise that. They think it has always been run by this thing called a market. That's only a construct that came in the early nineties, first in Victoria. But then it was just a market within Victoria comparing coal with coal, energy with energy, whereas now it's a complex amalgam of environmental laws, restricted trade practices, subsidies in the form of certificates, legislative assistance with restrictions, renewable energy targets. It's not just chosen on availability and kilowatts that are delivered; there are all these other distortions. We are criticised for trying to keep the lights on for the last nine years, and the minister says, 'Why didn't you do anything for the last nine years about fixing this up with nuclear plants?' The reason is that there's a ban on nuclear, which could replace these retiring power stations with synchronous, reliable energy. But what I really want to put on the record is that the federal government, even our current energy minister, doesn't control the NEM. All the board appointments are by the member states. We only get to appoint the chairman and the CEO, and it has to be agreed on by the states, whereas everyone turns to the federal government, and this mess has been made by many authors. At the root cause of this is that a lot of them have believed and taken as bible what AEMO's plan for the future grid would look like, as though it is absolutely rock-solid. That plan is called the Integrated System Plan. And it used to be done heavily by industry with a bit of government oversight. The GenCost report that is used as part of the ISP planning used to be generated not just by academics and people in AEMO; it used to be assessed by industry players like power utilities, like grid operators. So the GenCost report is a different beast from what it was 10 or 15 years ago. From what industry people have told me, in the last 10 years it's really been much more of a political document. It's a disappointing thing that CSIRO's reputation, in the eyes of many engineers, has gone down, down, down, because they put their moniker on it, calling it a CSIRO-authored report, whereas it is actually done by engineering consultants. Across the whole regulatory structure, there are a couple of engineers, but they are thin on the ground. And there are no deeply experienced power systems engineers amongst them. Recently, all the most senior grid and energy experts that one could assemble came here to Parliament House for free and had a two-day forum. These things that I have been mentioning are not my words; they are the assessment of people who have got hundreds of years of operating the New South Wales power grid and the Victorian power grid, who drew up the original rules for the National Electricity Market. These are deeply experienced engineers, and they are very worried that we are heading for blackouts. Madam Deputy Speaker Ananda-Rajah, with your background I'm sure you'd understand a lot of these things, but you can't fault the points that these wonderful engineers have made. We really need to get more people like them running and looking at this, because it isn't viable, and it's destined to fail. (Time expired) Turkiye and Syria: Earthquake, McEwen Electorate 102 19:13 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Before I go into my speech tonight I want to acknowledge the tragedy that is currently unfolding overseas in Turkiye and Syria. An earthquake of 7.8 magnitude has hit heavily populated regions of Turkiye and Syria, killing more than 3,700 people, with more casualties expected to be reported in the coming days. The stories coming out are harrowing; they're heartbreaking. Our thoughts go out to the Turkish and Syrian communities both here and overseas as families anxiously await news from loved ones. The government has already committed $10 million in humanitarian assistance to the rescue and recovery effort, and our consulate is available at all hours to any Australian in the region that needs emergency assistance. So we extend our deepest sympathies to those in the communities affected, and rest assured Australia is there ready to help its friend in Turkiye. I also rise to talk about some of the changes that have happened in our electorate since the Albanese government came into government last year and some of the exciting things that have come to pass in our community during the summer break. The electorate of McEwen can be proud of all the changes and new projects that have been completed in this time, as many people in the community have campaigned and worked with our office to get these projects in place. Alongside the election and re-election of some excellent state MPs, we will continue to deliver on our promises to our community and work for the people of McEwen. These actions that have been taken not only improve the livelihoods of our community but work to tackle the scourge of the rising cost of living handed to us when we took government in May. Labor delivers for our community and we'll continue to do that. When it comes to infrastructure, we're finally seeing movement on the long-awaited and long-promised Hume Highway Watson Street diamond interchange. Now that we have strong Labor governments at both federal and state level, we can finally ensure that the roads in our electorate become better, safer and more efficient. The former Liberal government, in August 2020, announced to the people of McEwen that $50 million would be given to the project, after years of outcry from the locals about how our roads weren't safe. It was a promise that the Hume Freeway between Watson Street in Wallan and the M80 ring road would be upgraded under the now disgraced carpark rorts fund or Urban Congestion Fund. We watched, we waited, and then we waited and we waited some more, realising that we had been sold a pup for political pointscoring, again, from the coalition. I tried working with the then government and, to his credit, the member for Riverina was very upfront with us in trying to get it done. But all we got from Minister Tudge at the time was lip-service about it being done, and the government just ignored the advocacy of the people in our communities. We then found out that, with another promise that was committed to by the coalition, the money had been taken out of that to then prop up the dodgy funding announcement that they'd made on the Watson Street interchange. But what we did get was the election of the Albanese Labor government, which committed that $50 million in our first budget. And then the re-elected Andrews Labor government committed $130 million to the project. So, finally, we are making headway. The project will improve the traffic flow in and around Wallan, making our commute better, but also giving us another option to move should there be any disruption on the northern highway. I'm proud to be part of a government that respects and responds to our community's needs and is making sure that our voices are heard. We are getting the infrastructure that our growing community electorate needs. It's only Labor who will invest in and deliver on local communities' infrastructure. It's only Labor that makes our roads safer. And it's only Labor that delivers for our seat of McEwen. When it comes to education, the second positive change that has happened within the past couple of months is the investment that Labor has put into the future of this country—our kids. It is investment in education that is going to deliver for the long-term. We delivered on our promise for cheaper child care. We took this promise to the election as a cost-of-living measure. When I talked to our local community during our campaign, it was roundly welcomed and there was excitement about what this promise would bring. We went ahead and, in our first six months, delivered on this promise. That was something the other side didn't really know how to do when they were in government, but we went ahead and we made child care cheaper. This directly helps over 6,500 local families, getting kids the education that is crucial for their development and readiness for primary school. The policy also gives parents the ability to re-enter the workforce and still receive the benefits of the program that allows their kids to get an early education. We know that the key to a child's development is in early education, so we're easing the burden on families to allow economic participation by both parties. The policy means that 96 per cent of our families with children will be better off, with parts of this policy specifically targeting the Closing the Gap requirements. It's a holistic approach of improving access to early learning and education for all Australians. This is just one of the many measures that we are taking to tackle the rising cost of living. I also want to briefly give a quick shout out to David Williams and the team who have just started the new Donnybrook Primary School. It had its first day last Wednesday, with 120 new students. We went down there and presented Australian flags to them. This is part of state Labor's plan to build 100 new schools by 2026, to support growing communities like ours in McEwen. Further, I want to acknowledge and give my best wishes to Carol and the team at Darraweit Guim Primary School. They have started this new year after being totally devastated by the floods we had last year. They have worked tirelessly, day in and day out, to get the school back up and running after the floods. I also thank Wallan Primary School who took in the kids and teachers to give them the space to continue learning, which helped them while the Department of Education and council services ran around to rebuild the school. It's going to be an exciting year for them, and let's hope the kids have a smooth 2023 academic year. We should also give a shout-out to all the teachers and school staff who have worked incredibly hard over the summer to make sure everything is ready to provide the best education to local students A massive thank you goes out to them and the community for making the start of the year possible. I know the resilience that this community and these workers have shown will have a lasting positive impact on students who attend these wonderful schools, including Diamond Creek Primary School. I had the pleasure of going to this school with my granddaughter for her first day. It's fair to say she was a bit nervous, but she was excited when she got there. I kept telling her, 'Be positive because this is going to be exciting.' Then I felt the same hesitation on Sunday night when I realised I had to hop on a plane and get back to Canberra! A third positive aspect I want to talk about is health. Health is the key to our electorate, and it's something that we have been fighting for for years. There's been continuous progress within the health policy to make medications cheaper and GPs more available to the local community, and that's all part of the plan to make health services more accessible and more affordable. We know Labor's policy to reduce the price of PBS listed medications from 1 January has come into effect. That means that every time you fill a script you can save up to $12.50. This all adds up, and it's in response to the reports of people skipping taking life-saving medication by not filling their scripts. It was unacceptable, so we took this policy to the election and delivered on our promise within six months. We worked hard to make sure our first budget delivered financial relief in the health field. We're also working hard to fix the chronic shortage of GPs in local communities, which is not unique to us but is happening across the nation. We did this by returning the DPA status to Wallan, which gave our doctors the opportunity to get more GPs to come to these fast-growing communities. It was absolutely astounding that the previous government thought it was okay to take a regional community like Wallan and surrounding areas and remove their DPA status. That meant that, in areas where we have massive growth in population, we had fewer doctors. It was the wrong thing to do, and our health professionals were screaming about needing care because, during those coalition years, we lost so many health professionals in our area. This put our system under stress. A prime example is a doctor living in Wallan who couldn't work in Wallan because, to get the DPA assistance, she had to work in an area which was literally 20 minutes away. We had a doctor living and raising her family in the community and she couldn't work there because of what I'd describe as an administrative blunder by the former government. This is not the end of the matter; this is just a part of the solution to increase access to doctors in our areas. We moved quickly to rectify this situation because we knew that people couldn't get access to doctors, that doctors weren't taking new patients and that people were missing out. By updating the DPA classification, we're able to attract more doctors from overseas to fill the gaps that we currently have in delivering health care in the community. Our government, the Labor government, actively solves problems in our communities and fights to make sure we get our fair share of what's needed. This year we're not going to waste another day. We're going to continue on and keep delivering the things that our communities, like those in McEwen, need and rightly deserve. Ocean Reef Marina Redevelopment 104 19:23 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore The long-awaited $120 million redevelopment of the Ocean Reef Marina is the largest infrastructure project currently in progress within the Moore electorate, which when complete is estimated to generate $3 billion worth of gross development value for our local economy. However, this visionary project has an opportunity cost, the loss of reefs. In contributing to this grievance debate I wish to place on the parliamentary record the concerns of the strong local surfing community, made up of people of all ages, at the loss of three popular surf breaks due to the civil construction works for the marina. In particular, the local surfing community is extremely disappointed by the sudden announcement by the state minister for lands, John Carey, that advertised plans to build an artificial surf-specific reef to replace the surf breaks is to be removed from the scope of works for the project. On behalf of the local surfing community, I would like to initiate a plan to ensure that all levels of government work together to ensure that this project is progressed over a revised time frame and not forgotten. Construction of the marina redevelopment has resulted in three existing surf breaks, at Mossies, Big Rock and Pylons, being lost. The last remaining beach break is only surfable during four months of the year, through winter, due to sand movement and the sandbank shape. This means that surfers have to travel outside of the Moore electorate to access other surf breaks. I have been contacted by a number of local residents, including Clint Bryan, James Breed, Ben Allen, Steve Blackwood, Michelle Ellis and Craig Lawson, who have all strongly advocated for an artificial reef to be installed south of the Ocean Reef Marina to restore the surfing breaks. Many other local residents and surfers in the northern suburbs have also contacted me through social media. There is a strong level of community support from groups, including the Mullaloo Boardriders Club Inc., which has more than 100 members, and the Ocean Reef Artificial Reef group. The group has collected 2,621 signatures in an online petition in support of the construction of an artificial reef to offset the loss of the three surfing breaks. The group organised a protest paddle, with over a hundred participants, in response to the cancellation of the initial plans to build the artificial reef. When the marina concept plan was advertised for public consultation in 2009, it included an artificial surfing reef, but this plan has since been removed because of the potential costs, which are estimated to be in the order of $7 million. Instead, the artificial reef has been listed as a potential future amenity. According to a statement by the state Minister for Lands, the artificial reef is deemed unfeasible: DevelopmentWA had employed a team of coastal engineering experts to investigate the potential for the artificial surf break and found it to be unsafe. It is claimed that the advice which the government received is: … due to a number of factors, including swell direction, the topography of the area and public safety concerns, an artificial surf break was not considered feasible within the development area. However, the surfing community proponents contend that these safety concerns only relate to constructing a break at the northern wall of the project and not at the preferred location at the midpoint of the development area, between Mullaloo Point and the southern wall of the marina. It is expected that, as a result of predicted ocean currents, a significant body of sand will start to build up between Mullaloo Point and Ocean Reef Marina over the next 10 years or so, creating a new beach. This presents an opportunity at this location to investigate a surf break. Mullaloo Point is arguably the most popular surf beach in the City of Joondalup, and a reef break directly to the north of that would increase the capacity for recreational surfing. Shallow sandbanks are a potential hazard and a danger to surfers. Mullaloo Beach features prime examples of shallow sandbanks, which have caused several injuries to local surfers. A reef break, by contrast, creates wave breaks in a more consistent manner and at a consistent depth, creating a safer environment for surfers, in comparison to shallow sandbanks. Since construction of the Ocean Reef Marina began, there has been a large increase in congestion at Mullaloo Beach, all the way from Korella Street up to Key West, particularly over summer. This congestion comes in the form of overflowing carparks, queues at the showers and toilets, and overcrowding of surfers in the water. The City of Joondalup has commissioned a report on options to develop a concept for a surfing and fishing reef between Mullaloo Point and the newly constructed southern breakwater at the Ocean Reef Marina. Any future discussions outside the Ocean Reef development area would need to be undertaken in consultation with the community, stakeholders and all levels of government. The Mullaloo Boardriders Club has been in contact with local schools, including Mullaloo Beach Primary School and the Ocean Reef Senior High School, which support the installation of an artificial surf-specific reef. Ocean Reef Senior High School runs a dedicated surfing program and has previously held classes at the reef breaks that have now been removed. The loss of the free surf breaks has resulted in the inability for the club to hold surfing contests as frequently. Last year, there was only one surfing contest at Mullaloo Beach, due to the lack of wave shape making the conditions non-contestable. The club was forced to hold its other two contests at Lancelin's Back Beach, requiring members to travel for over an hour north. A new artificial surfing reef would allow competitions to be held with more consistently shaped waves at our local beach and at the marina. National statistics indicate that 10 per cent of Australians surf as a pastime. This equates to 16,000 potential surfers in our local community based on the current population of the City of Joondalup, which has approximately 160,000 residents. Surfing WA conducts surfing lessons at Mullaloo in winter each year, which has seen an increase in participation by 20 to 30 surfers per lesson. With an artificial reef, these increases in the number of surfers can be spread out across multiple breaks, improving the accessibility for beginning surfers to enter the sport. The inclusion of a surf-specific artificial reef would benefit our community by boosting participation in this sport. Surfing has a variety of mental health benefits, encouraging people to embrace the outdoor lifestyle. The local government alone would not be expected to build the artificial reef, nor would the state government be likely to initiate the project. However, there is scope for all three levels of government—local, state, and federal—to work together to jointly fund the project. At a cost of at least $7 million, this represents a large project which must be listed for consideration among other competing community projects in the current difficult economic climate. It will take several years of dedicated effort for the project to materialise. Our local surfing community deserves to have this amenity restored. The construction of an artificial surf-specific reef must be placed on the capital works agenda, with steady progress made to achieve it over the next decade. I call upon all levels of government—local, state and federal—to work together with the surfing community to remedy the situation by installing an artificial surf-specific reef at the midpoint of the development area between Mullaloo Point and the southern wall of the Ocean Reef Marina. Our community deserves a plan outlining how this very worthy project will be progressed and delivered in the future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:33