2023-02-16 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 16 February 2023

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

BILLS 1 BILLS National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 1

National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023

Consideration in Detail 1 09:01 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the amendments moved at the previous sitting by the honourable member for Indi, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The question is that amendments (1) to (4) and (7) moved by the member for Indi be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [09:05]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

74 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. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Freelander, M. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gillespie, D. A. 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. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McIntosh, M. I. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Price, M. L. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Sukkar, M. S. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 17 NOES Archer, B. K. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. (Teller) Le, D. 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

 09:11 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the amendment moved at the previous sitting by the honourable member for Fowler on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fowler be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [09:15]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

71 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. 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. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. 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. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 63 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. (Teller) Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. 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. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) 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. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

 Third Reading 3 09:19 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 3

Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023

Second Reading 3 Consideration in Detail 3 09:21 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit the table item. (2) Schedule 4, page 22 (line 1) to page 30 (line 13), omit the Schedule. We support this bill. We are seeking to make one change consistent with our opposition to the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is the removal of schedule 4. We support the bill, other than schedule 4, because we obviously support the changes that relate to the recommendations that came out of the review that was undertaken in the term of the former coalition government. Some sensible changes were recommended as part of that review and there are some contained in the bill. We are very happy to support the renaming of the National Housing Finance Investment Corporation to Housing Australia. It would be fairly low on the list of priorities, I would have thought, to be renaming it but it is not something we're going to stand on the way of. We won't be dividing on this but, consistent with our opposition to the Housing Australia Future Fund, we seek to remove schedule 4. 09:23 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I indicate that obviously the government is not supporting these amendments. This is a continuation of the opposition to the Housing Australia Future Fund. They clearly don't support more social and affordable housing on the ground by their opposition to the original bill and this amendment is to remove the bits that detail the Housing Australia Future Fund. Question agreed to. 09:24 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 2, page 18 (after line 29), after item 11, insert: 11A At the end of section 18 Add: (4) Despite subsection (3), the Board members must include: (a) representatives of the social housing and homelessness sectors; and (b) representation from each of the following: (i) First Nations Australians; (ii) low income households; (iii) persons with lived experience of homelessness and social housing residence. (5) The Board members must not include individuals who have significant links to property development or the banking sector. (2) Schedule 4, page 29 (before line 2), before item 40, insert: 39A After section 5 Insert: 5A References to affordable housing To avoid doubt, a reference in this Act to affordable housing includes a reference to: (a) rental housing; and (b) housing that costs no more than 30% of income for the bottom 40% of households by income. There are two central amendments that we would like to move to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. The first is similar to our amendments to the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill, which is ensuring that Housing Australia is a democratic institution with the voices of a diverse series of people across society and people who we know desperately need a proper solution to this housing crisis. That will include amending this bill to mandate that the Housing Australia Board must include representatives from the social housing and homelessness sectors and must include representation from First Nations people and housing organisations, low-income households, and people with lived experience of homelessness and social housing residence. And it must not include individuals with significant links to property development or the banking sector. I said yesterday that one of the big issues with the Australian housing system at the moment is the power of property developers and banks and the power they wield over the housing system. For decades now we have seen a housing system that prioritises their profits ahead of the interests of ordinary people. We know, for instance, that skyrocketing mortgages and rents only benefit wealthy property investors, property developers and he big banks. Indeed, we just saw the Commonwealth Bank earn a record $5.3 billion profit. The question for the government is: whose side are you on when it comes to the housing crisis? Putting property developers and bankers in charge of the housing solution is only going to see the problem get worse, and that is a major concern with this entire housing package. The second amendment we would like to make to Housing Australia frankly seems like a no-brainer. It is alarming to the Greens that this has not been included in the bill. To put it simply, define affordable housing. There needs to be a definition of 'affordable housing' in the Housing Australia bill, given the mandate of this entire package is to tackle the housing crisis and build social and affordable housing. The definition that we have offered is accepted widely across the housing sector, which is to define affordable housing as: (a) rental housing; and (b) housing that costs no more than 30% of income for the bottom 40% of households by income. This is to ensure that we don't get these dodgy schemes where property developers say they're building affordable housing, but their version of affordable housing is charging rent at somewhere around 80 per cent of market rent. Ask any renter out there, when they have seen rents go up by well over 20 per cent over the last 12 months alone, if they think 80 per cent of market rent would be affordable for them. There are millions of people out there—teachers, nurses, cleaners—who need an affordable place to call home, and if they are offered rent at 80 per cent of market rent, it will not be affordable for them. We need a way to ensure that housing built out of Housing Australia is actually affordable for the people that need it. We implore the government to accept these amendments. They are pretty basic. They ensure democratic representation in Housing Australia. The one other issue I would like to address is the minister's response to a similar amendment on the supply and affordability council bill around expertise. I suppose I would argue that it is not property developers who are experts in building housing. It is urban planners, it is social scientists, it is architects, it is the builders themselves, and it is homeless people. There are people in social housing who know what they need. The experts—the people that actually build our cities—are not the property developers. The property developers are the ones that make money out of it. The experts are the ones on the ground. If you talk to architects and if you talk to urban planners, they'll tell you that often it's property developers that get in the way of good and well-designed housing. This board should be stacked full of world-leading architects, people in social housing and urban planners, designing the best-practice housing and design. That seems an entirely reasonable demand to make. It's alarming to me that the government thinks that property developers are somehow experts when it comes to housing. What they're experts in is high profit margins—that's their expertise. We really want to make sure that they aren't the ones in charge of fixing a housing prices they created. 09:28 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I just want to indicate that the government will not be supporting these amendments. As I outlined yesterday, it is a skills based board for this also, which is entirely appropriate, and we want members on the board with the skills and the expertise. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments be disagreed to. Question agreed to. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 5 09:29 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 5

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023

First Reading 5 Second Reading 5 09:31 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill contains a number of important integrity measures to ensure both our financial service and tax system are working as intended. Schedule 1 to the bill fixes a deficiency in the existing law which could have led to accidental compliance breaches by financial advisers in relation to their registration obligations. It also allows the corporations regulator ASIC to use assisted decision-making processes when processing and considering applications for financial advisers to be registered. The use of assisted decision-making processes, including computer automated and computer assisted decision-making, will enable ASIC to deliver a high standard of service in an effective and efficient manner. Schedule 2 to the bill lays the necessary foundations to allow the implementation of sustainability reporting standards in Australia. Growing awareness of the financial risks and opportunities of climate change and broader sustainability issues has prompted a range of international financial system responses. Many key markets for Australian companies are introducing measures to improve transparency, manage systemic risks and align capital flows towards climate and sustainability goals. A common and important component of this is company disclosure of sustainability and climate-related financial risks and information. The Albanese government has committed to ensuring large businesses provide Australians and investors with greater transparency and accountability when it comes to their climate-related plans, financial risks and opportunities. The ASIC Act currently does not explicitly grant our standards bodies the function to develop and formulate sustainability standards. Schedule 2 amends the law to provide the Australian Accounting Standards Board with functions to develop sustainability standards, and clarifies that the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board can develop and maintain relevant assurance standards for sustainability purposes. It also empowers the Financial Reporting Council to provide strategic oversight and governance functions in relation to these sustainability standards functions. Sustainability standards developed and issued by the AASB will not be enforceable until further legislative changes are made to apply the standards. Treasury is consulting on the initial policy design and parameters that will inform this application. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified in relation to the amendments in schedules 1 and 2 as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Schedule 3 of the bill increases the independence and effectiveness of the Tax Practitioners Board to ensure high standards of ethics and competency in the tax profession and streamline the regulation of tax practitioners. These changes will implement recommendations from the final report of the Tax Practitioners Board review and uphold high standards in the tax profession, enhancing community confidence in the regulation of tax practitioners and the integrity of the system as a whole. The Albanese government is a government of consultation—we want to consult with the tax profession about improving the tax system, but we can't do that if they use that information for commercial benefit. We can't be consulting with industry, particularly with tax professionals, for the purpose of improving the technical operation of the law if the tax practitioners involved in that consultation then go and use that information for a commercial benefit ahead of any changes in the law. We've put the industry on notice—there can't be a repeat of recent confidentiality breaches. These long overdue reforms to the TPB are an important start but they won't be the end of it. The previous government turned a blind eye to these issues. The Albanese government will not. These are just the first steps in that process. We'll be consulting in coming months on further changes to ensure our regulators can appropriately respond to emerging issues. I'll talk about schedule 4. It aligns the tax treatment of off-market share buybacks with the tax treatment of on-market share buybacks for listed public companies. Currently, listed public companies can split the purchase price it pays for an off-market share buyback into a capital component and a franked dividend component. Companies factor the franking credits attached to the dividends into the purchase price, which facilitates them paying a below-market price for these shares. To maximise the discount, companies maximise the franked dividend component and minimise the capital gain component, thereby reducing the capital gains tax that would otherwise be paid on the sale. This is simply not possible if they were to do it with an on-market trade. The reduced capital gains tax and the franking credits effectively amount to a subsidy from the budget to help fund companies' acquisition of their own shares at a discounted price. Aligning the tax treatment of share buybacks will enhance the integrity of the tax system. Listed public companies will no longer be able to exploit the tax rules to buy back their own shares at a discount subsidised by the Australian taxpayer. In recent years, the incidence of off-market share buybacks has been irregular, but the value of these shares purchased has been very large. Allowing the current tax treatment to continue presents an ongoing risk to revenue if it is not addressed. We intend to address it. Schedule 5 of the bill prevents companies from raising capital for no commercial purpose, and using this capital to fund special franked dividends to shareholders. This again comes at a cost to the budget. These distributions occur on an ad hoc basis, outside of established business or industry practice. The proposed changes are in response to concerns that have been raised by the Australian Taxation Office and, interestingly, the previous coalition government also raised the fact that this activity needed to stop. In fact, it issued a warning and flagged that it was going to move on it, but it didn't. The proposal does not make changes to the imputation system. Rather it improves its integrity by ensuring that companies are unable to enter into contrived arrangements to artificially distribute excess franking credits. This is not how our franking credit system was intended to work, and companies should be investing and distributing profits based on sound economic and commercial reasoning—not because there is a tax loophole there to exploit. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 6

Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023

First Reading 6 Second Reading 6 09:41 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin The Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 amends the Migration Act 1958 to establish the legislative power and framework to conduct a ballot—a 'visa pre-application process'—for specified visa programs. The bill is a necessary first step in delivering on the government's commitment to establish the Pacific engagement visa from July 2023, to boost Pacific permanent migration to Australia and build a stronger Pacific family. Boosting Pacific permanent migration to Australia is an essential part of the government's plan to build a stronger Pacific family and strengthen Australia's ties with the Pacific. An increase in permanent migration through the new Pacific engagement visa program will boost Australia's people to people links across the Pacific family, and strengthen country-to-country ties. The Pacific engagement visa will provide opportunities for skills exchange and contribute to Pacific home economies through remittances and investments. It will also support wider mobility within the region and grow Australia's Pacific diaspora. The bill will provide the government with the legislative framework needed to implement and operate a ballot for the Pacific engagement visa, for eligible nationals of participating Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste. Each year, the Pacific engagement visa program will provide up to 3,000 permanent places for citizens of the Pacific and Timor-Leste to settle in Australia as permanent residents. Eligible participants will be randomly selected through a visa pre-application ballot process and then given the opportunity to apply with their dependent family for a permanent Pacific engagement visa. Currently, Australia does not have a dedicated permanent residency pathway for nationals of Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste. Contingent on the passage of all associated bills, including the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023, the Pacific engagement visa would be provided for through amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994,to commence in July 2023. The Pacific engagement visa program will be open to nationals of participating Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste who have drawn a place in the visa pre-application process. Places available for skilled migrants under Australia's annual migration program will not be impacted by the introduction of the Pacific engagement visa. To encourage permanent migration from the Pacific, without jeopardising Australia's existing permanent visa pathways, the annual allocation of 3,000 places for the Pacific engagement visa program is in addition to Australia's overall annual permanent migration program intake. Pacific engagement visa holders will be permanent residents and, like other permanent residents in Australia, these visa holders can live, work, and study anywhere in Australia, which will support local economies and contribute to communities throughout our country. The ballot process could also be used in the future by Australia's other temporary and permanent migration programs to promote equitable and fair access, specifically for those programs where the number of prospective applicants may exceed available places, and where it is otherwise appropriate to do so. This bill, together with the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 and the anticipated permanent Pacific engagement visa will deliver on the government's commitment to secure our region and build a stronger Pacific family. These reforms demonstrate to the Australian community, and to our Pacific family, that stronger Pacific partnerships focused on shared needs and priorities are in Australia's national interest, and support stability, prosperity and security in our region. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 7

Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 09:45 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 introduces legislation to impose a nominal charge on registered participants in a visa pre-application process, administered by the Department of Home Affairs. This bill complements and supports the amendments in the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which makes amendments to the Migration Act 1958to introduce a visa pre-application process (a ballot). This bill allows for regulations to be made to prescribe an amount in Australian dollars that can be imposed on a person registering in a visa pre-application process, which can be nil up to a maximum charge of A$100, with the ability to prescribe different amounts for different visa pre-application processes, and for different classes of persons. For the Pacific engagement visa ballot, this will be a nominal registration charge of $25. Regulations prescribing a charge would be disallowable by the Parliament. The Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 provides that any visa pre-application process charge is to be paid at the time of registration and establishes that the regulations may make provisions for remissions, refunds and waivers of, and exemptions to, the charge. A bill to impose a charge to register in a visa pre-application process is necessary to ensure the ballot does not attract non-genuine participants and preserves the opportunity for genuine participants who intend to apply for the relevant visa should they be successful in the ballot draw. Subject to the passage of this bill and the prerequisite Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023, consequential amendments will be made to the Migration Regulations 1994to create a new Pacific engagement visa subclass. This package of legislative reforms delivers on the government's commitment to establish a new permanent Pacific engagement visa program to boost Pacific permanent migration to Australia, secure our region and build a stronger Pacific family. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 8 COMMITTEES Privileges and Members' Interests Committee 8 Report 8 09:48 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen In accordance with standing order 216, on behalf of the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, I present the report concerning the registration and declarations of members' interests during 2022. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). BILLS 8 BILLS National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 8

National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022

Second Reading 8 09:48 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Labor are the builders, with the Housing Australia Future Fund that passed this chamber last night and this morning, cheaper child care, cheaper medicine, paid family and domestic violence leave, and this legislation, the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill, as well. Labor government has a great tradition, from the days of Andrew Fisher with the old-age pension and disability pension, new workers rights, the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank, expanding the Australian Navy and formally establishing what we now call the ACT. There was Chifley with postwar migration, establishing Australian citizenship, the beginning of the construction of the Snowy Mountains scheme and implementing improvements in social security. There was Whitlam with legal aid, arts funding, trade practice and family law reform, equal pay for women, universal health care and opening up universities to every Australian, based on merit. There was Hawke and Keating, with Medicare and superannuation, and Rudd and Gillard, with NBN and the NDIS. This government, the Albanese Labor government, is doing so much in that fine Labor tradition. I want to speak today on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill. One of the big lessons of the pandemic was that so much of our production and imports were dependent on just one country, which left us massively exposed to supply chain vulnerabilities, compounding the botched vaccine rollout by the previous government. COVID also highlighted that many other manufacturers are struggling to be globally competitive, especially when it comes to innovation and technology. At the time, Labor in opposition said we could do better and that we needed to rebuild jobs and our industrial base. Australians recognise that we have to be a country that makes things again and we have to do it better. Modern economies need a strong manufacturing capability. That manufacturing matters because it generates full-time, secure, well-paid jobs. Just as former Labor prime ministers John Curtin and Ben Chifley had a vision for postwar reconstruction, the Albanese Labor government has a vision for our post-pandemic recovery and prosperity. This legislation establishes the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, delivering on a key Labor election commitment. It's a major nationbuilding fund and, in the tradition of Labor governments, one of the largest peacetime investments in our country's manufacturing capability in recent times. It will help drive economic development in our regions and outer suburbs, in places like Ipswich and surrounds, boosting our sovereign capability, transforming and diversifying industry and, more importantly, helping to create high-skilled, high-paid jobs. The NRF will grow advanced manufacturing and revive our ability to make world-class products. It will be governed by a corporation with an independent board modelled on the very highly successful Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which the previous Labor government introduced and which the coalition spent years trying to abolish. It will be empowered to co-invest in projects through a combination of loans, guarantees and equities, institutional investors, private equity and venture capital. It will achieve a return on investment to cover borrowings, costs and an expected positive underlying cash impact. It's not about picking winners; it's about strategically investing in industries of the future, leveraging our natural strengths and competitive advantages, as many other countries are doing. It's designed to create private sector investment and address market failure by derisking propositions that would otherwise be passed over by the private sector at a time of global uncertainty, when there has been a dearth of venture capital. To that extent, the NRF will help drive innovation in technology and better collaboration between science and industry, ensuring Australian-made discoveries can be commercialised and scaled at home, rather than having to go offshore. The fund will make some pretty strategic investments in a number of priority areas, including value-adding in resources, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, transport, medical science, renewables and low-emissions technologies, defence capabilities and emerging technologies like robotics, artificial intelligence and quantum computing. It is worth noting that world-leading scientific agency CSIRO, which we value deeply in this country, has played a role in identifying these areas as offering the best chances for jobs and growth in their paper COVID-19: recovery and resilience. I am pleased to say that many of these changes will benefit my electorate of Blair in south-east Queensland. The resource industry is a major industry and employer in Queensland, my home state. It's not all about coal and gas, as some have suggested. The National Reconstruction Fund will have a strong focus on critical minerals, which are becoming increasingly important strategically as a pathway to energy transition. We want to see more minerals processed domestically, like lithium and graphene, providing for batteries and other materials. An example of that is a manufacturing group based in Richlands in the Speaker's electorate of Oxley, just next to mine, that is experimenting with developing graphene batteries that charge 70 times faster and with three times the battery life of lithium batteries. Agriculture is a big industry in the electorate of Blair, including horticulture, dairy, beef cattle and meat processing. It is a big employer in my electorate and its surrounds. In fact, my first job was as a cleaner at the meatworks for Dinmore, based in Ipswich, now owned by JBS. I have kangaroo meat processing at Wulkuraka. There is beef meat processing in Kilcoy, at Coominya, as well as in Dinmore. I'm pleased the fund will look at opportunities, for example, in high-end food manufacturing and processing. If you go to these plants you will see the creative and innovative methods these meat processing operations use, and there are opportunities for growth in the industry by getting apprentices in to learn more about the industry. It is really good. I have met with so many people who have benefited, from school all the way through. It certainly won't destroy native forests. It's all about making sure that we look at high-end production. Transport is another area in my state of Queensland with strong manufacturing capabilities. The state government has announced Downer as the preferred supplier to build new trains at Maryborough in regional Queensland, where my mother's family comes from, in the member for Wide Bay's electorate, no less. Nearly half of all manufacturing jobs are in areas such as this. Additionally, medical science is a really fast-growing industry in my electorate. For example, Springfield Citigroup in Ipswich have been working with a range of partners to develop the Springfield BioPark, an innovation precinct dedicated to advanced manufacturing of high-value medicines like vaccines and blood products. This is an exciting initiative and has enormous potential to boost the local biotech industry and jobs into the future. It will also boost Australia's sovereign capability for medical manufacturing and improve access to life-saving drugs, which will support our future pandemic preparedness. I am working closely with Springfield Citigroup on delivering an election commitment of $12.6 million in that regard. I can reassure those who may be sceptical of this fund of the remit of the fund, which invests in a range of renewable energies and clean energy technologies like components for wind turbines, batteries and solar panels, which is where we think this fund will go. Again, Australia has some of the world's largest deposits of critical minerals, which are shipped and used in battery manufacturing and supply chains overseas. But we don't make enough batteries in this country. A great case study in this space is a company called Vast Solar based in Goodna, Ipswich, just outside my electorate, which is developing dispatchable solar thermal battery technology. In fact, ARENA, another organisation that those opposite would have done their best to abolish but Labor opposed, has just backed the firm with a grant to build a commercial solar thermal power plant in Port Augusta, South Australia, which will bolster power supplies nation wide and create regional jobs. The fund could also support more success stories like Vast Solar for domestic battery manufacturing, which will combine Australian-sourced minerals, Australian know-how and skills to power the clean energy transition, here and around the world. Three million dollars will be allocated from the fund to invest in green metals, steel, aluminium, and clean energy component manufacturing like hydrogen, electrolyser and fuel switching, agricultural methane reduction and waste reduction, so many things that will help us in the transition. Finally, the defence industry is another key employer in Ipswich and surrounds. Its proximity to the RAAF base at Amberley and access to a high-skilled defence workforce are critical. We have great organisations and great companies, like Boeing and TAE and Rheinmetall, in the Ipswich region, just to name a few. These priority areas will drive future economic growth, both nationally and locally in my electorate. Ipswich and Brisbane's western corridor is one of the fastest growing areas in the country, so we need to be investing now in these areas and in the high skilled, well-paid jobs of the future. The National Reconstruction Fund will not only have a strong focus on helping transition industries to net zero emissions to address climate change emergencies but will also look at a whole range of other areas which I have outlined. It is important the bill be passed as soon as possible so the fund can be up and running from 1 July. It's important this parliament does the right thing and supports the legislation. Those opposite are simply not builders. I listed the achievements of previous Labor governments, and so many of those things were not supported by those opposite. They didn't vote for them or support them, and spent years trying to undo them. There was Medicare—when Bill Hayden brought in Medibank as the forerunner, Malcolm Fraser, the Prime Minister, abolished it and Bob Hawke had to bring it back in. Who can forget that famous ad on TV with Bob Hawke and the Medicare card going to the Lodge? This legislation is in the great tradition of Labor building this nation—a party of reform and progress. Those opposite are the wreckers, the deniers and the naysayers. They're not the ones who build this nation; it's always left to Labor governments to do that. Those opposite oppose superannuation; there has not been a vote in this parliament in the over 15 years I've been here where those opposite have supported superannuation—not once! They have always voted to deny working Australians a decent retirement. And those opposite will not support this bill here today. They are opposed to it. It's always about denial and opposition, not about support for nation building. If you want to support manufacturing and jobs, you support bills like this and support reform. It's not just about the fact that those opposite will never support a wage rise for workers in the workplace. They're always wanting a higher percentage of the profit to GDP to go to the rich and powerful in this country. They never support working-class people and people in the regions struggling. They'll never support a minimum wage rise; they can't even do that. They haven't got the grace to support this legislation, which will help jobs in manufacturing. They're happy to put the high-vis on and parade around in campaigns, put a bit of coaldust on their face and do what they like to do, but when it comes to casting a vote, or doing anything about it, they will not do it. We saw that with the Housing Australia Future Fund. The naysayers over there say they're in favour of helping veterans but don't vote for it. They say they're in favour of helping women and children fleeing domestic and family violence but don't vote for it. They say they're in favour of helping Aboriginal people in remote areas but don't vote for it. Question time after question time, there are questions about the cost of living index but when given the opportunity last year, in December, what did they do? They voted against it. Here, today, they've got a chance. Get up on your feet and support it. Support jobs in manufacturing. Support the jobs of the future. You claim you want to transition the economy into a clean energy future. How about you actually vote for it? Remember the ring-a-ring-a-rosy, with a whole bunch of people there, when those opposite got into power and got rid of the price on carbon? They stood there and hugged each other, teaming up with the Greens. Once again, on bills like this—and we saw it last night. In this country you're either Labor or against Labor. In this country, it's Labor governments that make a difference. All those opposite will not do it. They will not support this legislation. They get up and protest because they're ideologues. They believe in an untrampled Milton Friedman type economy where the rich and powerful can look after themselves and everyone else can get lost. When they were in government, they punted people off the pensions I referred to that Andrew Fisher brought in—373,000 people in this country were punted. This day they've got a chance. Show us your grace. Show us your integrity. Show us you will build this country for the better. Vote for this legislation. 10:03 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I rise to discuss the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. The reality is: the best way we as lawmakers can support our industries is by creating the right economic conditions for success. Unfortunately for industry, this government is more focused on politics and spin at the cost of good legislation. On our side of the House, we support our manufacturers to bolster Australia's sovereign capabilities and we will support legislation that makes an actual difference. This government argues that this bill establishes the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation to facilitate increased flows of finance into priority areas of the Australian economy by financing businesses, state and territory governments and other entities through concessional loans, equity guarantees and other financial instruments. That does sound very impressive, but unfortunately this bill follows in the tradition of so many of the government's bills; it follows their standard formula. Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I do need to apologise to you in advance. You were in the House when I spoke on the housing bill, so a lot of the things I'm going to talk about right now are things you've already heard, but that's because the Labor Party follow a very consistent formula. I'll go through this formula again, because it's consistent. Step 1 in this formula: start with an impressive-sounding name. 'The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation'—a very impressive name. Tick! We've got that one. Step 2: commit a lot of money but commit it over a long-term horizon. When we say the number it sounds very impressive—like the name. In this case it's $15 billion over 10 years. We had $10 billion over 10 years for housing; we're now at $15 billion over 10 years, so it's a tick for step 2. Step 3 is very important. The Treasurer in particular, the Doctor of Politics, gets this. You need to place the fund in off-budget spending. They need to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker, because they need to continue the facade of responsible economic management. The Treasurer needs to be able to stand at this box in question time and talk about how economically responsible he is, while really he's playing a bit of smoke and mirrors—and I'll talk about that in a bit more detail. Step 4, following this very standard formula of the ALP: ensure that there's a significant lack of detail in the bill so the government are not held to account while they're rushing the bill through but making claims of transparency. I'll go through these steps in little more detail, first to step 1 and this impressive sounding name, the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation. Did you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the word 'reconstruction' does not appear in the explanatory memorandum or the actual bill, apart from in the bill's name? In fact, the bill does not mention any specific sectors, limit eligibility priority areas or refer to reconstruction at all. I'll come back to this point a bit later, because it's an important one. On to step 2: on the surface, this legislation looks very positive. It allows ministers and backbenchers to talk about how they're backing manufacturing with a huge investment of $15 billion. They claim it will create jobs and industry growth, all the while securing our sovereign capability. As I said, it sounds amazing. But the real problem is that the government can't actually outline how many jobs will be created or how much growth will be created. We haven't heard any numbers attached to this bill from the government. We know that the Prime Minister doesn't like numbers, so it's not that surprising; it fits the formula. The measure of success for a bill really shouldn't be how much money is spent; it should be about the outcomes that have been achieved. I spent 15 years working in business before this role, and we were always focused on the outcomes, not the money spent. That's actually what you should be looking for—efficiency. It's not about how much we spend; it's about what we actually deliver for the Australian people. But, every time we hear the government talk, they talk about how much money they're spending. In a high-inflation environment, we definitely need a focus on efficient spending, because it's crucial to support all Australians in this challenging economic time. I'll now move to step 3, the Treasurer's favourite part, the off-budget spending. This government has already committed to $45 billion of extra borrowing in off-budget spending, and that's going to have a direct impact on inflation. The Treasurer's pushing the economy one way; he's got the accelerator on inflation. The RBA governor's got the brakes on. The money for all that off-budget spending still needs to be borrowed and repaid, and that impact is going to be felt across the economy. There's no doubt that the RBA governor and the board, when they're sitting around making decisions on interest rates, are very aware of this government's off-budget spending. The funding model proposed, which is going to shift from direct grants and tax incentives to the government acquiring equity and providing loans, is a pivot to interventionism, and it's likely to have unintended consequences. Businesses may not meet the eligibility criteria. They will perhaps have margins that are too small, or they will be too risky in the current uncertain economic landscape. They may not have the capability to create the complex and detailed business plans that they have to write to satisfy government departments rather than private investors. Feedback from stakeholders has raised issues of ownership. This is a big concern, as many of our manufacturers are family owned businesses. Unfortunately, innovation and the development of manufacturing systems often go through failures before they succeed. Would a complex innovation pathway be tolerated with this funding structure? How many failures are too many? How does this government drive a return on investment to safeguard taxpayers' money, which is required for all off-budget spending, because it has to deliver a return? It raises the question: if these are such great investment opportunities that the government will acquire equity in, why hasn't the private sector already taken advantage of these lucrative opportunities? This is a crucial question because, by designating this fund as off-budget spending, the government are committing to a return on investment on this capital. With rising interest rates resulting in government debt costing even more in repayments, it is vital that taxpayers' money is spent wisely. Fifteen billion dollars in debt, which is what this government will take out for this fund, at the current four per cent rates, will cost taxpayers $600 million a year. I spoke on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. That's $400 million on the housing bill. So we're at $1 billion in debt repayments so this government can spin its lines and follow its formula. I also wonder—because, when these were announced, we were at zero inflation, in a zero-interest-rate environment—what adjustments have been made to the government's modelling 18 months later, with interest rates rising. That's the reality. This is more political smoke and mirrors from this government to hide its irresponsible spending. At least with private investment, if market gains do not stack up, investment is withdrawn, with investors responsible for their own losses and the associated consequences. As I've said before, this spending risks driving inflation even higher in Australia. It's not just me and the opposition saying that. Just last week, the Australian Financial Review reported that the International Monetary Fund said: Strong aggregate demand and the tight labour market warrant continued focus on fiscal consolidation in the near term. The IMF also warned: Implementation of below-the-line— off-budget spending— activity through newly created investment vehicles (National Reconstruction Fund … and Housing Australia Future Fund) should be phased appropriately, and, more broadly, a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister like to stand at that dispatch box in question time and quote the IMF, but you'll notice that they don't quote that part of the IMF's advice. I do wonder about the Prime Minister. We know he's not strong with numbers or the economy, so he potentially doesn't know the impacts of off-budget spending. But we'll give the Treasurer the benefit of the doubt and say that he should. It's clear political spin from him to continue his facade of economic management and his essay writing that he needs to focus on, because that's the reality. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are the ultimate political insiders. They've spent decades in this house as MPs and staffers, and it's all about politics and spin. It's not about delivering real results for Australians. Finally, we're on to step 4: ensuring significant lack of detail in the bill so the government is not held to account. When I look at this bill, I can't see where the investment priorities are explained or even mentioned. It's interesting that the minister spoke about the priorities in this place but they are not listed or defined in the bill. So why would the government talk about the priorities but not include them in the legislation? It raises the question: what are they hiding? What are they planning to do once the bill passes that they can't include in the legislation? It just doesn't pass the pub test. While the bill requires that NRFC investments be mainly Australian based, it provides no definition of those priority areas which would be supported. So does this mean that the government can provide funding to state governments to invest in whatever they like? What are the parameters in this bill? The lack of definition in this bill on what exactly will be eligible for investment flies a red flag. It does not codify the priority areas of the Australian economy to be targeted for investment. There's a great saying I like: if everything matters, nothing matters. And this bill is essentially a blank cheque for the government. Just this week we have seen the government commit 74 per cent of regional black spot towers spending into ALP seats, despite them representing only 33 per cent of regional seats. This shows that we need to ensure the government is held to account and has transparency in all their spending. The Australian people should not listen to their words but look at their actions when it comes to transparency. One of the most concerning aspects of this bill and the corporation it creates is the inappropriate ministerial discretion in appointing the corporation's board. Section 19(2)(j) of the bill indicates that those eligible to sit on the board would be people with 'substantial experience in industrial relations'. We all know what that means—union officials. I would note that, in question time on Monday, when asked about the board qualifications required by members, the minister listed the qualifications people needed to be appointed. I was listening very carefully. It included banking and finance, venture capital, economics and industry growth. So what he happened to exclude in his answer was that industrial relations—read 'unions'—is also on that list. It was a very convenient omission from the minister. He also omitted to say that appointments can be from any other field that the minister considers appropriate, so that list is actually irrelevant; the minister can appoint anyone he likes. Again, he forgot to mention that in question time—surprise, surprise. As I said, the government talk a big game on transparency, but their actions continue to curtail transparency. We have seen just this week that the unions are already lobbying for control of the NRFC, and they're planning to use the NRFC as a vehicle to promote union projects and recruit union members. Always look at what they do, not what they say. This is the reality in the economic environment that we have: taxpayer money is too important and hard earned to waste one dollar, especially at this time of high inflation and high interest rates, and especially as a means to become a vehicle for unions and this government to push their own political agenda. Unfortunately, there are so many problems with this bill, I truly believe it will cause more harm than good, because this bill follows that time honoured four-step formula of standard ALP policy: an impressive-sounding name; we're committing a lot of money over a long time; we're hiding it in off-budget spending; and we're ensuring there is a lack of detail. On this side of the House we will always support practical and realistic support for industry, for innovation and for small business. We don't make life harder for Australians by driving up inflation and forcing the RBA to increase rates. We don't just throw around money in the hope that it works, and we won't support a bill that does that. We won't play the political games that the government continue to play, with a prime minister that's all about politics and spin and not about real Australians. 10:19 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I'd like to thank the member for Casey for his contribution, because he's outlined in a quite succinct way his four-step plan. We heard it was a four-step plan to oppose investment in manufacturing, a four-step plan to oppose the creation of Aussie jobs, a four-step plan to stifle Australian innovation and a four-step plan to attack Aussie workers. I'm so thankful that he's on that side of the House and not in government, because this side of the House was elected on a mandate to drive the transformation of Australian industry and revive our ability to make world-class products right here in Australia. Manufacturing matters because it creates full-time, meaningful work, and secure jobs. This National Reconstruction Fund matters because this fund, the biggest investment in manufacturing since World War II, means that there will be more jobs here in Australia. It will mean that more Australians across the country will have more secure work. It will mean that workers can reskill and get into emerging industries. In my electorate of Bennelong, where there is significant interest in the advanced medical manufacturing element of this bill, it'll mean that young students and new graduates will be able to get into tech jobs and STEM jobs. During the pandemic, we learnt the hard way what happens when you abandon manufacturing in this country. When you abandon manufacturing, you abandon Aussie jobs, you abandon Australian innovation and you abandon Australian families. That's exactly what those opposite did in their decade in office. Remember when they killed our automotive industry? Joe Hockey as Treasurer dared our auto industry to leave, and they did. Then, of course, they said that Australians couldn't build our ships. And then we heard former New South Wales premier Berejiklian say that we could not build trains in New South Wales. It's in their DNA. Those opposite do not care about manufacturing. They love putting on the high-vis, but they're not prepared to back the high-vis. They're the cosplay coalition, as we heard the other day from the minister. They're all show, no go. That's why we need this investment in manufacturing. We were elected to revitalise the manufacturing sector after years of neglect under those opposite. This $15 billion fund is a key platform to support, diversify and transform Australia's industry and to create sustainable, well-paying jobs—well-paying jobs that will help families pay the bills and help families get ahead. The way that this fund is proposed to operate is incredibly important. It'll provide finance, including loans, guarantees and equity to drive investments in seven priority areas of the Australian economy. These priorities leverage Australian's natural and competitive strengths, support the development of strategically important industries and shore up our crucial supply chains, the main driver of inflation at the moment. The seven priority areas include value-adding in resources—expanding our mineral science technology to ensure the greater share of raw materials we extract here in our country are processed domestically. For example, we dig up a lot of lithium; we should be making batteries right here. Other priorities are value-adding in the agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors; and unlocking the potential to value-add in areas like food processing, and textiles, clothing and footwear. There's transport, of course, which is about developing capabilities in shipbuilding and in the manufacturing of cars and trains and, of course, batteries for cars. There's medical science, which is about leveraging our world-leading research to provide essential supplies such as medical devices, personal protective equipment, medicines and vaccines—and didn't we see what trouble we went through for not having a local medical science manufacturing industry only a few years ago. There's a huge investment in renewables and low-emissions technologies so that we can pursue commercial opportunities to make components for wind turbines, and for the production of battery and solar panels; so that we can have new livestock feed to reduce methane emissions; so that we can modernise the construction of steel and aluminium; so that we can make hydrogen electrolysers; and so that we can have innovative packaging solutions to reduce waste. This fund will also invest in our defence capability, maximising sourcing requirements from Australian suppliers and employing more workers in this industry, whether they be in technology, infrastructure or skills. It will have key engineering-enabling capabilities in data science and software development, including AI, robotics and quantum. Each of these target areas will have allocated funding: $3 billion for renewables and low emissions, $1.5 billion for medical manufacturing, $1 billion for value-adding in resources, $1 billion for critical technologies and advanced manufacturing, and $500 million for agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food. It'll target projects that will help Australia capture new high-value market opportunities to help our businesses grow and succeed both in the economy of today and in the economy of tomorrow. It's an investment in now and an investment in the future. This includes NRF finance to grow advanced manufacturing and support businesses to innovate and move up the ladder. As a co-investment fund, this looks to draw in investment support with super, venture capital, private equity sources, crowding in investment to help create high-quality, sustainable industries and jobs. There is an opportunity to discuss lessons around timing investment to support manufacturing capability in our regions to make sure that they also benefit from sustainable economic growth. Importantly also, it's modelled on the very successful Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This bill, if passed, will establish the NRF as a new corporate entity. Importantly, it will be administered at arms-length from the government by an independent, skills-based board appointed jointly by the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Finance. The government of the day will provide guidance on expectations and policy priorities, as is appropriate. The board will make independent decisions on who to invest in and what to invest in and will manage its investment portfolio to achieve objectives and, importantly, to bring a return to the Commonwealth. Importantly—and I want to stress this—this board will be free from political interference. There will not be a colour-coded spreadsheet in sight. There won't be a member of the National Party there to change the rules without telling anyone. There won't be a Prime Minister who can oversee a program that targets Liberal seats. This is such an important point to stress, particularly after what we've seen from John Barilaro and the New South Wales National Party. We have seen there and over the past decade how those opposite treat these funds and treat taxpayers' money. That will not be able to happen under this bill. We've seen how they reward their mates, rather than the communities and industries that desperately need this investment. We learnt in New South Wales recently how John Barilaro's office intervened in the $½ billion bushfire economic recovery program, effectively excluding Labor electorates from urgent bushfire recovery funding. Co-funded by the federal government, $250 million of taxpayers' money was used as a slush fund for Liberal and National electorates. The electorate of Macquarie, which includes the Blue Mountains, didn't receive a cent of this crucial economic disaster funding. The report that was released was damning. It states: The administration process lacked integrity, given it did not have sufficiently detailed guidelines and the assessment process for projects lacked transparency and consistency. That's not the case for this fund. Inbuilt in the legislation are transparency measures, and the board will be held accountable to this parliament. It will be the National Reconstruction Fund, not the National's reconstruction fund. They'll be independent. For too long, while those opposite were in government, decisions were made that were in the interests of the coalition, not in the interests of Australia. This bill prevents ministers from directing the NRFC board to make a particular investment and ensures that the board can act independently and make the right investment decisions. The board will also be required by this bill to take all reasonable steps to ensure the Reconstruction Fund and subsidiaries comply with the directions of the investment mandate. Importantly, the board is required to have a return to government. I'd like to focus on just one part of this investment mandate, and that's the minister's priority in advanced medical manufacturing. Many in this place would know that the member for Bennelong is usually referred to as the member for 'Pill Hill'. There are plenty of advanced medical manufacturers and companies in my electorate. Some of the world's largest and most innovative medical and medical device companies are based not too far from my electorate office. We have organisations like Sanofi, whose head office is, as I said, located not too far from mine. They provide life-changing treatment options and life-saving vaccine protection to millions of people globally while putting sustainability and social responsibility at the centre of their actions. They have a huge pipeline of new therapies undermined by a commitment to clinical research and development to transform the practice of medicine. Recently they partnered with the Palaszczuk Queensland government, the University of Queensland and Griffith University to establish a global science hub here in Australia. Like many of the businesses based in Bennelong, they have welcomed the announcement and consultation of this fund. They want to see investment in localised manufacturing, particularly in the medical sector. They also note that the NRF has the potential to reshape Australia's healthcare ecosystem by demonstrating that this government is willing to invest in transformative medical science. What will that do for jobs and those studying science at university? It will provide them with a pathway to make things here and design some of these advanced medical products right here in Australia. I would like to finish by talking about the potential of this fund to unlock low-emissions industries. Australia is rich with valuable critical resources that we could have rightly expected to be used to build our manufacturing base, to add value and to create jobs here in Australia. For decades, we've mined those resources, shipped them overseas for other countries to process them and to add value to them and then imported them back for many, many times the price, sending the manufacturing industry, their profits and the thousands of jobs they create overseas. Our know-how, our scientists and our innovators are amongst the best in the world. Solar cells were invented here. But, today, 87 per cent of the world's cells are made in one country. In the next three years, that number will be 94 per cent. As the world urgently focuses on decarbonisation and the transition to renewables, our technology and our minerals will play a vital role in meeting not only our target to reduce emissions by 43 per cent but the world's targets. Australia will help the world deliver emissions reduction. As a trusted global strategic partner, it's important that we take advantage of our established free trade agreements so that we can make some of those technologies here. Rather than just digging resources up and shipping them overseas, we should be making solar panels here, we should be making the hydrogen electrolysers here and we should be making batteries here. It's pretty simple: if we invent it here or if we mine it here, we should make it here. That is what this fund will do. This fund will start up those industries in important medical manufacturing and low-emissions technologies. We have seen what happens when Australia fails to back itself and fails to back its workers. Under the former government, we saw those industries and those jobs go overseas. The NRF is about an investment in Australia. We want it to invest in Australia and Australians—Australian know-how, Australian ideas and Australian ingenuity. This bill, the investment mandate, the guiding investments and the board's independence to make decisions in the national interest will make sure that this $15 billion fund drives Australia's natural inclination towards innovation. Labor's focus is on renewing, revitalising and rebuilding our manufacturing industry for small-business owners, for the regions, for better pay for families, for a stronger economy and for more secure jobs. I urge those opposite to put their politics aside and to not oppose this once-in-a-generation investment in our crucial manufacturing industry. 10:33 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I rise today to speak against the government's proposed National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill. First and foremost, I want to personally thank our nation's manufacturers, who helped to keep our country moving during the pandemic. I also want to mention the incredible value that manufacturing adds to our country, especially in my electorate of Capricornia. There are so many great manufacturing organisations around Central Queensland, and every single one of them makes a valued contribution to the local area, whether it's by fabricating aluminium at Barnes & Sons in Rocky or making award-winning liqueurs and condiments from Aussie grown sugar at the Sarina Sugar Shed. The sugar industry alone in 2020-21 generated more than $349 million in my electorate and employed more than 1,917 people. This success is in part due to the coalition's successful manufacturing strategy, creating the right environment for business development. It's growth like this I want to see continuing well into the future for my area. The growth of our manufacturing industry and sovereign capability isn't something we should be advocating for. It's a necessity for the future of our nation. I find it hard to believe that anyone here would disagree with me on that. That is why it's disappointing to see the Albanese government focus its attention on anything but supporting our valuable manufacturing industry in the way that it deserves. We are almost 10 months into this government and, sadly, there has been no progress for manufacturing. In fact, the government has been more obstructive than helpful, playing politics with manufacturing grants awarded under the coalition and costing businesses valuable time and money. The $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund sounds great in theory, but as usual with this government, it's all style over substance, and I'd be surprised to see that money has gone out the door by the time the next election rolls around. If you speak to any manufacturer across the nation, they will tell you that the biggest issue right now is electricity prices. Despite the claims from those opposite that the price of electricity would come down under Labor, prices have skyrocketed and are continuing to go up. I know that Labor can't be trusted with the economy or with knowing how to manage money, but the simple fact of the matter is that you can't just throw $15 billion at the manufacturing industry and not address the key issues, the economic issues that the industry relies on to thrive. The government would know that if it took the time to speak to anyone in the manufacturing sector. What's worse, the National Reconstruction Fund's poorly designed funding models shift from competitive grants with robust processes to the government equity and loans. Government equity and loans schemes are far less accessible than grants and provide more barriers for manufacturers, who will ultimately miss out. It's as if the government designed the National Reconstruction Fund with the intention of being purposely restrictive for manufacturers. First announced in March 2021, the National Reconstruction Fund has been touted as a key priority for the government, but if you read the finer details, it's clear to see the real priority for Prime Minister Albanese is to give jobs to union mates and to create an election slush fund. This bill allows for inappropriate ministerial discretion, giving the minister to appoint the chair and board members at their own discretion, the only prerequisite being substantial experience in industrial relations. The integrity of the Minister for Industry and Science on appointments has already been called into question. As recently shown, he is willing to disregard the recommendations of his own department to appoint a self-declared socialist and union member to the robotics advisory board. This legislation would open the door to allowing this disgraceful behaviour to continue. If, like me, you ask the manufacturing industry, they also don't have high hopes for this fund, and nor should they. Labor's record on manufacturing is woeful, and it's concerning to think how much damage those opposite can and will do to the industry. I won't sit idly by and watch that happen. I will be pushing to make sure that the voices of Capricornia and national manufacturers are heard and given the support they need. 10:37 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle The good news is that the Albanese Labor government is absolutely committed to fostering innovation, productivity, value added enterprise, job creation, self-sufficiency and resilience in Australia. We are absolutely committed to doing that. We went to the election promising to introduce the National Reconstruction Fund as one of the tools by which that would be achieved, and here we are, inside the first 12 months, getting on with that job. We need to create the means to foster all of those things if we want Australia to become more resilient and more self-sufficient. We learned through the pandemic just how important that is, and it will get only more important in the years ahead. But it's also necessary if we want to take on the challenges that face us, challenges like climate change. We need a shift to renewable energy with greater storage and energy efficiency measures. We need to make a shift when it comes to resource management and the sustainability of the limited resources that the world has and that we all use in manufacturing and in everyday life, and we can only achieve that by moving towards a circular economy. These are things that have to be taken on in Australia and around the world. This government, quite rightly, is grasping that nettle and putting in place the structure by which we can make that shift and benefit from all the good things that come with it—value added businesses with higher export value; more jobs, particularly in regional and rural Australia; and greater innovation, and we know how important innovation is. We're doing it through a proven method. We're doing it through a fund that in many ways is like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which, of course, the previous Labor government introduced. It is a structure that has been enormously successful by any measure. I think that for people listening at home, when those opposite get up and criticise this particular fund and talk about how it's not going to be effective and it's going to have all of these terrible things associated with it—it's going to bring on the night of the living dead, things will be rising up out of the ground and marching through the streets, the sky will fall in, black clouds will roll over, and all the other very reasonable, sensible things we hear from those opposite—it's worth going back to what the Manager of Opposition Business said about the CEFC and the excellent economic judgement that he showed all those years ago. This was the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a structure that has delivered a clean energy, energy efficiency and storage revolution in this nation, despite the best efforts of those opposite to rip it down and tear strips off it. The Manager of Opposition Business said: I predict that this investment of $10 billion of taxpayers' money is going to turn out very, very badly. I predict that taxpayers are not going to see a good return on the $10 billion which this government has presumed to invest on their behalf in a range of speculative and unproven technologies—technologies so speculative and unproven that they are ones that the private sector has declined to invest in. That was the judgement of the current Manager of Opposition Business. This is the CEFC, which now, all these years on, has successfully invested $11.7 billion in projects with a total value of $42 billion. So every dollar that the CEFC was able to contribute leveraged a further $2.60 of private sector investment. It's created thousands and thousands of jobs, and, by fostering the kinds of energy and energy efficiency and storage technology which Australia has to have as part of the climate change action that needs to be taken and the shift towards reliable, cheaper and cleaner energy, it's produced 5.2 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity and reduced emissions by 240 million tonnes. That is how successful the CEFC, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, has been. It was created by the former Labor government and railed against by all those opposite, who still try to pretend that it wasn't effective. The joke when you hear those opposite talking about the financial rigour or the financial quality of the CEFC and of the National Reconstruction Fund, which follows in its path, has to be seen in the context of the things that they did in government. At one point they actually tried to reduce the return that is required under the CEFC, because they wanted to use the CEFC to fund things that they knew would not deliver an acceptable financial return. They wanted to use it to invest in things that weren't even clean energy. So anyone listening at home should take the comments those opposite about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and therefore the National Reconstruction Fund with a little bit of reflection on history. It is bizarre after an election where the Australian people clearly endorsed the program of this government with respect to the National Reconstruction Fund. But why would you be surprised about that? Why would anyone be surprised that the Australian people want to see investment in innovation, new manufacturing and value-added enterprise—all of those things which are clearly good in themselves and are necessary to respond to challenges like climate change, the circular economy and those sorts of things? Those opposite have said no to that in the way that they've said no to housing reform—investment in affordable and public housing—to climate change action and to energy price relief. I can't think of anything notable so far that they have said yes to. You would think that there is a limit, in parliament and in your approach to government and policy, to how often and how consistently you can say no. But apparently not, if the conduct of the opposition to date is anything to go by. I know that my community want to see the National Reconstruction Fund support innovation and new manufacturing. I know because of the things that are going on in Fremantle, like the production of graphene. We have companies like ChemX, which I visited the other day; they're seeking to commercialise an innovative process for producing high-purity alumina. High-purity alumina is used in the manufacture of synthetic sapphires, which are used to cover the lenses of smartphones. I've got robotics, I've got autonomous aerial and submarine vehicle production, I've got vanadium battery production. I've got high-quality sustainable fisheries like Fremantle Octopus, Australia's first to be certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. I've got gaming and virtual reality tech. All of these things should be part of a bright, vibrant economic future in the 21st century in a country like Australia, but they need appropriate market shaping and investment support from government. Another of the mistruths you will hear from those opposite is that that kind of innovation, that kind of market-shaping change in direction, will always be produced by the private alone and that the best thing government could do is stay out. Take the smartphone. What technologies does the smartphone depend on? The internet, GPS, touch screen technology—all things that were developed by government, all things that were produced through research that was government supported or undertaken. That is actually true in many areas, like biotechnology, nanotechnology, solar cell development, the internet, wifi—which Australia had a role in—and pharmaceutical breakthroughs. All of these things generally begin with publicly funded research and development. It is absolutely right that we are prepared, through properly structured means like the National Reconstruction Fund, to try to kickstart and lean into all of the changes that should be the basis of a high-tech, sophisticated, resilient manufacturing future in Australia. I am very glad to support the National Reconstruction Fund along with my colleagues. Its basis is rock solid. It is shaped in the way that the CEFC was established, and that has been enormously successful. It has identified seven pretty clear and, to some degree, I would say, obvious areas of focus: value added resources, value added agriculture, transport, medical science, renewables and low-emissions technologies, defence and enabling capabilities. I don't know anyone over there could argue that those aren't things that we should be leaning into. That's how the National Reconstruction Fund will work. It will catalyse sophisticated manufacturing and innovation in this country, and it will do it through a proper and rigorous investment structure. I am very glad to support it. It's what the Australian community voted for last May. I guess we just keep holding on for the day, at some point in the future, when those opposite, after nine years of saying no and doing nothing in government, and now nine months of saying no to everything in opposition in this parliament, come in here and surprise us and say yes. But I won't be holding my breath. 10:48 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to support the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. The aim of this bill is to establish a fund to invest in priority areas of the Australian economy. It's clear this is one of the key pillars in delivering the emissions reductions that are necessary for Australia to achieve as quickly as possible. It is very important, and I recognise the importance of this legislation and of this fund. The minister has said that this corporation has been proposed as a result of the pandemic highlighting the importance of an agile advanced manufacturing capability that can pivot to produce critical products. We also know that we are in a race to zero around the world, and so manufacturing of new technologies and really getting that slice of the pie of new opportunities is incredibly important. I know we have so many leaders in this space in my electorate of Warringah. It is very important that we set up the right framework and the right support from government; it has been missing. As the minister said, during the pandemic we really did see where we have gaps in our manufacturing and our supply chain, and how exposed we are to all the offshore manufacturing. We need to do better around supporting manufacturing in Australia. The object of the corporation that will be established under this bill will be to facilitate an increased flow of finance into priority areas of the Australian economy. That is to be achieved by financing businesses, state and territory governments and other entities with concessional loans, equity, guarantees and a wide range of other financial instruments. The set-up proposed in the bill for this corporation is very much modelled on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. As many in this place have stated, that has been an incredibly successful model. There has been a huge amount of really appropriate investment that has brought forward and advanced so many technologies and put Australia into a really good position when it comes to some new technologies. But obviously more can be done, and so to have this corporation working in parallel to the CEFC will be incredibly important. They won't duplicate each other, but they will supplement each other's purpose in really driving investment in Australia. The minister has said that the seven priority areas are: value-add in resources; value-add in agriculture, forestry and fisheries; transport; medical science; renewables and low-emissions technology; defence capability; and enabling capacities. These are clearly very important areas, but of course the investments and the focus will need to remain quite flexible, because from time to time we identify other areas and sectors that need that focus. When the bill was first introduced, the government introduced a consultation paper to seek input relating to the seven priority areas and that investment mandate, looking at questions such as risk and return; limits and conditions on types of financial instruments utilised by the corporation; governance requirements, including ESG, which is so incredibly important in the private sector; the influence of government policy priorities on investment decisions—I think it's really important that we remember that government should not fall into the trap which the last government did, of picking winners, because you do that at the expense of the market and where demand actually is—and managing national security risk, which obviously underpins defence, with defence capability being one of those key priority areas. It's clear that we need to invest in our future to meet the challenges ahead. We know there are many, from COVID, which really rocked our systems of government and society, to the impacts of global warming and the urgent need to reduce global carbon emissions, including through rapid industrial transformation. The world is on a race to zero, and there are certain jurisdictions that are really accelerating beyond. Australia is at risk of being left behind if we don't pick up the pace. What we've seen in the US with the Inflation Reduction Act is a huge surge of investment and international capital going to the US as a result of a now very attractive legislative environment. People know that there is so much focus on the transition to clean technologies that that is attractive. We know that the EU are looking at similar legislation to the Inflation Reduction Act so that they also attract international capital for investment. So now it's really important for Australia to hold its own and have a share of that pie and make sure that we are underpinning and supporting manufacturing in so many key industries so that we remain in that race, or we will lose to overseas, to the US, so much of our skills and growth opportunities. I believe we absolutely need to be striving for a future-focused circular economy where business can thrive and innovation and inclusion are embraced. We still don't have a regulatory regime that really encourages innovation and investment into R&D for our businesses, and we often lose entrepreneurs and new ideas to overseas jurisdictions because of that. So I support this legislation, and I've met with the minister to discuss improvements and where I think there are risks in the implementation. I urge the government to ensure that the aim is to achieve growth that is both inclusive and sustainable and that the focus is on small to medium enterprise as well as large business, because too often government makes the mistake of focusing on very large business, and SMEs miss out. But we know SMEs are a huge part of growth. They are a massive employer and they are where the technologies of tomorrow start out. Innovation is critical for a successful economy. A dynamic, productive economy creates jobs, boost wages and ultimately ensures economic prosperity and welfare. From the pacemaker to cochlear implants, Australian innovation has revolutionised industries and people's lives. In Warringah, innovation is everywhere. Lakeba's Future Hub 11 shows how we can excel in digital technology; SEVENmile Venture Lab proves we can create an ecosystem to support the next generation of startups; Loam Bio shows the innovation leading from Warringah and transforming agriculture to enhance crop yields and increase carbon sequestration of soil; v2food is working to bring down our average meat consumption and reduce emissions from the meat based sector; Aviation H2 is working on the development of green hydrogen powered planes. There are ideas and innovations really coming to the fore. But we're losing momentum, and we risk being outpaced by economic competitors. Australia currently ranks 25th in the world in innovation, according to the global innovation index, down from 17th in 2018—so in the space of five years we've already lost seven places. We must reverse that decline and really increase the focus on innovation. Our economy should be dynamic and pioneering, based on growth industries like IT, financial professional services, advanced manufacturing, aerospace, healthcare and biotechnology, artificial intelligence, clean energy and quantum technology. It should be driven by empowered people with the skill sets and visions for the future. Our economy bets on startups and other tech companies to be new engines for growth. Warringah's well-educated workforce and forward leaning businesses are well positioned to engage in this positive future. The proposed National Reconstruction Fund will help achieve these goals, and for that reason I support the principle of the legislation. I also encourage the government to consider the mechanisms to boost innovation in Australia. In particular we need to increase the budget for the Australian Research Council to support cutting-edge research. We need to broaden the research and development tax incentive to increase accessibility for SMEs and tech firms, as well as offer a 20 per cent collaboration premium. We need to broaden angel investor tax incentives to improve access to capital for early-stage companies. We need to facilitate partnership and collaboration between international and domestic research institutions, businesses and all levels of government, and we need to equip new and existing workers for future jobs with STEM skills. Are these things interventionist in this bill? One of the questions that will be asked is why businesses need government funding to commercialise and develop innovative research and ideas. If the business is good, why does it need private funding? The fact is that Australian research has produced some highly commercially successful businesses. Much of the commercialisation, though—whilst the research has occurred in Australia, the commercialisation has been done overseas because we have not offered the right environment for that to occur. Some of Australia's most profitable inventions, developed by CSIRO research, have been delivered by the likes of Unilever, DuPont, Ciba Vision and Novartis. In 2021 CSIRO prepared a report on unlocking the innovation potential of Australian companies. It tells us the major barriers to commercialisation of science and technology are low levels of cross-sector collaboration, cultural challenges including risk aversion to innovation, and business research incentive misalignment. There is a strong argument, supported by international economists, that private sector investment in new technologies and industry only eventuates after governments make the risky early-stage investment. It's an approach which appears to be working for some of our Asian neighbours, through government support for manufacturing and high-tech industry development. The recent experience of the COVID pandemic also emphasised Australia's geographic isolation and supply chain challenges. It highlighted how some industries found a way to pivot quickly—hand sanitiser, anyone; how many companies in everyone's electorate started to develop that? But there is a role for government in considering the lessons of COVID and which industries need to be developed and supported in the future, and as soon as possible. There are some key questions on transparency and board independence. I urge the government to ensure there is transparency in both investment decision-making and reporting of investment performance. It's very important to ensure genuine independence of the board. The minister has said the board will be independent of political influence and that it will be appointed jointly by the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Finance. Madam Deputy Speaker, forgive me for being a little bit cautious when I take that at face value, because this place has shown me political interference is fairly frequent when it comes to these kinds of bodies and this kind of decision-making. I welcome the review into jobs for mates, announced over the weekend by Minister Gallagher, and I urge the minister to consider the framework proposed in the member for Mackellar's private member's bill, to be tabled next sitting, in relation to appointments to boards of this nature. We need to avoid the mistakes of previous governments and ensure there is true independence and accountability of the board of the corporation. It cannot be a case of jobs for the boys and investing in politically aligned projects. We must avoid the corporation becoming a source of funding for projects in marginal seats. I note that the University of Sydney's submission in support of the bill urges the government to consider the recommendation that there be appropriate academic representation on the NRF reference group, which will guide the fund's development and the preparation of its investment mandate. The involvement of academics with demonstrated significant success in commercialising Australian university R&D will assist both in identifying suitable investments and in risk management. Of course, we also need industry and people with strong networks and expertise in the field of innovation. We need to align the investment mandate with other policy goals, such as sustainability and inclusivity, and to this end I support proposed amendments identifying that we do need to exclude support for fossil fuel projects. We can't let this fund, which is about supporting our innovation for the future, be about propping up the industries of the past. We need to make sure that its investment mandate includes the criterion that it align with important policy objectives such as net zero targets, sustainability, inclusivity and circularity principles. I note that the University of Sydney's submission, for example, makes this very point. It's also important that this legislation not duplicate existing institutions, such as, very importantly, our Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre, the AMGC. Instead, the NRF needs to leverage the experience and knowledge already existing in such bodies. The AMGC has been a highly successful fund. Its goal is to drive innovation, productivity and competitiveness across Australia's manufacturing industries. It's an industry led not-for-profit organisation run by a board and management team of industry experts. To date, the AMGC has distributed some $137.5 million in co-funding investments. Of this, $50 million was federal funds, and it has had a return of 26 to one on federal funds. That is success. We can do this, but let's make sure we do it well. 11:03 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I'm proud to have the opportunity to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. This bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation this House will deal with. The Albanese government was elected on a mandate to drive the transformation of Australian industry and revive our nation's ability to make world-class products in Australia. This bill delivers on that mandate. The National Reconstruction Fund will oversee one of the largest investments in our country's history: $15 billion to invest in independently assessed projects that will support, diversify and transform Australia's industry and economy. The NRF will assist Australian industry, including in regional areas, such as in my own electorate of Lyons, to seize new growth opportunities. It will do that by providing finance for projects that add value, improve productivity and support transformation. Investment in these activities will help create secure, high-value jobs for Australians and strengthen our future prosperity. The bill we have before the House establishes the NRFC as a new corporate Commonwealth entity; establishes the NRFC independent board; outlines the functions and powers of the corporation; sets out the financial, personnel and governance arrangements; and establishes the power of the minister to issue an investment mandate to guide the investment strategy of the NRFC and declare the priority areas of the Australian economy. The fund will provide finance, including loans, guarantees and equity, to drive investments in seven priority areas of the Australian economy. These leverage Australia's natural and competitive strengths and support the development of strategically important industries and shore up those critical supply lines. The seven priority areas are, first, value-add in resources: expand Australia's mining science technology and ensure a greater share of raw materials extracted are processed domestically—for example, high-purity alumina from red mud in bauxite processing, or lithium processing for batteries. If we mine it here, we should make it here. Second, value-add in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors: unlock potential and value-add to raw materials in sectors like food processing, textiles, and clothing and footwear manufacturing. Third, transport: develop capabilities in transport manufacturing and supply chains, including for cars, trains and shipbuilding. How fantastic would that be, after seeing those industries driven out of this country by those opposite? Fourth, medical science: leverage Australia's world-leading research to provide essential supplies such as medical devices, personal protective equipment, medicines and vaccines. There is no lesson greater than what we've lived through with the COVID pandemic in ensuring that Australia has sovereign capability in that critical area of medical science and supplies. Fifth, renewables and low-emissions technologies: pursue commercial opportunities, including from components for wind turbines; production of batteries and solar panels; new livestock feed to reduce methane emissions—and a shout-out to my electorate, where we're developing seaweed additives, which make a big difference in that regard; modernising steel and aluminium; hydrogen electrolysers; and innovative packaging solutions to reduce waste. Sixth, defence capability: maximise the sourcing of requirements from Australian suppliers employing Australian workers, whether they are technology, infrastructure and skills—and, of course, the Minister for Defence and the Prime Minister have received the DSR, which I'm sure will go into this as well. Seventh, enabling capabilities: supporting key enabling capabilities across engineering; data science; software development, including in areas such as artificial intelligence, robotics and the quantum area. I'm particularly excited about the opportunities that the National Reconstruction Fund presents for regional Australia and, of course, my own state of Tasmania. My home state of Tasmania has a long history of manufacturing innovation. Indeed, the hydroelectric scheme in Tasmania is just one example. Manufacturing is the sixth-largest industry in Tasmania, generating $1.9 billion and employing 17,000 people. Tasmania's manufacturing sector is globally competitive on food and beverage processing, smart technologies, forestry, maritime and defence. It offers high value across the whole state and, of course, is a critical employer. Tasmanian manufacturing is part of the global production supply chain which attracts and supports globally competitive companies, including large-scale corporations such as Caterpillar, Elphinstone, Cadbury and McCain Foods. We also have some fantastic manufacturing operations in my own electorate specifically, from small-scale facilities to global operations—for example, Orion Australia, a family owed business in the Meander Valley that manufactures guaranteed water tanks and storage bins; or Kings Outdoor Living, manufacturing custom-made outdoor products for both residential and commercial customers from their facility in Sorell. Another fantastic example is Tasbuilt, also in the Meander Valley, specialising in custom designed commercial modular buildings manufactured in Westbury. On a larger scale, Norske Skog, the only manufacturer of newsprint grades of paper in Australia, operates the Boyer mill in the Derwent Valley, producing around 260,000 tonnes of newsprint, improved newsprint, book grades and lightweight coated grades annually. These are just the kinds of operations that can benefit from the NRF, and there are so many others. I look forward to seeing what we can achieve in Tasmanian manufacturing and, indeed, Australian manufacturing as a whole with the type of investment and support the NRF can provide. We know we need to revitalise manufacturing after a decade of neglect from those opposite. The Liberals had nine industry ministers in as many years, and they left Australia's manufacturing industry in tatters. They had nine ministers who stood there in this place and baited the Australian car industry into leaving the country, and it did. The opposition has a choice: a choice to help us revitalise manufacturing or to turn their backs once again on Australian manufacturers and Australian workers who work in manufacturing. The Labor government's focus is on renewing, revitalising and rebuilding Australia's manufacturing industry for Australians: for small-business owners, for the regions and for jobs. For too long, while those opposite were in government, decisions were made in the narrow political interests of them and their mates and not in the broader national interest. Maybe that's why they oppose it: it's just too hard to rorts. The NRF and its funding decisions will be independent. It will be administered at arm's length from government by an independent board, appointed jointly by the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Finance, that will make independent decisions about investments in Australia's best interests. The National Reconstruction Fund will be modelled on the successful Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which the Liberals also opposed, claiming it would be a financial disaster, but which has in fact invested around $11 billion in Australia's transition to net zero, leveraging $2.61 of private sector investment for every dollar of government funding. This government will provide guidance on expectations and policy priorities through a legislative instrument and an investment mandate. The NRF board will independently make investment decisions and manage its investment portfolio to achieve both the NRF's objectives and a positive portfolio rate of return, free from political influence. There won't be a colour coded spreadsheet in sight. No wonder those opposite oppose it. There's no gaming to be had. The Albanese Labor government want Australia to be a place that makes things again, and we know Australians want that too—a place with our own industrial and manufacturing capabilities, and a place where men and women can build things to be proud of. We all remember the footage and photos of Ben Chifley with the first Holdens coming off the assembly line. That is etched in our history and our national psyche, with pride. Those opposite drove that industry out of the country. We want to bring manufacturing back. Manufacturing matters because it creates full-time work and secure jobs, it helps the security of families and it serves our national interest. Labor understands we need both sovereign borders and sovereign capability. If we mine it here, we should make it here. If our brightest minds are able to think, create and develop ideas, they shouldn't have to go offshore. If we invent it here, we should make it here. We saw through the pandemic how supply chains stretched. Supply chains were taken for granted for so long. They stretched and then they snapped, and products that we'd come to rely on as a matter of course simply disappeared. Labor heeds this lesson, while the Liberals foolishly ignore it. This Labor government will revitalise manufacturing after a decade of Liberal neglect. We will rebuild our nation's sovereign capability. The assembly lines will be switched on again. The $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund is a key platform to support, diversify and transform Australia's industries and provide a pathway to more sustainable, well-paying jobs. This bill and the investment mandate guiding investments will make sure the $15 billion fund drives Australia's natural inclination towards innovation. There's no greater example of this than what I spoke about yesterday in the Federation Chamber with the Australian Space Agency and their investment in the Greenhill Observatory in my electorate, where we have upgraded the communications capabilities of the observatory. It can now not only track satellites but communicate with them. There are many thousands of satellites up there—it's getting pretty crowded up there!—that need to be recalibrated and have their trajectories changed. Tasmania is part of this global effort. I saw in the press just yesterday the deputy administrator of NASA in the US calling for space technology to be treated as a sustained investment and as a strategic priority. This government's NRF will fund, subject to the board, of course, technology innovation in space development because we know it is a growing area and a strategic priority. My electorate, Lyons, is a big agricultural seat in Tasmania, and here we are playing our part in the development of 21st century space innovation and tech. It's this sort of innovation that will lead us into the future and provide a future for the students and graduates of the University of Tasmania in space technology. So I commend this bill to the House. It's one of the most important pieces of legislation this House is dealing with. It delivers on a key election commitment this government made coming into government. It's fantastic for the country, it's fantastic for manufacturing jobs and it's fantastic for the regions. 11:16 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak against the second reading of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. I feel compelled to briefly clarify something very important regarding the car industry. Ford made the decision to close during the Gillard government in about May of 2013. There were three major manufacturers in the country then—Ford, Toyota and General Motors Holden in my home city of Adelaide. The impact of the Gillard government letting Ford close was that effectively for the economies of scale throughout the supply chain for vehicles it was all over red rover from that point onwards. I remember being in briefings with Holden during the Gillard government's era, and it was very clear that letting Ford close implicitly meant that there wasn't a future for car making in this country. That was the simple reality. Ford left. Then prime minister Gillard said it was because of the high Australian dollar. She said, 'The high Australian dollar has led Ford to make the decision to close.' That was really the domino that saw the other two, very regrettably, also make that decision. Those are the facts of the history. It was in May 2013 that that decision was made by Ford. It's completely delusional to suggest that that wasn't the catalyst for the industry regrettably leaving. But going to this bill and our commitment on manufacturing versus what this bill actually achieves I would like to first start by saying that, as a South Australian, I think it's appalling that this government has stepped away from the priorities the previous government had around the space industry. Space is the future. There is no question that the greatest opportunity for economic growth and employment creation, particularly in my home state of South Australia, is through the space industry. We were very proud to have the Morrison government make the decision for the Australian Space Agency to be headquartered in Adelaide. We are very proud of a number of our capabilities, particularly the great asset of the Woomera proving range, which gives enormous civilian as well as defence opportunities for proving and testing and so on and so forth. We have a lot of great launch opportunities in South Australia, particularly with Southern Launch over near Port Lincoln on the Eyre Peninsula being already a going concern, and with the Space Agency based in South Australia, with our heritage in aerospace, particularly centred around Woomera, and future launch opportunities. We on this side of the House are really excited about the opportunities that space provides. We are really proud of the record we have in making the decision to establish the Space Agency, which was announced at the international astronautical conference in South Australia in 2017. It was a decision of the previous coalition government. Then there was the decision of the Morrison government to locate the headquarters there, knowing full well that space is a national opportunity. I don't mean to pretend for a moment that South Australia is expecting all the benefits of it. It is much like defence capability. We want to see all Australians benefit. There are huge opportunities in this sector nationwide. That is why it is absolutely remarkable that the new government are moving away from the most exciting future industry at the first opportunity they've got. Imagine saying, 'We've got a policy for manufacturing and industry that involves stepping away from the biggest future industry opportunity on the planet'—in fact, beyond the planet. That is exactly what they've done. It's completely nonsensical. No-one has mentioned it in their speeches. You'd assume that there was a reason for this change and they would come in here and justify it in all the speeches in this second reading debate. The previous speaker, the member for Lyons, even talked about the opportunities in the space industry—on the bill that sees the government remove support from the space industry! What spectacular gymnastics we saw from the member for Lyons in his contribution. As a South Australian I have to really call out the disgrace of dumping space as an industry that is focused on by this government. Apart from the lost opportunities in the future, it is really debilitating for those who made decisions thinking that there was bipartisanship in the future opportunities that the space sector can offer in this country. A lot of people have made decisions, particularly in my home state of South Australia, to invest in South Australia. The previous government sent a clear signal that we were embracing space—the industry and its opportunities. We know that space has unbelievable applications for all industries—even for some of the most traditional industries we have relied on, like agriculture. Earth observation technology can have enormous applications in agriculture, one of our greatest traditional industries. Of course agriculture is a huge component of our economy in South Australia. It's so short-sighted to not recognise, apart from the direct jobs and investment in space itself, space has applications for so many industries and the kinds of productivity gains we can achieve from the space sector across all industries. The short-sightedness of that is appalling. It is a really dark day for the space industry in this nation to see this government make that decision. This bill, very much like the housing bill, is effectively a form of magic pudding accounting. The government could properly put in the budget investments in industry and manufacturing capability. They could make a decision that growing manufacturing and supporting businesses in the manufacturing sector are priorities for them and they could undertake an appropriation in the budget and make decisions that involve prioritising expenditure in that area. They would have to cut expenditure somewhere else to accommodate expenditure in manufacturing or, Labor being Labor, maybe they would increase taxes or run a higher deficit. They could properly invest in industry capability. Instead, what they're doing is accounting trickery where they say, 'At no cost to the actual budget, we can have all this expenditure in industry growth and manufacturing reconstruction'—whatever the spin is on it. There's no budgetary impact whatsoever. They are not going to make any difficult decisions. They're not going to say, 'This area is so important that we're going to allocate proper legitimate budgetary expenditure to it and through our ERC process and budget processes we will have to accommodate other decisions to allow for that expenditure.' Instead, we have the mythical proposition that happened with the housing bill as well where now they just do things outside of the budget and spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars by acquiring funds and getting a higher return on the cost of that capital and that will have no risk and be a certainty and guaranteed into the future. As I said on the previous bill, why aren't we just doing that on every element of how we operate the government if it's that reliable and that simple? You could borrow tens of trillions of dollars and, apparently, under this methodology that you are using, much like under the housing bill, you have no risk whatsoever at earning a higher return through these sorts of activities, or any investing activity, frankly. You could give the Future Fund trillions and trillions of dollars and say, 'Hey, could you go and invest this money, earn more than it cost us to borrow that money so we can use the difference between the earnings and the cost of the capital to fund the entirety of government?' That would be fantastic. We could then have no tax, whatsoever. We could spend whatever we wanted because we could just keep borrowing the extra amount of money and just bank that. This is the Bernie Madoff government. It is very straightforward, because there is just no question whatsoever that, in perpetuity, we will always earn more money than the cost of that money—always. So you could then just get some kind of formula that says: How much do you want to spend this year? How much is that in the differentiated rate of return between what we absolutely will earn on anything we do ever versus the cost of the money that we used to invest it? Then we will just figure out how much to borrow, we will absolutely earn that return and it will be absolutely perfect. So this is perhaps an exciting day for all Australians because we are on the cusp of something that involves no taxation ever again. I don't know if CNN are running this live and whether the world is about to stop, but we now have a government that effectively says, 'We can spend all sorts of money at absolutely no budgetary cost whatsoever with no reliance on taxpayers.' Obviously that is completely farcical and ridiculous. Now that we have this happening in a pattern—we have had it on the housing bill and now we have it on this bill before the House—these bills have nothing to do with what all the speeches claim they will spend the money on, because will the money ever eventuate? In particular, what kind of financial risk, when things go bad, are we putting the finances of this nation into? It is very much akin to the Jim Cairns-Rex Connor approach to public finances, and we all know how that ended. In fact, thankfully, it stopped before it could even get going. Even people back then—this might be an oxymoron—the responsible members of the Whitlam government—that's a relative term—could not stomach that kind of recklessness. But now apparently we are incurring tens of billions of dollars of debt, saying that beyond any question there will be a return higher than the cost of that money that we can just spend for free off the budget. We on this side of the House are standing up to the fraud of that proposition. We always hope that the Future Fund is going to have strong returns. The Future Find is a very important capability for us to meet future liabilities and we commend the excellent work and performance of it over the years. But the chair of the Future Fund himself has said, and it is a very reasonable comment, that he is uncertain about the economic future, and people have to prepare themselves for the fact that the Future Fund cannot be expected to buck the trend of markets and be able to keep returning heroic rates of return through any form of economic cycle. We have a government proposing these sorts of measures where we are on the cusp of some of the greatest risk in the economic market cycle that we have seen for decades. For all of this to go wrong, all that has to happen is the returns we are meant to get on these billions of dollars of borrowings fall below the cost of those borrowings. The cost of borrowing is going up; that's an indisputable fact. We absolutely know that. So the rate at which the government is borrowing money right now is much higher than when the then Labor opposition conceived these hocus-pocus schemes. Equally, the return of investment for Future Fund and its outlook is dramatically down. We have no idea how the markets and how these sorts of returns are going to shift into the future but, regrettably, there is a very high risk that they will go the wrong way. So what this parliament is being asked to do on this bill and on another bill that has regrettably been through earlier today is to pretend fictitiously that there is no risk whatsoever, that it is completely guaranteed and completely reliable and that we can apparently play the markets better than anyone else in the global markets and always achieve a regular guaranteed permanent return. There's just no way that that is achievable. So we've got to decide what sort of fiscal responsibility and, in particular, what sort of balance sheet responsibility we want to have as the Commonwealth of Australia, and how important our AAA credit rating is—in particular, the credibility that we've got in global bond markets. If we are reckless with that and the worst-case scenario occurs, imagine where we will be as a nation if, because of these sorts of policies, we see our reputation in global debt markets deteriorate. That is what has been put on the line here with this kind of recklessness: 'What's a good press release in an election campaign? Where can we achieve free money and say we're spending on all these great, colourful, shiny things and we don't have to find any budget savings and we don't have to do anything difficult or unpopular in order to pay for it?' In exchange for that press release and that press conference in an election campaign, saying we've got billions of dollars that we don't have, to spend on manufacturing and industry, the government is recklessly putting at risk our ability to sustainably finance the Commonwealth of Australia. It's not an insignificant thing. So I'm very proud of the important, strong, principled position that we've taken on this bill and on a similar bill, and I hope that it might persuade some of the reasonable members of the Albanese government who can channel some of the more reasonable members of the Whitlam government to stand up against this kind of fraudulent accounting trickery and put the interests of this nation first, put the finances of the people of Australia first, and vote down this bill. 11:31 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby After that highly entertaining exercise in fantasy land—a no-tax world! Good on you, Member for Sturt! That's from the people who left us almost a trillion dollars worth of debt. But let's return to talking about the bill. Boothby was once home to a thriving Mitsubishi motor plant at Tonsley. For many who grew up in Boothby, the automotive industry was a defining feature of economic life—from 1964, when it opened as Chrysler, to 2008, when it closed as Mitsubishi. It was an industrial focus and a major employer for the southern suburbs. While Mitsubishi may have gone from Boothby, manufacturing, innovation, research and industry continue to thrive. That's why I'm thrilled to speak today about this bill to establish the National Reconstruction Fund. The Albanese government was elected on a mandate to drive the transformation of Australian industry and revive our ability to make world-class products here in Australia. In fact, the Prime Minister, then in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, announced our policy for a national reconstruction fund back in 2021, because he and those of us who now sit on this side of the House could see that opportunities had been wasted for too long. And, as we dealt with COVID-19 and all the restrictions, challenges and hardships that came with it, it became blindingly obvious that, as a country, we were not where we needed to be. As global supply chains ground to a halt and demand for health supplies, electronics and many other items soared, the relative decline in our sovereign capability became obvious. It was clear to anyone paying attention that there was a need to revitalise and rebuild Australian manufacturing as a powerhouse for jobs, as a powerhouse for the economy and to protect our own supply chains. Seems like a no-brainer. And so we come to the government's $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund. The bill establishes the fund as a new Commonwealth entity. The NRF will provide finance, including loans, guarantees and equity, to drive investments in seven priority areas of the economy. These leverage Australia's natural and competitive strengths, support the development of strategically important industries and shore up supply chains. The bill establishes the fund's independent board and outlines the fund's functions and powers, including those relating to investment. Importantly, the bill establishes the power for the responsible ministers, the ministers for industry and finance, to issue an investment mandate to guide the investment strategy of the fund and declare the priority areas of the Australian economy. These priority areas have been identified by the minister as the following. Value-add in resources: the fund will aim to expand Australia's mining science technology and ensure a greater share of raw materials extracted are processed domestically—for example, high-purity alumina from red mud in bauxite processing or lithium processing for batteries, which we know will be a key economic resource and growth driver for the decades to come. As a country we are blessed to have these in-demand minerals, but instead of shipping them offshore to be processed and then buying them back as products at much higher prices, we should be processing them here so the financial benefit accrues to us, Australians, and the jobs are here for us, Australians. Value-add in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors: the fund will work to unlock potential and value-add to raw materials in sectors like food processing and textiles, clothing and footwear manufacturing. Transport: it will develop capabilities in transport manufacturing and supply chains, including for cars, trains and shipbuilding, to ensure we have efficient, effective transport to power industry. Medical science, which is the key for Boothby, which is home to both a major hospital and a leading research university, as well as to a number of high-tech medical innovators: the fund will work to leverage Australia's world-leading research to provide essential supplies, such as medical devices, personal protective equipment, medicines and vaccines. Renewables and low-emission technologies: this is a fantastic opportunity for us to sell to the world. It will pursue commercial opportunities, including for components for wind turbines; the production of batteries and solar panels; new livestock feed to reduce methane emissions; modernised steel and aluminium; hydrogen electrolysers, and we have the largest hydrogen electrolyser in the country in Tonsley, in Boothby; and innovative packaging solutions to reduce waste. We need these things for our future here in Australia, but they are going to be in high demand around the world. This is key to our becoming a renewable energy superpower. Defence capability: as a representative from South Australia, I have seen how many good, well-paying jobs are being driven in improving our defence capability, not just directly in defence and in the submarine and frigate builds, but as we see in the Tonsley innovation precinct, many companies are seeing the opportunity to join the supply chain, even if they've never been part of defence previously. The fund will work to maximise sourcing of requirements from Australian suppliers employing Australian workers, whether they be in technology, infrastructure or skills, and the government has already announced target investment levels for specific priority areas. There is up to $3 billion for renewables and low-emissions technologies, $1.5 billion for medical manufacturing, $1 billion for value-adding in resources, $1 billion for critical technologies, $1 billion for advanced manufacturing and $500 million for value-adding in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and fibre. The National Reconstruction Fund will target projects and investments that help Australia capture new high­value-market opportunities to help our businesses grow and succeed. This is about not just the economy of today, which is itself so vitally important, but the economy of the future. It's about setting Australia up to lead the world in these fields so that we can benefit from the growth that will come from these areas. The fund also includes finance to grow advanced manufacturing and to support businesses to innovate and move up the technological ladder. As a co-investment fund, the NRF looks to draw in investment support from superannuation, venture capital and private equity sources, bringing in investment to help create high-quality, sustainable industries and jobs. We know that locking in the 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 has brought certainty to business and investment and has made Australia a much more attractive investment opportunity. There is opportunity to discuss lessons around targeting investment to support manufacturing capability in our regions to make sure they benefit from sustainable economic growth. Modelling the NRF on the successful Clean Energy Finance Corporation, this bill establishes the NRF as a corporate Commonwealth entity. Importantly, the National Reconstruction Fund will be administered at arm's length from government by an independent board appointed jointly by the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Finance. The government will provide guidance on expectations and policy priorities through a legislative instrument and an investment mandate, as I outlined earlier. To ensure integrity, accountability and value for money, the board will independently make investment decisions and manage its investment portfolio to achieve both the NRF's objectives and a positive portfolio rate of return. Free from political influence, there won't be a colour-coded spreadsheet in sight. There's long been an argument made that government has no role to play picking winners, no role to play guiding industry, no role to play other than establishing guardrails and letting business do its thing, only stepping in when there's been market failure. But this is not a do-nothing government, as the previous one was—happy to let things float along, see where they end up, taking credit for the wins and disavowing the losses. As the minister has said, government does have a role to play making real contributions to our most vital sectors. That's what we're elected for. Australia is rich with valuable critical resources—resources we could have rightly expected to be used to build our manufacturing base, add value and create jobs here in Australia. But for decades we've mined these resources and shipped them off overseas, only for other countries to process and add value to them, and then we import them back at many times the price—sending the manufacturing industry, their profits and the thousands of jobs they create overseas. If we mine it here, we should make it here. Australia's know-how, with our scientists and our innovators, is among the best in the world. Photovoltaic technology, solar cells, was invented here. But today 87 per cent of the world's cells are made in another country. You can imagine what that means in dollar value. In the next three years, that number will be 94 per cent. If only it was still here in Australia! As the world urgently focuses on decarbonisation, the transition to renewables and low-emission technologies will play a vital role in delivering Australia's emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. We're well placed to make the most of our technology and our skills. If we invent it here, we should make it here. We've seen what happens when Australia fails to back itself and fails to back its people. They go overseas and take their experience, their know-how and their passion with them. We want Australians living overseas to come home. We recognise many of them left Australia seeking support and funding for their ideas—support and funding they just couldn't find at home. We want to empower the NRF to invest in Australia and Australians—Australian know-how, Australian ideas, Australian ingenuity. Both this bill and the mandate guiding investments will make sure the $15 billion fund drives Australia's natural inclination towards innovation. Our focus is on renewing, revitalising and rebuilding Australia's manufacturing industry for Australians, for small-business owners, for the regions, for jobs. I turn back to the old Mitsubishi Motors factory at Tonsley, in Boothby. In 2012 the Weatherill state Labor government bought the property. The old factory site was turned into an innovation precinct, and 13 years later there are more people employed on site there than there were during the Mitsubishi car factory days. It is a world-recognised invasion hub. Tonsley is home to the sort of modern manufacturing the National Reconstruction Fund could encourage in the future; home to companies that work in clean tech and renewable energy, health, medical devices, assertive technologies, mining and energy services, automation software and simulation; and home to the Global Centre for Modern Ageing, SAGE Automation, Hydro Consulting, Tesla, Micro-X and so many more. It's a really exciting place to go and a constant buzz of innovation and growth. This is the way of the future. Australia has so many opportunities to build manufacturing, build jobs for Australians and build industries. The National Reconstruction Fund helps companies and industries prepare for a bright new future. I commend the bill. 11:44 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies It's always worthwhile listening to speakers that come before you, from both sides. It gives you a sense of perspective about what matters to each side. I am really glad to see that the Minister for Defence Industry is here and that the member for Boothby, in her contribution, mentioned defence. We saw earlier this week the true heart of the Labor Party. On the one hand, we had the Labor Party come in here and show their statesman credentials, and we heard them speaking in hushed tones about veterans, national security and how we're on a unity ticket for the national interest. Then, as they turn on a dime, we see the other side of the Labor Party come in, the brawler side. I didn't come up with the words 'brawler statesman'. Someone who sits over there, the Treasurer, came up with those words. A lot of commentary has been given about the Treasurer's 6,000-word essay over summer. No-one on this side has criticised the Treasurer for putting pen to paper. Mr Conroy 249127 I think a few have. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Oh no. We commend him for doing it. Mr Taylor 231027 It's what he put on the paper that's the problem. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 That's right. It's what he said. I encourage the defence industry minister to write some long-form papers. We'll definitely read them. There were a lot of instructive statements within that paper, including purlers like this: Our mission is to redefine and reform our economy and institutions … It's a mission. So it's not just about this bill; it's about what this bill is supporting. He then goes on to say: If we could redesign markets … The Treasurer doesn't say what he means by 'redesign markets', but it does pose a question: maybe he could extend this essay out beyond 6,000 words to something that maybe looks like a thesis. Then he talks about renovating the RBA. Some commentators have said that that obviously doesn't mean a new set of curtains and a lick of paint but it means more something more substantial. We wait to see what those proposals will be. He goes on to say: And we will renew and revitalise the Productivity Commission … It begs the question: what is it about the Productivity Commission that the Treasurer doesn't like? Is it its mission statement of actually reforming and boosting productivity in this nation? He continues: … it's not just our economic institutions that need renewing and restructuring, but the way our markets allocate and arrange capital as well. 'Allocate and arrange capital'—that sounds very much like a Treasurer who is focused on injecting himself and the government into how capital is allocated in our markets. And that has never ended well, anywhere in the world. But for some reason that's a great idea for this government to have at this time. When you look to the Treasurer's thesis, which is a lot longer than his 6,000-word essay— Mr Taylor 231027 Not a lot of economics. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 No, there's not a lot of economics. I was looking for economics. I looked in chapter 1. It's titled 'Brawler Statesman'—no economics there. There is a subchapter called 'Revisiting Prime Ministerial Power'—again, no economics. In chapter 2, 'Prime Ministerial Leadership'—no economics there. There is a subchapter, again, on prime ministerial power. The word 'power' comes up a lot in this thesis. It seems to be quite an interest and obsession of this Treasurer—the word 'power' and how power is obtained and wielded. Mr Taylor 231027 He means political power not electrical power. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Exactly. That's right. It's certainly not power that powers our manufacturing sector, powers our homes. That is not the focus of the Treasurer. Chapter 3 is 'Leading Labor'—that's a keen interest of the Treasurer, and I'm sure that was a keen interest of the Treasurer in his 6,000-word essay. There is a subchapter titled 'Factions'. When the Treasurer is thinking about factions in the Labor Party and he pens a 6,000-word essay, what buzzwords is he including that he knows will go down well within certain sections of the people sitting behind him? We know what they are. No-one loves neoliberalism, so of course he sticks the boot into neoliberalism. He doesn't define it, but he sticks the boot in, because he knows that goes down well with the people sitting behind him. He talks about the Washington consensus and how that's been a terrible, terrible thing for this nation. When you go through all of this thesis, there is nothing in there about economics. That brings us to this bill, the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. I again refer to the defence industry minister. When you came in here and linked this bill to our national security objectives, to AUKUS, that wasn't a statesman move; that was a brawler move. You came in here with your brawler hat on. That's a choice you made. You can choose to be a statesman and you can choose to be a brawler—I've seen you do both. We commend you when you're a statesman, but you came in as a brawler. It's a new low, because AUKUS should be above politics. Those who sit on the other side are of that view. There was bipartisan combined trip to Washington to reinforce AUKUS because it's an important thing for our nation, and we commend you for that. But then you come in here, take your statesman hat off and put your brawler hard hat on. When you promise bipartisanship on AUKUS— Mr Taylor 231027 They're remaking capitalism! Mr WOLAHAN 235654 exactly—it should sit above day-to-day politics, but we haven't seen that. Mr Burnell 300129 Mate, you're a brawler! Mr WOLAHAN 235654 A brawler! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order! Can I remind members that this is not a several-way conversation. Can we have some quiet please. M 235654 Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So this isn't about national security; this isn't about our domestic manufacturing. It's about politics; it's about power. When this bill was introduced, there was no mention of AUKUS, no mention of national security—no, that was wheeled out this week when it looked like the bill might be in a bit of trouble, when it looked like we were onto you. The heading of the bill looks great, but when you look at the detail it is bad policy that would create bad law, so of course we are not going to support it. This is desperate politics from a desperate government. If this were really about national security, why would you cut funding for the space industry? Why would you do that? The member for Sturt was quite right to point out that that is of particular interest in his seat and it should not have been cut; it should be supported. If Labor are so concerned about defence manufacturing, why have they held up millions of dollars for critical defence manufacturing projects that were funded through the Modern Manufacturing Strategy of the previous government? Why did you hold those up? So this politicises the landmark AUKUS partnership—it undermines our cornerstone national security agreement—and that shouldn't happen, in this place or any other place. We should not link the National Reconstruction Fund to a critical security pact, and particularly when the Labor government will be relying on the support of the Greens to pass this bill through the Senate. What demands linked to national security will be put on you? Australians are entitled to know what you will trade to get this through the Senate. We ask the Labor Party to immediately rule out things like mandating union board membership and mandating union agreements as a condition of entry to the fund, because we know several unions have joined many anti-AUKUS protests in recent months. We need to look at the bigger picture. The Treasurer let us think he was looking at the bigger picture, but he wasn't. We are in a cost-of-living crisis in this country. Australians are hurting and they're asking, 'What is this government going to do to help?' Not much. We know from the IMF that the off-budget funding of $45 billion will directly contribute to higher inflation and higher interest rates, and that is going to be paid for by working families in this country—families at their wits' end because their mortgage repayments are going up. There are 800,000 families who will come off fixed interest rates this year alone. We have a by-election coming up in the seat of Aston. That seat is full of working families. Those of them who are on the average mortgage for that area, $750,000, are going to have to find an extra $19,000, and that's after tax. Those families are going to have to see about $24,000 extra in their wages just to fund the increases from this year alone. When we listen to the RBA—and we should listen to the RBA—that's not the end of it; there is more coming. What is this government doing to help? Well, off-budget bills like this one are not helping. They not helping, because each $6 billion can lead to a quarter of a per cent increase in the cash rate. So $45 billion of off-budget funding is not helping them when they need that help. But there's more to the seat of Aston. It has some of the highest rates of car ownership in the country. Many families have two cars and they travel long distances to get to work. An honourable member interjecting— Mr WOLAHAN 235654 I hear the interjection about the car industry, and it's about the bowser; it's about the cost of fuel. They're noticing that, as they put fuel into their car, it is double numbers for the cost compared to the litres. I've heard families tell me that they don't think they can work at the same job anymore, because it's costing too much to get from home to work and back again. So where are they finding those savings? They're not finding those savings from the government; they're finding those savings themselves. So they're going to have to cut things like school excursions, they're going to have to adjust what sort of food they buy, they're going to have to cancel holidays and they're maybe going to have to take kids out of a private school. They're going to have to cut so many other things, because there's very little room to move when you have to find that much extra money. I listened to the member for Casey's contribution on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill, and he gave a very constructive checklist about what really guides these sorts of bills. The first thing he said was, 'It has a wonderful name.' It would be like the 'national reconstruction fund for puppies', and, if we're not supporting that, why do we hate puppies? It's the oldest trick in the book: you create a great name, then you don't worry about the detail; you don't worry about how it actually affects people on the ground. Just say, 'Because you oppose it, you oppose the name that we have put into it.' Australians deserve better than that. It's cheap politics and it's inserting cheap politics into the name of a bill. We will never support bad policy, which will become bad law. If you think about what this government is actually doing for manufacturing in this country, then you only have to turn to the radical industrial relations legislation that has been imposed on them—a regime that was not brought to the Australian people at the election. There was no legitimacy for that. It will not help manufacturing respond to a modern economy, and many manufacturing companies may end up closing because of that. Many manufacturing companies—and these are small family companies, medium enterprises—tell me that the biggest pressures on them are the cost of power, the cost of fuel and the cost of capital. Again, we come back to the Treasurer's essay, where he's looking to see how capital is reformed, how capital is allocated. Whenever a government does that, it always ends terribly, and it's not a Treasurer who pays the price, and it's not the government; it is people, it is small business and it is families. They are hurting, and they are asking for so much more. So can we cease the practice of coming in here with a fancy-sounding bill and saying, 'It's a binary choice; you're either for it or against it.' Can we say: 'What are you doing to help families who are struggling with the cost of living? What are you doing to help reduce inflation?' That's the only question that matters to the economy right now; that's the only question that matters to families and small businesses that are struggling. If you're not contributing to reducing inflation—and this place is a huge role to play in that—then you're part of the problem, and if you're part of the problem, then there should be consequences at the ballot box. I think the first test of that will be the upcoming by-election in the seat of Aston. Families are struggling to put fuel into the car, struggling to pay the mortgage and making really serious compromises to the things that should make people happy, the things that keep families together, the things that make a good life—school fees, school sport, excursions, holidays and good food. We hear so many stories of people eating less meat; they're eating things that are not bought on the edge of the aisle but in the aisle, because they need to be able to store it so they can keep it for next week or the week after. So many people are living pay cheque to pay cheque. So we plead with the Labor Party: please, stop the cheap politics and join with us in helping use fiscal policy to reduce inflation, to help families and to give them a break, because they need it. 11:59 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite This bill, the National Reconstruction Fund Bill 2022, is all about making things in Australia again, growing jobs, reducing the cost-of-living pressures facing many Australians and giving all Australians a sense of pride in our nation. People across Greater Geelong and in my electorate of Corangamite understand all too well the importance of revitalising manufacturing and the jobs that accompany it after years of neglect under the coalition government. The Geelong Ford factory produced its last Australian-made straight-six and V8 engines in September 2016. Assembly at Broadmeadows, in Melbourne, ended a month later. About 600 workers lost their jobs at Ford, but many more lost their jobs in the smaller manufacturing businesses which supplied components and services to Ford. The exit of three carmakers—Ford, Holden and Toyota—from 2013 to 2017, under the coalition government, wiped out jobs on a scale rarely seen before. Those opposite in the coalition had an astounding nine industry ministers over those nine years. Their dysfunction in government left Australia's manufacturing industry in tatters. Coalition ministers stood right here in this place and baited the Australian car industry into leaving the country. Not surprisingly, that's exactly what the car companies did. Australia has suffered nearly a decade of policy drift under the coalition. Australia ranks dead last in the OECD when it comes to manufacturing self-sufficiency. It's a sorry record of manufacturing and job loss from the former coalition government. In stark contrast, the Albanese government has a plan to drive the transformation of the Australian industry and the jobs that go with it. In a plan to revive the nation's ability and capability to make world-class products right here in Australia, manufacturing matters because it creates full-time, meaningful work and secure jobs, both directly and indirectly. This bill to establish the National Reconstruction Fund is the first step in that plan to rebuild Australia's industrial base. The $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund will provide a crucial financing vehicle to drive investment in projects that will build prosperity across our country. It will provide loans, guarantees and equity to support projects that create secure, well-paid jobs, drive regional development and innovation, invest in our national sovereign capability and diversify Australia's economy. Through the National Reconstruction Fund we will partner with businesses to unlock further private investment of more than $30 billion. This investment will play to our strengths, supporting new and emerging industries, transitioning existing industries to net zero emissions and making it easier to commercialise innovation and technology—something that we have struggled to do in the past. The fund will not support grants; they would erode the fund's capital over time and undermine its ability to deliver returns. It's intended to be a commercial entity, generating a positive rate of return over time. Returns on investments will be available for future investments, ensuring the fund can continue to provide targeted finance. This bill establishes the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation as a new Commonwealth entity. This fund is modelled on Labor's successful Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The corporation will be governed by an independent board making independent investment decisions. It will have a chief executive and staff and it will publish investment reports quarterly. It will also provide detailed financial and operational information in its annual reports to parliament. As a co-investment fund, it will seek to draw in investment support with superannuation, venture capital and private equity sources to help create high-quality, sustainable industries and, importantly, jobs. Pleasingly for those of us from regional Australia, there will be targeted investment to support manufacturing capability in our regions. In Corangamite, in my region, there is much capability to build on. It will make sure regions benefit from sustainable economic growth. As I've said, in my electorate, there have been excellent past examples of targeted joint investment supporting research and manufacturing. There are institutions like Deakin University's Waurn Ponds campus, within my electorate, working in research and pilot manufacturing. ManuFutures is one such example. It is an advanced manufacturing hub in the heart of Deakin's future economy precinct. The university has chalked up impressive innovation successes leading to commercialisation and many hundreds of jobs in a number of areas, including advanced fibres and textiles, carbon fibre and composites, advanced alloys and electro and energy materials. Another example is Carbon Revolution. It began as a small start-up with a great idea creating lightweight, ultra strong carbon fibre and using it to build high-performance wheels in the premium or top end of the market with companies such as Ferrari, Renault, General Motors and Ford. They also supply components for the aeronautical industry. Elsewhere around the Geelong region, I'm seeing excellent examples of manufacturing innovation in the private sector. I give a shout-out to the Geelong Manufacturing Council for its work in supporting local manufacturers and start-ups. There are countless opportunities in many fields of endeavour waiting to be tapped into and supported to flourish across this nation. Importantly, the Geelong council is already encouraging its members to look at the possibilities that the National Reconstruction Fund will provide. The council understands the opportunities for innovation and commercialisation in manufacturing. The fund will open these opportunities to it. The fund also has potential to undertake innovative work like that in Deakin, in the Geelong manufacturing community and elsewhere across the nation to a whole new level. As with other Commonwealth special investment vehicles, the responsible ministers will issue investment mandates to the fund's council. While the government will set its mandate to drive investment in key sectors to make the most of Australia's natural and competitive strengths, the fund's board will always operate independently. The investment mandate will guide the board on a range of matters, including the government's performance expectations about rate of return, governance and risk management. The government will consult extensively with industry, state and territory governments, and community stakeholders to design the investment mandate. The board will then make investment decisions and manage its investment portfolio to achieve both the fund's objectives and a positive rate of return to ensure the fund's sustainability. The bill specifically prevents ministers from directing the board to make a particular investment. This model will ensure there will be no politically charged whiteboards or coloured spreadsheets highlighting marginal electorates when funding is being allocated by the board. The legislation requires that, to be eligible for appointment to the board, members must have substantial experience and professional credibility in at least one of the fields listed in the bill. The bill also provides for the board to establish committees made up of both board members and external experts to provide expertise to support the board's decision-making. This will help ensure sound investment decisions are made across priority areas. Crucially, co-investment plans will be developed collaboratively with industry. These will outline investment opportunities in priority areas and actions for government and industry to build Australia's industrial capabilities, and this is so important. The plans are expected to be released by the end of the year. It will invest across seven priority areas of our economy. Value adding in resources will help expand Australia's mining, science and technology sectors, ensuring that a greater share of raw materials extracted are processed domestically. For example, high-purity alumina from red mud in bauxite processing, or lithium processing for batteries. Value adding in agriculture, forestry and the fisheries sectors will unlock potential in areas like food processing, textiles, clothing and footwear manufacturing. In transport, it will help develop capabilities in transport manufacturing and supply chains, including for cars, trains and shipbuilding. In medical science, it will leverage Australia's world-leading research to provide essential supplies such as medical devices, personal protective equipment, medicines and vaccines, so important, as we know, after the COVID pandemic we have faced. In renewables and low-emission technologies, it will pursue commercial opportunities, including components for wind turbines, the production of batteries and solar panels, new livestock feed to reduce methane emissions, modernising steel and aluminium, hydrogen electrolysers and innovative packaging solutions to reduce waste. In defence capability, the plan will help maximise sourcing from Australian suppliers, employing Australian workers, whether it be in technology, infrastructure or skills. In enabling capabilities, the plan will support capabilities across engineering, data science and software development, including in areas such as artificial intelligence, robotics and quantum. Some people believe that government has no role to play other than establishing guard rails and letting business do its thing, only stepping in when there has been market failure. But the Albanese government does have a role to play in making real contributions to our most vital sectors. Australia is rich in valuable, critical resources—resources we can rightly expect to use to build our manufacturing base, add value and, importantly, create jobs here in Australia. But for decades we've mined those resources and shipped them overseas to other countries to process and add value, and then we've imported them back at many, many times the price. We've been effectively sending overseas what should be our manufacturing industries, their profits and the thousands of jobs they create. If we mine it here, we should make it here too. Australia's know-how, our science and our innovators are among the best in the world. Technology into solar cells was invented here. Yet today 87 per cent of the world's cells are made in another country, and in the next three years that number will be 94 per cent. It's not good enough, not when we're so well placed to make the most of our technology and our skills. Renewables and low-emission technologies will play a vital role in delivering Australia's emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. If we invent it here, we should make it here. We have seen what happens when Australia fails to back itself and fails to back our innovative people. They go overseas and they take their experience, know-how and passion with them. We want Australians who are living overseas to come home. We recognise that many of them left Australia seeking support and funding for their ideas—support and funding that they just couldn't find at home. The Albanese government wants to empower the National Reconstruction Fund to invest in Australia and Australians. This bill and the investment mandate guiding investments will ensure that the $15 billion fund drives Australia's natural inclination towards innovation. If we didn't already know it, the pandemic made it clear, through supply chain stresses, that Australia must be a country that supports local businesses and industries to make more things here. There is a great opportunity to support innovation in Australian industry after years of uncertainty and the lack of a plan. The Albanese government's focus is on renewing, revitalising and rebuilding Australia's manufacturing industry for small business owners and for regions like mine, including towns like Waurn Ponds, where Deakin University is. It is all about jobs as well. The National Reconstruction Fund is about building a better future for all Australians. It deserves support from all in this parliament, and I commend the bill to the House. 12:14 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I rise to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. I want to thank Minister Ed Husic for giving me the opportunity to discuss the NRF bill with him. It is my understanding that the purpose of the bill is to resurrect Australia's industrial and manufacturing capacity. I'd like to believe that the bill will set the foundation for the start of a new tomorrow for local manufacturing, even if it's small, such as small packaging-manufacturing companies like Pakko, set up by Nina Nguyen, a former constituent of mine who migrated to the Sunshine State to start this business so that local businesses can order packaging boxes in small quantities rather than having to order in bulk and wait for shipping containers. She's also creating employment opportunities in Geebung in Queensland. If we had a manufacturing hub in South-West Sydney, in Fowler, and the government support that this bill is proposing, I'm confident that Pakko would have been growing in South-West Sydney instead. I believe in local manufacturing, and on that principle I support the bill. But I also understand the challenges that many big manufacturing companies have in setting up in Australia, due to the costs involved and the fact that Australia, although big in land mass, is small in population compared to other developing nations. Nevertheless, I believe that the government can step in to provide support for small local manufacturing companies like Pakko to thrive and be competitive, at least locally. If the government is genuinely committed to supporting the growth of an industrial and manufacturing sector in technology and medical research then I call on the minister to really explore the possibility of creating such a hub for New South Wales in my electorate of Fowler. My electorate proudly boasts one of the largest family-run manufacturing businesses, based in Villawood. It is leading the way in the production of essential medical supplies. I visited Multigate's facility soon after my election in May last year to see the work that this company is doing, manufacturing critical medical supplies that service nearly every hospital in Australia. Their products include PPE, IV tubes and medical and surgical procedure packs that are vital to the day-to-day running of medical practices and hospitals. Peter Chang and Sam Chaisumdet founded Multigate with Ben Chen, and during the COVID pandemic they prioritised our local Australian hospitals over other profit channels to benefit Australians and Australian frontline workers. Two years on from the pandemic, Multigate continues to heavily invest in R&D to provide innovative excellence. Their Cadence suction irrigator, which assists surgeons in keyhole surgeries, is a product that has won awards for its design and innovation. Can I say, as someone of refugee background, that to know that Multigate, also from a refugee background, is contributing back massively to Australian society just shows that we, as a refugee community, play a huge role in our new home country once we've overcome the challenges of resettlement. Multigate is just one established company in south-west Sydney who could benefit from the NRF bill funding, and I'm looking forward to seeing the investment mandate and how it will benefit this sort of company, although I would rethink my position if the unions were to start making IR stipulations within the bill. I just want to emphasise to the government that they should consider the challenges faced by many small businesses in the current economic climate. I would hope the bill protects small and medium enterprises so that they don't require union involvement to apply for funding, because it would mean that many businesses in my electorate of Fowler would be at a serious disadvantage. Most businesses in my electorate do not have the capacity for enterprise bargaining obligations, and in the end it would mean that we as Australians would lose the opportunity to grow our local manufacturing industry. Companies like Multigate are a success story, but I also hope that the bill doesn't just provide for established businesses. It's important to acknowledge that innovation also comes from young startup entrepreneurs who just need the right backing at the right time. Business success isn't always about the idea itself; it is about who is willing to believe in the vision. Even if you have the most innovative of ideas, you still need the financial support. I would hope that the NRF provides equal opportunity for companies of all sizes and from across the community and the country. I will be championing those entrepreneurs and innovators in my division. It's disappointing, though, that the fund has not legislated for money to be put aside specifically for small and medium-sized enterprises. I want reassurances that this isn't going to help the big end of town and will go to truly worthy startups and manufacturers. One Australian startup company that would benefit from this is Opuz, who recently reached out to my office with their aspirations to set up in my electorate. With their patented smart ring technology, diabetics will no longer need to prick their finger to monitor their glucose levels, which is a painful process, as we all know. Nearly 1.2 million people across Australia have either type 1 or type 2 diabetes, with south-western Sydney having the highest rate of diabetes across the country. Technology like this could change thousands of lives and improve the general wellbeing of many diabetic patients. The Opuz founders, directors and staff also reflect the rich multiculturalism in south-western Sydney. This cultural diversity allows us to draw on the experience of international communities for collaboration, like both the United States and Israel, who lead the world in technology research and development because of the wealth of diversity represented in their R&D sectors. We can look to their examples to become truly globally competitive. Manufacturing is one of the biggest employment sectors in Fowler, ranging from food processing to medical supplies, building materials, woodwork and recycling. I for one disagree with those people who believe that manufacturing in Australia is a dying sector and there isn't any reason for intervention in an industry that is becoming irrelevant. Those people want us to rely on cheap imports instead of locally made products. Now is the time to reinvigorate our manufacturing sector. Without local manufacturing, we become reliant on external forces, which was painfully evident during the COVID pandemic, when our country all but came to a complete halt. People in New South Wales relied on our local drivers to deliver food and our warehouses to continue making goods; however, that was not enough to sustain our economy. Even as we recover from the impacts of the pandemic, we are still feeling the hurt from the devastation it left behind. The aftermath of the pandemic showed a glaring flaw within the Australian economy. We were not sustainable without our import market. But we have the power to change that. Two years on, we are still seeing unprecedented material supply shortages as a result of the pandemic. It is up to us to ensure this never happens again. As I have said, in principle I support the NRF funding that encourages local manufacturing; however, any such bill must address the skills and labour shortages we are currently experiencing, especially within the manufacturing sector. I recently met with Simon, a local mechanic who owns a tyre shop. He told me that it is increasingly difficult to import tyres from overseas due to logistics and cost and, at the local level, he is struggling to find skilled workers. He said: 'I have been in business for over 27 years and it's been a family business for 45 years. We have seen it all, from a number of recessions, high fuel costs, interest rates well over 18 per cent, import shortages and COVID—but this is the worst we have seen. The government seems to be throwing money at it by giving us incentives, but we don't need money; we need people to come to work to make money.' Therefore, in order for our manufacturing industry to get back to work, we need workers, not just money. A 2021 report by David Gonski and Professor Peter Shergold into the VET sector points out the societal shift from the VET sector to higher education due to negative perceptions. VET graduates are no less valuable than university graduates. After all, university isn't everyone's cup of tea. Some people are more entrepreneurial and may prefer to start their own business after high school or TAFE so they can work their own hours while earning a decent salary. We need to shift the public discourse around VET courses to let future generations know that they do not need to go to university to be considered successful. I understand the Institute of Applied Technology has been set up in New South Wales to tackle this issue. This gives VET participants the opportunity to upskill via microcredentials so they can start shifting into the innovative technology sector. The microcredentials pathway is very important. I ask that the government bring together VET, universities and businesses to ensure we do not have workforce shortages once our advanced manufacturing industries get set up. I hope they do get to start the process of setting up. There's no point in having innovative products if there's no-one around to build or run them. The pandemic also demonstrated the need for the government to establish a centre for disease control so that we can better prepare for health crises across the country. In a submission to the minister, Research Australia suggested: The Ministers should obtain the advice of a future Centre for Disease Control about medical products for which there is a critical unmet need for domestic manufacturing. I do not want to see my community go through what we did in 2021 ever again. I call on the government to implement a centre for disease control as a matter of urgency, utilising the NRF bill funding. I think we can all agree that the health of the nation should be our No. 1 priority. As for the return on investment, I agree with Research Australia, who said that it shouldn't be considered in this particular instance. After all, the 'return on investment' from medical research is, first and foremost, the health and wellbeing of our citizens and, second, softening the financial impact on our economy should another health crisis happen. I understand another priority area the government is exploring is the clean energy and renewables sector. I commend Minister Husic's plans to boost research and development and encourage local development of such technology. As we are to move towards a more renewable future, we must find the means to manufacture it here in Australia. There is no reason why we shouldn't right here in Australia be manufacturing electric cars, buses and other modes of transport. It would reduce the manufacturing and supply chain costs and environmental costs, which would ultimately benefit middle Australia. I'm sure many of you in this House know that lithium plays a critical role in the clean energy sector. Australia is one of the world's biggest lithium exporters, exporting about 60 per cent of its reserves. At the moment we export lithium for extracting and refining. Then that gets exported again to another country to make batteries to be installed in EVs. Then those cars get exported to Australia. It just doesn't make sense. If we take measured approaches to ensuring that we have a sustainable long-term manufacturing economy then we have the potential to be leaders in the renewable manufacturing sector. I can see the potential of the NRF bill to boost the economy in Fowler and the whole country. Although to truly benefit all of us, we must think outside of the box, support new ideas, embrace innovation and be willing to take risks. After all, the same industries overseas have shown that diversity of backgrounds leads to the best outcomes. With that in mind, I was glad to get reassurance from the minister—it's only reassurance—that the board will have people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and with personal experience in this sector. It is an assurance. Whether or not that's going to be implemented is another question, but I take comfort in being reassured. As we look to develop innovation and manufacturing in Australia, let's go west. Go to south-west Sydney, where we have the people, the energy, the cultural diversity, the talent and the potential to reignite the manufacturing sector in Australia. Our ability to innovate and to develop infrastructure will enable us to be first-class manufacturers locally, even if it's small; nationally, if we can grow big; and across the globe. 12:27 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The Albanese government was elected on a mandate to drive the transformation of Australian industry and to revive our ability to make world-class products here in Australia—A Future Made in Australia. Manufacturing matters because it creates full-time, meaningful work and secure, well-paid jobs. We saw through the pandemic our supply chains under huge pressure. Products we expected to have on hand were hard to obtain. We need to revitalise manufacturing after years of neglect under those opposite. There are a couple of reasons for that. One of them is that they had nine industry ministers in nine years, which has left Australia's manufacturing industry in tatters. I remind people that it was Ian Macfarlane; Christopher Pyne; Greg Hunt; Arthur Sinodinos; Senator Cash; Karen Andrews; Christian Porter, a former member of this place; Angus Taylor, the current shadow Treasurer; and, of course, the member for Cook, the former Prime Minister—and I'm not sure if that was a double-up ministry or he just held it on his own. Those opposite stood right here, in this place, and baited the Australian car industry into leaving our nation. I remember how frustrated, amazed, disappointed and angry I was, because I knew what it meant. They baited the car industry into leaving Australia. Many may recall our former treasurer Joe Hockey telling Holden from this House, 'Either you are here or you are not,' and refusing to consider $500 million in assistance. In hindsight, that was a paltry amount— Mr Pitt 148150 It's half a billion. Mr GOSLING 245392 and we all know the outcome of that story. An astounding 40,000 car-manufacturing workers lost their jobs. I'll take the interjection from the honourable member that it was half a billion. Well, losing 40,000 car-manufacturing workers is pretty significant. Having all those high-tech jobs is pretty important. When we have a pandemic and we face an uncertain future, it's important to have sovereign manufacturing so that we can make things like electric vehicles and other high-tech pieces of kit—maybe even guided missiles, which we may need to protect the homeland in the future. So much was lost. So, as I said, in hindsight it was a paltry amount. Most countries around the world subsidise car manufacturing because they're smart and understand how important 40,000 car-manufacturing jobs are. This government believes in the future of the Australian manufacturing industry. That's why we're delivering the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund. It's a key platform to support, diversify and transform Australia's industry and to create sustainable, well-paid jobs. The fund will provide finance, including loans, guarantees and equity, to drive investments in seven priority areas of the Australian economy. These will leverage Australia's natural and competitive strengths to support the development of strategically important industries, to shore up our supply chains and, as I said, to make more things here. The first of the seven priority areas is to value-add in resources. We need to do that. For so long we've just shipped our resources offshore. This fund will expand Australia's mining, science and technology and ensure a greater share of the raw materials that are extracted are processed domestically. This could include high-purity alumina from red mud in bauxite processing or lithium processing for batteries. The second priority is to value-add in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector. This, too, will unlock potential and value-add to raw materials in sectors like food processing—and we're doing a deep dive on food processing, in the aquaculture area, in our fisheries in the Northern Territory at the moment—textiles, clothing and footwear, and manufacturing. My mum's first job was with a bootmaker in Melbourne, but it's been a long time since we manufactured footwear. We could be doing a lot more of it again with smart technology and a bit of support. Priority area No. 3 is transport. The fund will develop capabilities in transport manufacturing and supply chains, including for cars and trains and in shipbuilding. I would add aircraft building to that. Certainly in Darwin, in my electorate of Solomon, we are going to be manufacturing amphibious aircraft into the future. We've got the first one in the hangar right now and we've got orders coming in from overseas. The ability to take off and land on water is very handy when the Indo-Pacific includes the two large bodies of water, those being the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, not to mention all the seas that surround our island nation. Medical science is the fourth priority. We've got some world-leading researchers, and we want to back them so they can provide, here in our own nation, essential supplies such as medical devices, personal protective equipment, medicines and vaccines. We saw during the pandemic that we couldn't get hand sanitiser or masks when we needed them in those early days. I congratulate the Australian companies that quickly got their own ability to produce face masks, for example, up and running. We need to be able to produce our own medical instruments, our own PPE, our own medicines and our own vaccines. No. 5 is renewables and low-emissions technologies. Again, we've got some of the best and brightest people. Everyone knows the shame, the missed opportunity that was seeing some of our best solar technicians go overseas when they couldn't get the funding to commercialise their brilliance. That's what it was—Australian ingenuity and brilliance in those researchers and scientists. They felt compelled to pursue this, but the funding wasn't available here, so they went overseas. We won't let that happen again. We'll address the brain drain we've had by providing opportunities here so that those brilliant Australia minds will stay and so that we can attract brilliant minds from overseas who want to come to Australia, where there are skills shortages. This fund will facilitate more funding into these high-end manufacturing renewable industries, like components for wind turbines, as we see wind farming accelerate around our nation. The production of batteries and solar panels—I've been talking to companies that want to do that in Middle Arm, just outside my electorate, in the member for Lingiari's electorate. That Middle Arm precinct is going to be part of this big move towards us having renewable technologies produced right here in Australia, aided and assisted by this fund. We're also an agricultural country, and new livestock feed will reduce methane emissions, which is incredibly important. We also make steel, though not as much as we used to, and we're modernising steel and aluminium. Hydrogen electrolysers are so important for green hydrogen of the future. Again, some of that will be happening in the north. Innovative packaging solutions will reduce waste, and we do have a sincere and genuine commitment to the circular economy—less waste, smarter tech and recycling more and more. No. 6 is defence capability. The fund will maximise sourcing of requirements from Australian suppliers, employing Australian workers, whether they be in technology, infrastructure or skills. Making more of our capability here is incredibly important, not only from a sovereignty point of view but for us to be assured of our supply chains in times of strategic competition—hopefully not war; we'll be doing everything we can to avoid that, but if it does come to that, we want to make sure that our supply chains operate within our nation and that as much as possible of what our Defence Force uses to defend our nation can come from within. That's just smart. No. 7 is enabling capabilities. This fund will support key enabling capabilities across engineering, data science and software development, including areas such as AI, robotics and quantum mechanics. Our government has previously announced target investment levels for specific priority areas within the fund. For the information of honourable members and members of the public listening, we're talking about $3 billion for renewables and low-emission technologies; $1½ billion for medical manufacturing; $1 billion for value adding in resources, which is absolutely essential; $1 billion for critical technologies; $1 billion for advanced manufacturing; and half a billion for value adding in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and fibre, which is as important for emissions reduction as it is for food security and growing our ag sector and aquaculture sector. The National Reconstruction Fund will target projects and investments that help Australia capture new, high-value market opportunities to help our Aussie businesses and the international businesses that work in Australia employ Australians to grow and succeed now in our economy of today but also in the high-technology economy we're building for tomorrow. This includes fund financing, advance manufacturing and supporting of businesses to innovate as they move up the technological ladder. Moving up that ladder is so absolutely vital. There's no way for us to compete in the world if we don't climb that technological ladder. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about traditional primary industries or the high-tech part of our economy; it all has to move up the innovation ladder. It all has to move and advance up that technological ladder if we're going to compete and be successful. That's why this fund's so important. As a co-investment fund, the National Reconstruction Fund looks to draw in investment support from super, from venture capital and from private equity sources, getting that investment to help create high-quality sustainable industries and jobs for Australians. That's why it's so important. As for its structure and governance, investment powers will be restricted to set priority areas. These will be determined jointly by the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Finance in a legislative instrument. There's so much more I could say about this fund but time is against me. I want to make clear to those listening that our government is committed to making renewables and low-emission technologies one of the key areas, but we also recognise that traditional primary industries will benefit as well and absolutely need to innovate, to develop for themselves, for the future, so they can stay competitive. That's what we're committed to doing and that's what this fund will facilitate. I sincerely hope that those opposite support this. I hope that the crossbench supports this. It's essential for our nation's future. It's essential for our nation's security. On that basis, I very much support it. 12:43 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. If you're feeling kind, you could potentially call this a smokescreen. If you're feeling less kind, you'd call it a political stunt. But the reality is that this proposal is a political showbag. Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I'm sure you'll recall when you go to the show and you buy a showbag; it's up in bright lights and it's got a lovely pamphlet and it all looks wonderful, and you lay out your hard-earned money and it costs a fortune. But then you get it home, open it up, get to the bottom and find it's full of you-know-what. That is this proposal, and I will outline over the next few minutes exactly why that is the case. The political showbag has hit the media. David Marin-Guzman, from the Fin, I believe, wrote: 'ACTU wants unions first in $15b fund'. The first problem: a $15 billion fund is actually not true. In fact, the legislation specifically says that on commencement there will be $5 billion. I know there's some confidence in those on the other side, but in 2029 the contribution will have been up to a total of $10 billion. We just had the previous speaker outline the commitment, and I got to $8 billion. There's no 15 in eight and there's no 15 in 10, unless my math has changed since I went to school—and I know it was a while ago. So this is the first problem with the political showbag. What's being sold is not what's in it. It is not a $15 billion fund. It will be $5 billion of the hard earned money of the taxpayer that the government has to borrow. Secondly, it's about the ACTU. According to this story, it is calling on Minister Husic to install union officials on the fund's board, because otherwise it might be biased towards the finance sector and private business—that is, to those people who make decisions that actually make a return, who make good financial decisions. What else do they want? Let's have a look: 'You must guarantee secure jobs with decent working conditions.' In this country we have laws. They already exist. You can't just wander around and hire people outside agreements and outside Australian law. It is unlawful. That is why it's in place. They also believe that enterprise agreements with unions must be a precondition of any tender. There may be those listening who think this is unlikely and it might not happen, so let's look at what else they want. They also want there to be no independent directors. They oppose independent directors. They are a bad idea. We see from Senator Michaelia Cash in the other place the quote: 'Union demands on Labor know no bounds after they made $16.7 million in donations.' You can ignore that, if you like, but if you go to the actual statements on this bill, you will find that the federal Labor government consulted with a range of government stakeholders followed by the following non-government stakeholders: the Australian Banking Association, the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Investment Council, Industry Super Australia and the Law Council of Australia. We've heard honourable members come to this place and outline what it is the fund will be investing in, but there's none of them in the consultative process, absolutely none. The fund also includes the capacity to lend money, to provide equity to invest in state and territory governments. Is federal Labor serious? Do state governments need more money from the Commonwealth through a loan fund? Do they not get enough through GST or through the existing national agreements or for hospitals? Actually, on hospitals, they don't get enough. In the last budget, according to the AMA, federal Labor cut $2.4 billion from the forwards for hospital funding, so we know where this is coming from. We know exactly where it's coming from. The fund will also be used to meet international agreements. This is a magic fund. It is not just a political showbag; it's magic. It will cover everything from critical minerals to defence, energy and, right across the road, international agreements. But it is not $15 billion, because their own legislation says that that's not the case. It says exactly how much money is going in. This appears to be a wonderful intervention from those opposite, but it is actually a cut in what has been provided for support. If we come back to just one segment, critical minerals, which I've had a bit to do with over recent years, we find that the previous coalition government established a $2 billion loan facility. It's already there for critical minerals. It was established through former prime minister Scott Morrison, former minister Mr Tehan and me. Guess what! It is managed by Export Finance Australia, which already exists. It has already made investments and loans. It has already provided money for critical minerals. The challenge in this space is that critical minerals is not an economic decision. It is a national security decision. The reason for that is that there is a provider in the world who basically has a monopoly across everything to do with critical minerals. If you even look like you are not going to be providing to that monopoly provider, they will knock out your business, so you have to be able to provide different methods to ensure success. You cannot simply rely on the basics of the economy when it comes to critical minerals. It is incredibly important to get this right. The idea that you would put forward the political showbag as a solution for something that is absolutely necessary for not only this country but other countries around the world—it's the reason there are signed agreements with places like Japan, the United States, South Korea and India. The critical mineral supply chain is critical to this country and many others. There was $2 billion in loans, and we had announcements that were delivered for $239 million provided EcoGraf Limited and Renascor Resources. We also had some $50 million over three years to establish the Virtual National Critical Minerals Research and Development Centre, along with $200 million, if I recall correctly, for grants. And guess what? They got cut in the last budget—not entirely, but they were reduced by those opposite because clearly they didn't think they were important. So the political show bag cannot be the solution for all things, and it is certainly not $15 billion. That can be checked because it is in the legislation—$5 billion at commencement up to $10 billion by 2029. So they're confident that they're still going to be there in 2029. It is quite extraordinary, absolutely extraordinary! I will return to the appointment of board members. We've heard a lot from those opposite and others around transparency in selection, so I thought I should go and read and see exactly what skills you might need to become a member of the board. There's a pretty good list. It says: (b) professional credibility and significant standing; in at least one of the following fields: (c) banking and finance— Good— (d) venture capital, private equity or investment by way of lending or provision of credit— Sounds okay— (e) economics; (f) government funding programs or bodies; (g) accounting; (h) law; (i) a priority area of the Australian economy; (j) industrial relations— Would you believe— (k) industry growth— And, finally— (l) any other field that the Ministers consider appropriate. So it is anybody. It doesn't really matter as long as the minister thinks that that'll be okay. They can be appointed. In terms of all of those opposite who bang on about transparency and bang on about decisions, this has very clearly been set up to select whoever they want, because that is exactly what the legislation says. So it will be borrowed money and it will be pushed by the ACTU, according to reports in the media and according to the fact that that was who was consulted. But let's come back and look at the fundamental problem: if you want manufacturers in this country—and we all do—then they have to be internationally competitive. It's pretty straightforward how you get there. You must have affordable electricity, affordable gas, affordable energy. You must have an available workforce. You must have people who are actually manufacturing something that the world wants. So you need a market. And, quite simply, you just need to get out of the way of business. Businesses are quite capable of making their own investments and their own decisions if they don't continually have government interventions—and there have been no worse interventions in recent times than the interventions of those opposite in the gas market and the electricity market, in particular. We have seen that exactly what we warned would happen is happening, and that is that there will not be sufficient investment to bring on more gas. If anyone wants to see what the results are when there is no investment in the resources sector, go to Victoria. It is very straightforward. There has been a moratorium on onshore gas exploration in Victoria for some 10 years. And guess what? They've run out of gas. And guess what? When there's no gas in the markets, and you shortfall the supply, the price goes up and you become uncompetitive. All of those poor manufacturers in Victoria that rely on gas for their energy and for their sourcing for other products are now absolutely getting it in the neck because of decisions of state governments not to develop their own resources. I don't see anything in this political show bag that will fix that. I just don't. The intervention that those opposite are putting forward—the idea that you can shift gas from Gladstone to Melbourne and be competitive on price—is just wrong. It's not factual. You cannot do it, because you've got to transport it. You've got to build infrastructure. You have to have pipelines and all the things that go with them. It is not that simple. We've also seen very recently in the press—and I genuinely hope this is not true—that those opposite are considering changing the ADGSM to allow for quarterly decisions, including the ability to block all exports of the gas industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, can you imagine if you had purchased a new car two years ago, and you had borrowed however much money you might have needed—$50,000 or $100,000 or $25,000 or even $10,000 if that's what you could afford—and the government came to you and said: 'It doesn't matter how much equity you have; it doesn't matter what your loan conditions are; it doesn't matter what your contract is; we've decided that potentially we want you to change that car and get a different car, or not use your car at all, but you will still have those bills.' That is what's being proposed, and I hope it's incorrect, because investment in this country is critical to its success. Investment in the resources sector means jobs, particularly in the regions. Investment in the gas sector means you'll have lower energy prices and more availability. The idea that you'll go back to investors and countries who have committed tens of billions of dollars to this nation and tell them, 'That's just too bad; we're going to take your product whether you like it or not,' is the wrong decision. It sends the wrong message and it is bad for our national reputation. Over the last few years, COVID has been terrible for all of us, for all Australians. But I'll tell you what one of the highlights was: the Australian resources sector maintained their operations, maintained their contracts and met those contracts. They enhanced the reputation of this country because of the decisions that they made and the work that they did, and, as a result, they are breaking all records. I've seen the most recent forecasts. It could be as much as $460 billion worth of economic activity added to this country from the resources and gas sectors. That is off the back of the fact that they supplied when it was incredibly tough. They supplied when the rest of the world was stopped. They made sure that the countries with which we have agreements—Japan, South Korea and others—had their energy supply and could keep their lights on and keep their people safe, because they had a deal with this country and companies in this country. The idea that those opposite would destroy that reputation is an absolutely false economy. They should absolutely not do it. Do not do it. There will be billions of dollars worth of investment decisions made over the future which simply won't be positive. They will not take a final decision to invest in Australia knowing that the playing field will change constantly under this federal Labor government. It does not make any sense. It is dangerous for the nation, its reputation and the 1.2 million people who are employed, directly and indirectly, through the resources and energy sector. I come back to the political showbag. What we see once again from Labor is all politics. It is all noise. What they put forward is not factual. There is not $15 billion in this fund. There is a maximum of $10 billion by 2029. There is $5 billion to start with. So the idea that those opposite purport to hold—that they can cover all of those fields through this simple proposition—is wrong. There are any number of existing policies and programs which have been enormously successful; which are out there, established and budgeted for; and for which processes are in place. You do not need to set up another whole political showbag simply to put the ACTU on the board. We know that that is the proposal the ACTU want, given that they are among the few that were actually consulted. We can put two and two together—well, some of us can. For those opposite, it adds up to 15, but it hasn't got quite the right numbers. Once again I come back to where I started. Those opposite will potentially be providing money to state and territory governments who already have any number of other sources. They will be putting forward all sorts of proposals for which there is already existing availability. So we will not be supporting this bill. It is the wrong decision for Australia, and it is a political showbag. (Time expired) 12:58 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I might commence my remarks on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 by gently reminding the member for Hinkler. He almost got there. He said '$5 billion' and then '$10 billion'. He just didn't get to the 'equals' part. I remember from doing maths in grade 6 that five plus 10 equals 15. I could provide the member for Hinkler with an abacus if it assists him, but five plus 10 in our universe is 15, and the Albanese Labor government's $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund will transform Australian industry. It will create secure local jobs, and it's going to bring manufacturing back home. This is going to leverage Australia's natural strengths, support the development of strategically important industries and protect Australia's supply chains. The member for Hinkler was talking about all the different critical areas that this would invest in. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 I call the member for Hinkler. Mr Pitt 148150 Mr Deputy Speaker, if it assists the member, the section number is 52(4): The Ministers must ensure that the total of the amounts credited to the Account under subsection (2) before 2 July 2029 is equal to $10 billion. Mr KHALIL 101351 The member for Hinkler may have found his abacus there in his drawer. But I will say this, and I'm just quoting him: $5 billion and then $10 billion. That's $15 billion in anyone's mathematics. Anyway, let's leave that, because he did touch on the critical areas of investment, and they are important. They're actually critical to Australia's future: resources; the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors; transport; medical science; renewables and low-emission technologies; defence capability; and enabling capabilities, which are best described as including support for key enabling capabilities across engineering, data science, software development and areas such as artificial intelligence, robotics and quantum, which are so important now as advanced technologies. These are key areas that you would think that every member in this place would get around and support, given their critical nature to Australia's future. But I'll come to that later, because this National Reconstruction Fund is also about jobs—secure, local, well-paid jobs for Australians, something that people in my electorate of Wills know all too well. Many people in the north of my electorate worked at the Ford factory in Broadmeadows, and they lost their jobs when it shut down in 2016. This fund is about rebuilding manufacturing in our country. It's about bringing manufacturing back home, unlike those opposite, who tore through manufacturing, particularly car manufacturing. A previous speaker had the audacity to try and claim it was a Labor government's fault when they themselves ripped out the guts of car manufacturing in this country. It was absolutely disgraceful, and I think the Treasurer at the time went on to smoke a cigar celebrating that effort, if I could call it that. This is about people's livelihoods, their jobs. It's about making things here again and setting up Australia as a leader in advanced manufacturing. It's about our self-reliance and our sovereign capability. We saw during the difficult period that we all went through when COVID was at its peak in the last couple of years that it exposed issues such as supply chains and resilience in those supply chains. It showed that we were possibly too reliant on some supply chains that were exposed. COVID impacted those supply chains, and Australia was not prepared as we should have been. We as a government are doing something about that. It's a big part of the National Reconstruction Fund. We took the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund to the election in May last year. We have a mandate, and now we are delivering on our commitment to the Australian people. The Albanese Labor government is focused on renewing, revitalising and rebuilding Australia's manufacturing industry for Australians, for small-business owners, for the regions and for jobs. We're setting Australians up for the future, investing in jobs and in making things here again. Those opposite have done nothing in government to invest in Aussie manufacturing over nine long years. As I referred to, they baited the Australian car industry into leaving the country, and they had nine industry ministers in nine years. How could any one of those ministers even get on top of the portfolio? By the time they finished reading their briefs, they were out the door and the next person came in. If that wasn't bad enough, now, in opposition, they're playing the role of wreckers. They're opposing this fund. What really gets to me—what really grates—is that they are putting our national security at risk in doing this. The Minister for Industry and Science pointed out that very fact this week. The opposition don't seem to care that a big part of this fund is dedicated to advancing defence capability that's critical to Australia's preparedness for AUKUS and for working with our partners, such as those in the Quad. They don't care. They just want the politics of this. They just want to oppose. They're not interested in our national security. They're not interested in our national interests. It's all short-term politics. The leopard hasn't changed its spots. That's what they were like in government. It was all about the short-term political message, not about the long-term national interest. I remind those opposite that among our partners—our regional partners, our allies, our friends—there is an expectation that Australia come to the table with our efforts on technology and technological developments and advancements—with our technological strength. These developments are paramount to our national security and our national interests. The minister for industry noted that this National Reconstruction Fund is crucial to strengthening both our economic and national security long term. That's right; it's about the long term. It's not about the newspaper report the next day, which the opposition is so fond of trying to win. Yet despite the facts, the important facts, that $2 billion of this National Reconstruction Fund is going to be pointed towards critical technology—AI, quantum technology, critical minerals, all of which are very important for, as I said, the work we're doing with our international partners and our allies both in the Quad and in our AUKUS efforts on advanced capability—the coalition are still happy to stand in the way of this bill, to oppose it. They talk a big game on national security. It's a big talk but, when they have the opportunity to walk the walk, they go and oppose. They go for the short-term political message. That's not in Australia's national interest. That's not standing up for our national security. The fact those opposite are actively opposing this National Reconstruction Fund is quite extraordinary. It's extraordinary, given their rhetoric, and that needs to be called out. Because on one side of the mouth they talk about our national security and getting our defence capability and they make a big song and dance about that and then, on the other, they oppose the funding that will go towards those advanced capabilities. It's extraordinary. I'm interested to know, from the opposition, what part of this National Reconstruction Fund do they actually oppose? Is it investment in renewable technology? Because they've been pretty much opposed to that right from the beginning. That could be it. Is it an opposition to investment in advanced manufacturing capabilities? Is that what it is? Don't they think we can be that advanced? Don't they think we have the technology or the technical ability, the workforce? Is that what it is—they're opposed to advanced manufacturing in this country? Because that is what this fund is largely about—getting that up and running, and really turbo charging it. Are they opposed to that? Maybe not. Maybe they're opposed to good secure local jobs for Australians. Maybe, given the way they killed the car manufacturing industry in this country and saw thousands of jobs walk out the door and thousands of Australians lose their jobs in manufacturing, and then smoked a cigar about it in celebration, they're opposed to the job creation that comes out of this fund. Maybe that's what it is. I'm trying to guess here because I haven't really heard any good reason. Are they opposed to creating jobs? Because this fund is also going to create new jobs in new and advanced manufacturing, in technology, in exciting new sectors. Maybe they're opposed to creating jobs; they don't like that. Maybe not. Maybe they're opposed to growing the economy. Maybe they don't want Australia to succeed. That would be a poor position to take as an opposition—let's prevent the growth of the Australian economy by killing this fund. That's pretty cynical if that's what they're doing it for. Let me ask this: Are they opposed to making our supply chains more resilient, which is a big part of this fund and the investment that goes to it? Is that what it is? Because we all saw how exposed our supply chains were over the last couple of years, so it really shocks me that those opposite would be opposed to making those supply chains that we are so reliant on more resilient. It could be all of the above. It could be one or two of them. Whatever their reasoning is, it is really making it harder for Australians to get those jobs and do the things we need to do in the coming decade. They are all opposition and no policy. I know it might be useless, it may be futile, there might be no point in it, but I ask the opposition to rethink their position. Act in good faith. Negotiate on some amendments, if that's what it is. But outright opposition to the National Reconstruction Fund is outright opposition to advancing Australia and its national interests—that's what it is. And they will be called out for it; the opposition will be called out for the wrecking ball they're putting to this bill, the wrecking ball they're putting to Australian jobs and the wrecking ball they're putting to our advanced capability and our manufacturing in this country. I ask them to rethink. There are good members on the other side. They care about Australia's future. They care about Australia's national interest. They would know that $15 billion invested in manufacturing, in advanced manufacturing, in technology, in capability and in supply chain resilience is good for Australia. Maybe they'll have the courage in their party room to stand up to their leader and say: 'No, we should negotiate. Let's try and put up an amendment or something but we should back this bill in because it's good for Australia, because it's good for our constituents.' To them: I'm asking you to back Australian made. I'm asking you to back Australian jobs. I'm asking you to back the Australian economy. I'm asking you to do the right thing and not oppose the National Reconstruction Fund. 13:11 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. The Liberal Party has always believed a government's role is to minimise interference but maximise initiative. We as a nation are at our best when we as policymakers give private industry and individuals the opportunity to be the best they can be, whilst providing a helping hand but only when necessary. It is not our job to get in the way of Australian businesses' day-to-day goings-on, to impose unnecessary bureaucratic red tape or to own part of the personal property they earned through their own hard work. That is what the Liberal Party believes, Deputy Speaker Goodenough; I can guarantee you that. But I can also guarantee that that is not what those opposite believe. They are too arrogant to believe that individuals have the capacity to create opportunity without government holding their hand during the process. In fact, they are so arrogant they tell people what they need instead of listening to what they want. This typical top-down approach that the Australian people are unfortunately becoming all too familiar with, with the Albanese government since they've come to power, is riddled throughout this bill we are debating. Typical Labor—all focus on the politics but useless with policy. In Australia, we build things. We build them well. Our manufacturers are some of the best in the world, and I am incredibly proud of that. Our exports are lauded for their quality and reliability, making Australian-made products a sought-after commodity right across the globe. Our manufacturers create jobs, providing financial security for hundreds of thousands of Australian families right across the country. Manufacturing at home is a key part of our nation's ability to ensure we protect our sovereign interests from threats abroad. During the last term of parliament, as the Minister for Defence Industry, I led with the passionate belief that if you can't build at home you cannot defend your home. Never has this mantra been more important than in the geopolitical environment we currently find ourselves. Right now our manufacturers are being threatened with rising cost of living, rising electricity prices and rising inflation. I am genuinely concerned about the direction in which our economy is going and the impact it'll have on our ability to build on Australian soil. Now is not the time to play politics with our manufacturing sector. Sadly, this is what we are seeing with the inexperienced industry minister. With power prices forecast to spike by 56 per cent over the next two years, many businesses across the country may be pushed to the brink. I am particularly concerned about the impact this is going to have on our fabulous Australian defence industry. The coalition understands how important manufacturers are to this country. That is why, when we were in government, we introduced valuable programs that created opportunities for hundreds of businesses right across the country such as the Modern Manufacturing Initiative, known as the MMI, and many initiatives to support our incredibly important critical minerals projects. Labor, on the other hand, have used their first eight months in power to prioritise their union mates and have decided to forge ahead with radical industrial relations legislation that will leave our industries in a devastated position. Never has there been a more inappropriate time for that focus. The October budget was the perfect opportunity for our Prime Minister to assure Australian manufacturers that the government still had their back, but instead he used it as an opportunity to spitefully wipe out key features of the coalition's industry policy. We saw next to nothing in the budget to begin the rollout of the National Reconstruction Fund. The Labor Party are happy to redirect the MMI funds, but they have failed to roll out their own program, creating a void that is no doubt being felt by industry right around the country right now. You only need to review the large number of successful MMI applications to see the geographical spread and the very important mix of industries that we have been supporting. The coalition provided $2.5 billion to create the MMI program to support our sovereign manufacturing capability, to empower over 200 projects right across Australia, with money going to, for example, the Forager Food Co. in Tasmania, for a freeze-drying and processing facility; Sealite in Victoria, for automating electronic circuit board capability; Sun Cable in the Northern Territory, to improve solar array manufacturing; Techno Plas in South Australia, to improve food packaging; and First Graphene Ltd in Western Australia, to support an optimisation and automation project. Industry invested significant funds to prepare for the application process of the MMI. Some went as far as building up their own infrastructure or capacity in key areas to make their submissions more competitive. Other businesses had begun to roll out their programs because they had received a commitment from our government that they would receive financial assistance with their project. They were told their application was successful, and they had begun operating accordingly—quite reasonably, I would say. Then there is a change of government, and the first thing the minister does is put a halt to funds that were assessed by independent experts and the department. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how delays such as these can significantly delay or damage critical manufacturing projects. Never has a lack of industry experience by the Labor frontbench been so clearly on display as in this pathetic approach to support our nation's manufacturing capability. The National Reconstruction Fund is a very, very poor funding model. The National Reconstruction Fund is another attempt by the Labor Party to realise their ideological obsession of government ownership over what rightfully belongs to private industry. Instead of a competitive grants program, as offered under the coalition's Modern Manufacturing Initiative, Labor has opted for loans and acquiring equity. We know, from similar schemes rolled out by previous Labor governments, that equity and loans schemes are less accessible than grants, and manufacturers may struggle to meet return-on-investment thresholds or, indeed, be able to put together the detailed business cases in-house. Our approach was funding projects to help to build scale and capture income in high-value areas of manufacturing where Australia either has established competitive strength or emerging priorities. Labor's approach is to roll out a process that excludes certain industries with small margins or disrupted supply chains, risks crowding out private investment opportunities and will uproot manufacturers who are unable to meet their loan agreements with the government. There is a better way to manage this process, and Labor have utterly failed to grasp this point. Perhaps the biggest shame this bill highlights is that our fabulous space industry is not a priority for this Labor government. As a former minister for science and technology, I know how devastating this news will be for many new and existing businesses that operate within the space sector. Under our leadership, the government proudly supported funding to locally design, develop, manufacture and deploy specialised space products, equipment, systems and services for export to international markets to support national and international space stations. Our Prime Minister and the inexperienced industry minister, however, have sent a very clear message to the space sector that while they are in charge the industry will suffer—space does not matter to this mob. We are yet to understand the basis upon which this shift in focus was made. Times are difficult and they are not going to improve anytime soon; we all know that. Interest rates are up; inflation is up. Right now our manufacturers need our help to ensure that they can navigate the strong headwinds currently caused by our faltering economy. It is time the government put forward a sensible plan to deliver support for our manufacturers that will assist them now, not in 12 months time when Labor finally decide to roll out their own fund. Our manufacturing sector is growing. There is no denying that. But, as COVID demonstrated and as we've talked about in this place many times, we need to ensure that our manufacturing sector diversifies so that we don't get caught out with many products that are not made here in Australia. We must support our existing and new manufacturers before it's too late. Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, this bill is not the answer. 13:21 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Apologies, everyone, for my croaky voice. It's awesome having my children here from Bendigo and it's wonderful to have a childcare centre here at parliament, but it is a Petri dish, as all parents with children in child care know. As I'm keen to speak on manufacturing and the National Reconstruction Fund, please persevere with me. This bill, the National Reconstruction Fund Bill 2022, is critical not just to my electorate but to economies in regional electorates all over our country. I have to begin by saying that I'm not surprised but I am disappointed that the opposition is opposing this bill. The National Reconstruction Fund is modelled on ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We know those opposite really struggled to understand the importance and success of those two bodies. Multiple times when those opposite were in government they tried to abolish them—unsuccessfully, because the Clean Energy Finance Corporation proved to be a successful model. It proved to work, proved to make money for the Commonwealth and proved to support and grow investment where it was needed. So successful was the Clean Energy Finance Corporation that it has given us guidance on how to create the National Reconstruction Fund. I have to say I disagree with those opposite about what manufacturers are saying. When I've met with the proud manufacturers of my electorate during the 10 years or so that I've been either the federal member for Bendigo or a candidate, many of them have said they found the grant system run by the former federal government to be clunky, to play favourites and to not actually support innovation. Innovation is a big word to manufacturers in my electorate. Paul Chapman, who is the founder of Australian Turntables, which his family still own, runs a regular festival on innovation to encourage people to think differently. He quite often says that what manufacturers lack is a partner in government, someone with capital. It's not that easy for manufacturers to access capital, particularly at the moment. The National Reconstruction Fund will give them an option. Manufacturing has existed for a long time in my electorate. From the simple innovations that occurred in the early days of the gold rushes to what we have today, we are home to world-class manufacturing. We are home to food manufacturing, engineering and heavy metal manufacturing. We manufacture the Bushmaster, which has featured in discussions a few times this week. We have a strong presence in defence manufacturing and we are actively involved in many innovative products in the building products space. These are all critical to where we are in manufacturing today. We are also home to goldmining and have one of the richest goldmines in Australia, which has helped seed a lot of mining manufacturing and equipment that will be required for our mining industry. Today, manufacturing's economic output in Greater Bendigo alone is about 18 per cent yet the sector employs eight per cent, so, for who it employs, it generates a huge economic output in our region. Salaries are worth over $300 million and local sales over $800,000. Regional exports are also massive in the area. Value adding is a big part of what we do. I have spoken to a number of local manufacturers about how this fund could help, whether they would consider accessing it and what they could do. Vossloh Cogifer Australia are based in Castlemaine. They have outgrown their facility. They are a leading global company in rail infrastructure. They have been successful in acquiring a contract with the federal government to help build the Inland Rail, but their home in Castlemaine is too small; it doesn't have a proper flow. For those reasons, because the company are looking to expand, they are looking to relocate to Bendigo. But, again, having access to capital, finding the right investment partners is challenging. Despite what those opposite would suggest, they did have people lined up but they didn't quite work out. This kind of fund could be an option for them. We want to be a country that makes things, we want to be a country of Inland Rail and we want that Inland Rail equipment to be manufactured here. We have great companies like Vossloh that could be part of that but that need a purpose-built home. They are not asking for a grant to build the facility, but through the National Reconstruction Fund, they could actually have a partner. Hoffman Engineering are known for their manufacturing facility in WA but their leading manufacturing facility on the east coast is in my electorate of Bendigo. They produce heavy fabrication, heavy machinery. When you are there quite often you will see some of the largest gears from around the world being refurbed in Bendigo. They have the largest lathe in the southern hemisphere in Bendigo. They still do work on the Collins class because they do have some of the large equipment able to do that refurb work. They also do a lot of work for the renewable energy industry. From wind turbines to our defence vehicles, they are a critical manufacturer. They are also innovators and have some of the best equipment in electrical welding. Speaking to the young apprentices who are going on to be engineers, they have a brilliant pathway. They too look at the National Reconstruction Fund as an opportunity. Another fantastic manufacturer in my electorate, JL King, is a large local food manufacturer. They did actually apply to the previous government's grants that they're so proud of only to miss out over and over again. Maybe it's because they were in the wrong electorate. Maybe that was part of their challenge: they are in Bendigo. They're not in Nicholls; they are in Bendigo. Maybe it is because they are in a red electorate, not a Green electorate, not a blue electorate. That is what is so disappointing about those opposite. Have they not learned from their previous mistakes? JL King are looking to expand. They are a small family business that has grown. They have a site, have built a facility and now they're looking for equity partners to help them fit out that facility so they can grow their manufacturing business. They could double the jobs that they offer if they could just find the equity partners. They are expanding into providing good quality food into aged-care facilities yet they can't expand quickly enough. A National Reconstruction Fund could help them meet their needs. These are just a few of the many examples in my electorate. I'm know I am about to be wound up soon and I will seek to continue my speech on why the National Reconstruction Fund will make such a difference to local manufacturing. We are in desperate need for a federal government partner to help grow manufacturing jobs. If we want to be a country that makes things, we need to be doing more than just handing out clunky grants, more than just leaving it up to the market. This is an opportunity to actually be a partner. It is innovative. I know those opposite struggle with innovation, but if they actually took the time to work with and listen to manufacturing groups, particularly those in regional areas, they would learn that this fund being put forward by the government is the answer to a lot of challenges that we have in growing manufacturing in the regions. I will leave my remarks there and hope to be able to return to them when the debate continues. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member, if interrupted, will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 42 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Flynn Electorate: Hospitals 42 13:30 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn The only place mothers can have a natural birth in the electorate of Flynn is in Emerald. I say this because I want to remind everybody that you still cannot have a natural birth in Gladstone or Biloela hospitals. Yes, the Gladstone and Biloela maternity service wards are still on bypass. That means that expecting mothers must drive well over an hour to Rockhampton to give birth. I've heard some of the stories of the traumatic experiences they have faced. Expecting mothers in my region are booking themselves in for caesarean sections because they don't want to run the risk of roadside births while travelling to Rockhampton. One of the reasons we have a maternity crisis in rural and regional Queensland is that the Labor state government doesn't support GP practices or their need to access the public hospital system to practise their medical expertise. This is forcing GPs to close their doors. There are no GP services west of Emerald. Once again, I would like to thank the over 3,000 people who signed a petition calling for the Labor state government to reinstate these maternity services. I also thank Jemma from Save Gladstone Maternity Ward and Lisa from Save Biloela Maternity Ward, who are fighting for the restoration of maternity services. Our community has had enough, and we cannot let this issue go unforgotten. Holt Electorate: Quarters Primary School 42 13:32 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt What a pleasure it was to join my community in Cranbourne West for the official opening of Quarters Primary School alongside the Victorian Minister for Education, Natalie Hutchins; the member for Cranbourne, Pauline Richards; and the school's principal, Liz Davey. The tour of the new school highlighted the fantastic facilities the students will enjoy. These include a fully operational library, specialist teaching areas for science and food technology, collaborative teaching spaces, a community-hub building with a gymnasium, and several sporting venues just to name a few. The excitement of students starting the year at this wonderful new school could be felt throughout my interactions with them and their parents. I am confident the students of Quarters Primary School will be nurtured and grow in a safe and welcoming environment. I thank the school leadership and staff for inviting me to share this special moment with them. As the member for one of the fastest growing regions in the country, I am glad that there's continuous investment in our community's education infrastructure. I can't wait to visit the school again and check on each student's progress. Greater Shepparton Lighthouse Project 43 13:33 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls The Greater Shepparton Lighthouse Project was established in 2014 in response to complex social issues in the region. It's a collective community-led initiative built on the fundamental principle that a village raises a child. It started with a thousand conversations led by the first executive officer, Lisa McKenzie, and the community embraced the vision that all young people should have the chance to realise their full potential and to thrive. The work continues under current executive officer Amy Robinson with her fantastic team and the wider community. Lighthouse is focused on school readiness, absenteeism, higher attainment in education and transition to work or further study. Lighthouse is for and by the whole community, but the disadvantaged, vulnerable and marginalised are at the forefront of its programs. Pit Stop, a re-engagement initiative offering young people the opportunity to work on small engines and cars under the guidance of volunteer industry professionals, is just one example. Lighthouse used its community links to start GV Cares when a third of the city was locked down and quarantined during COVID. I was one of the hundreds of volunteers delivering food, medicines and even nappies to families in need. GV Cares came to the fore again during the recent floods, sourcing and delivering food and essentials. Government has a role to play, but it is more effective when a community comes together to help break the cycle of generational disadvantage and give every child the opportunity to be their best. Turkiye and Syria: Earthquake 43 13:35 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Last Friday I visited Auburn Gallipoli Mosque. It is a beautiful, solemn place where the community goes to worship and come together in times of joy and sorrow. I went to the mosque to deliver a message of support and solidarity to the Turkish and Syrian communities, who have been devastated by the recent earthquake. The tragedy, so dreadful in scale, comes at a heartbreaking human cost. The loss of families and loved ones will change lives forever. The Australian government is providing $18 million in humanitarian aid to both Turkiye and Syria. It has been heartening to see the response from the Australian community, who are making donations to support those affected by this earthquake. I'm proud to be the co-chair of the parliamentary friends of UNICEF group with the member for Moncrieff. We were able to launch that group this morning. UNICEF is providing immediate on-the-ground support in Turkiye and Syria. I would encourage all Australians to do what we do best and put out a helping hand to our brothers and sisters in need by heading to unicef.org.au and donating to their Turkiye and Syria earthquake appeal. Wright Electorate: Banking and Financial Services 43 13:36 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright The axe was falling on the last Westpac branch in my electorate, in the Lockyer Valley. Last week Westpac announced that they'd be closing their last branch in the electorate, but this afternoon I'm pleased to advise the House that Westpac has decided to postpone the proposed closure of the Gatton branch, along with eight other regional branches across Australia, while the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, led by Senator Canavan, run their inquiry into regional banking services. I want to acknowledge the state member for Lockyer, Jim McDonald, and the Lockyer Valley mayor, Tanya Milligan, for their extensive advocacy for the community over the last two weeks. You can understand banks, with their responsibility to shareholders, leaving communities that are dying. But I can assure you that the Lockyer Valley is far from being on its economic knees. In the last 12 to 18 months, we have seen a new Bunnings arrive, a new Aldi, a new Bridgestone tyres, a second McDonald's—not the type of economic environment that you would see bank closures in. Catholic education has invested in, constructed and completed a new secondary school. We would ask Westpac in their deliberations to, please, take a second look at the Lockyer Valley, because it's worth investing in. Mental Health 43 13:38 Dr 132880 Fraser MULINO () (): Young people need to be involved in solving the problems they face. It is a particularly apt sentiment this week, with its focus on youth mental health. Youth Insearch, the peer-led youth intervention organisation behind End Youth Suicide Week, has turned around the lives of thousands of at-risk youth by including young people in devising the solutions that work for them. I see that in my own electorate, where diversity is celebrated as a key to good mental health because visibility matters. Mohamed Semra and his Endeavour Youth Australia organisation are doing so much to tackle the scourge of racism. Then there's the passionate Tigrayan Youth Association, which recently hosted a three-day wellness and cultural event. Labor won't be ignoring young people. As youth minister Anne Aly said, when announcing the Albanese government's innovative Australian Government Youth Steering Committee, young people 'are uniquely placed to tell us about the problems they are facing and to shape the solutions that work for them'. The youngest person on that committee, 13-year-old Taihan Rahman, lives in my electorate, and we are all so proud of his passion and commitment. It was inspiring when he visited my electorate office recently. I look forward to hearing much more from this dedicated group of young Australians. Housing Australia Future Fund 44 13:39 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith I've heard quite a few Labor MPs this week talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good when it comes to the housing bill. But what's good about a housing plan that will see the housing crisis get worse? What's good about a plan that will see a yearly cut in housing funding? What's good about a plan that will see more people waiting for social housing, more people in need of affordable housing, more homeless and more people struggling with a massive housing crisis? What's good about a plan that will see $12 billion a year invested and handed over to wealthy property investors and only $500 million a year, capped, spent on housing? What's good about such a plan in the context of a government that wants to spend a quarter of a trillion dollars on the stage 3 tax cuts? It's a disgrace. I note the absolute gall of members in this place to suggest that they somehow should stand in the way of the very reasonable demands that the Greens have made—$5 billion invested in social and affordable housing. Government members interjecting— Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 If you're watching at home, I'll describe it to you right now. There are a lot of people on Labor's side getting really passionate because they really want to stand in the way of investing $5 billion in social and affordable housing. They really want to stand in the way of giving renters real relief. They really want to stand in the way of giving $1 billion to First Nations housing. Listen to that passion. Do you know whose side they're on? They're on the side of millionaires and billionaires, who they're giving tax cuts to, and the Greens are on the side of the renters and people in desperate need of affordable housing. I'm sure that at the next election people will remember that. (Time expired) Adelaide Fringe 44 13:41 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby We affectionately call March in Adelaide 'mad March', and tomorrow one of the crown jewels of mad March will kick off with the opening parade of the 2023 Adelaide Fringe festival—and, yes, I do know it's still February. I noticed that the Minister for the Environment and Water wrote a column for a Sydney newspaper which referenced her home city as the festival capital of Australia. I beg to differ. My fellow South Australians in this place will be well aware of our status as the festival state, and the Adelaide Fringe plays a big part in that, because the Adelaide Fringe is actually the biggest arts festival to take place anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere. In fact, internationally, the only arts festival that is bigger is the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in Scotland. The Adelaide Fringe has brought acts from around the world to Adelaide for over 60 years, and at Fringe time our streets, parks and venues are just filled with vibrancy and excitement. This year my electorate of Boothby is hosting over 60 shows across 28 different venues and 20 different suburbs. There is quite literally something for everyone when it comes to the Fringe in Boothby. The Fringe runs from 17 February through to 19 March, and I would encourage everyone to get along to an event or two and support those working in our amazing arts industry. See you there. Hughenden Irrigation Project Corporation 44 13:42 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy There is a Sunmap map of North Queensland from 1980, and written across the map is 'the best natural grasslands in Australia'. Now in this area there is the reality of a barren wilderness: 23 million hectares of leafless prickly trees destroying all ground cover and causing massive erosion, and a wasteland with a million rampaging pigs destroying all flora and fauna. When we meet Jesus, he is going to say to us: 'I gave you the sixth biggest river in Australia. I gave you the most beautiful rich blacksoil plains in the world. What did you do with these gifts?' Prickly acacia spread through and completely destroyed a tenth of North Queensland. Gone are the kangaroos, the birds and the dunnarts. The HIPCo irrigation project at Hughenden will deliver a different, restored and improved homeland—my homeland. It regenerates the mid-west. 'I'm keeping the flame on a windswept plain—a plain that will keep you broke till you go insane.' These are the words of a great poet, author and commentator on 'Waltzing Matilda'. Fifty years ago, the 10 acres that my wife and I have in Charters Towers had a single tree on it. It had two eroding gullies, scattered tufts of wire grass, and over 400 chinee bushes and rubber vine. It now has thick knee-high Urochloa and buffel. The gullies are rock. It runs two horses. (Time expired) Temporary Protection Visas 44 13:44 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Since I was first elected in 2019 I have had many refugees come to me and talk about their experience—their experience of being in our country and not being able to feel hope that they are going to live a purposeful life here. But all this has changed because our party have announced that we will abolish temporary protection visas. This is so important. It has been heart wrenching to watch the asylum seekers in my electorate, who really had been assigned to limbo land, due to the coalition's heartless policies. This week I acknowledge our ministers who have really worked so hard to ensure that these people have a future. It is a brilliant day. I thank all those in my electorate who have advocated to make this happen—those on the Bellarine, on the Surf Coast and around Geelong. We, as a compassionate party, have given these people hope for the future. Mr Burke DYW Deputy Speaker, to suit the convenience of the House, for an event in solidarity with the people of Ukraine, I ask that you leave the chair and come back at about two o'clock. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The chair will be resumed at approximately 2 pm. Sitting suspended from 13:46 to 13:55 Paper Industry 45 13:55 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I stand to inform the House that, yesterday, 200 workers at the Australian Maryvale mill lost their jobs. They didn't lose their jobs because they weren't good at them, they didn't lose their jobs because their product wasn't good enough, and they didn't lose their jobs because their product wasn't in demand in Australia. They lost their jobs because the Andrews Labor government refuses to stand up for timber workers in our state. I heard a member opposite say 'rubbish'. Pick up the phone and talk to your Premier and talk to some of your ministerial colleagues in Victoria and explain to them why you don't support a sustainable native hardwood timber industry in Victoria, because Victorians do believe in the future of their native hardwood timber industry. What we saw yesterday in Victoria, where we lost our last manufacturer of white copy paper, was a direct result of Victorian Labor's refusal to stand up for Victorian blue-collar workers, a refusal to stand up for blue-collar workers at the Maryvale mill, because your government, the Victorian Labor government, wants to shut down all timber harvesting in that state. I know that, on the other side, there are some very reasonable people, some very reasonable Victorian men and women, who understand the value of a hard day's work, earning your pay and being supported by your government, not being run out of business. It is an absolute corruption of good public policy to do what Dan Andrews is doing to the Victorian people. You know it. Pick up the phone and talk to him. Stand up for blue-collar workers like old Labor members used to. National Reconstruction Fund 45 13:56 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong We've all become used to the constant stream of opposition from the Liberals since the May election, but I have to say I was most surprised at the big 'no' that the Liberals are delivering to Australian manufacturers, businesses and innovators. We all know that they say they're the party of business and the party of economic growth, but now we have to ask: have they just given up? It surely seems so, because we know that Australian industry is behind the National Reconstruction Fund; they're backing the plans of this government. The Tech Council of Australia calls it 'a landmark investment in our nation's industrial and technological capability'. Those champions of collectivism at the Austrian Banking Association support the intention of the fund. And those well-known comrades at KPMG, those radical socialists, have stated that 'investment at this scale is a welcome move to protect a much-needed boost to Australia's innovation system'. How are those opposite actually on the opposite side to KPMG and the Banking Association? One would think that, after spending so much time crafting up a party persona based on being the party for big business, they'd actually listen to them, but no. We know we've got 'Cosplay Canavan' in the Senate, but now we have the pretend professionals over there and the mock manufacturers as well. A bit of free advice: listen to industry, listen to workers, listen to the Australian people who voted for the National Reconstruction Fund, and support this bill. It will create jobs in the cities, it will create jobs in the regions, and it will empower Aussie business to grow. Mobile Black Spot Program 45 13:58 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks The Labor Party's Improving Mobile Coverage Round of the Mobile Black Spot Program is an outrageous abuse of taxpayer money. Thirty-three per cent of electorates in regional Australia are held by the Labor Party, but 74 per cent of locations for this program are in Labor electorates. Do you know what else, Deputy Speaker? In New South Wales there are 26 locations that are in the program. Let's guess how many of the 26 locations are in Labor electorates. It turns out it's 25. Twenty-five of the 26 locations are in Labor electorates. It's very clear what needs to happen here. The Minister for Communications needs to give a full press conference on this issue and talk about her role in this matter. In particular, one of the really interesting questions is: how many of these locations were based on advice from her department, when she implemented these programs, as the government of Australia—you might not like it, but it's true; you're the government, and you implemented this program. Seventy-four per cent of locations are in Labor electorates, and in New South Wales it's more than 95 per cent. That is a disgrace, it is a shameful abuse of public money, and the minister must be held to account. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living 46 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Since the election, a typical family's mortgage repayment has increased by $1,400 a month, energy bills have soared, rents have increased, grocery costs are rising, real wages have not risen as promised and, in the last two months, over 30,000 jobs have been lost. The Prime Minister promised families would be 'better off under Labor'—his words—but they're worse off. Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor? 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Australians are paying the price for a decade of Liberal and National governments. Mr Dutton 00AKI Why don't you take responsibility? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. Mr ALBANESE R36 They are paying the price for a decade of denial. Those opposite had no economic plan. They had 22 energy policies and didn't land one. The Leader of the Opposition raises a number of issues. On wages, he says they're not rising fast enough. But he was a part of a government that saw low wages as part of their economic architecture. It wasn't bad luck; it was bad policy. He had the hide, on the day they voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund, to speak about housing. We have a plan to deal with housing. We had legislation which included the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which includes specific programs for veterans and for women and children escaping domestic violence, and those opposite voted against it. If you look at the comments of the Reserve Bank governor, he has spoken very clearly about supply chain issues and pressures being a major cause of inflation in this country. And yet those opposite have indicated they're going to vote against the National Reconstruction Fund, a program that will assist business going forward. We, on this side, will stand up for Australian jobs and we'll stand up for Australian families. That is why we had a plan that came in on 1 January that is already making a difference for cheaper medicines, the first decrease in the price of medicines in 75 years, since, once again, a former Labor government—it's only Labor governments that do the big reforms—introduced the PBS. We have cheaper child care. It came in on 1 January. We've got fee-free TAFE, with 180,000 places in areas of skills shortages. We're taking pressure off the cost but also, at the same time, helping to address those skills shortages and supply chain issues. We have our energy price relief plan. They came in here and they voted against $1.5 billion of support. The truth is that those opposite just say no to everything. They used to be the coalition; now they're just the 'no-alition'. They just say no to absolutely everything. National Reconstruction Fund 46 14:03 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. How will the National Reconstruction Fund support the growth of industries to help Australia move towards a net-zero future and to create jobs? Are there any threats to creating these new jobs? 14:04 Mr 91219 Chifley HUSIC (—) (): I thank the Labor member for Hasluck. Oh, that sounds good! 'The Labor member for Tangney'—that sound good. 'The Labor member for Pearce'—that sounds good. The Labor member for Swan— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will return to the question. Mr HUSIC 91219 They're all very, very good. Do you know why I mention it? Because it represents this: 10 years wasted by those opposite and 10 years where they picked fights. That was the biggest lot of work that they did—just pick fights and not get on with the job! They didn't focus on the types of things that the member for Hasluck just raised about new industries, getting new things done and looking at the way in which we can create jobs—particularly in different parts of the country and in our regions as well. It's also looking at the ways to satisfy industry needs for new generation of energy and being able to do it in a way that cuts emissions and increases jobs. To be able to do that is very important. The National Reconstruction Fund, as much as it is about increasing manufacturing capability, is about satisfying the need to generate new energy, to create jobs and to do it with lower emissions in the process. The types of things that the $3 billion investment—particularly the $3 billion subfund which was factored into our targets for reducing emissions—will support us to do is create the jobs that we need to deliver a clean energy future. Think about things like building components for wind turbines; making batteries and solar panels; investing in new types of livestock feed to reduce methane emissions; modernising the production of steel and aluminium; building hydrogen electrolysers; and finding innovative packaging solutions to reduce waste. All these are very important investments and mean jobs, jobs, jobs out of the National Reconstruction Fund. And research tells us that 75 per cent of new energy jobs could be created in regional Australia by 2035—huge! The biggest threat we've got happens in the coalition party room, which I'm genuinely concerned is a mass-hypnosis event. They bring in the RSL entertainment and the person says, 'When I click my fingers, you'll forget 10 years'— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause and resume his seat for a moment. Order—members on my right and left! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for New England can resume his seat, I will deal with this matter. To assist the House, Minister, I might just get you to rephrase that language. Mr HUSIC 91219 Anyway, they have the mass hypnosis event, and they click their fingers to get 10 years— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 No, Minister! Resume your seat. I must ask you to rephrase that and withdraw what you said, just to assist the House to move forward. Mr HUSIC 91219 Sure, I withdraw. But they have forgotten 10 years. They say no to everything and they want to make sure that they just continue to say no, no, no, no! Opposition members interj ecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left! There is far too much noise. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left will cease interjecting immediately! When the House comes to order I will hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Cost of Living 47 14:08 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. One month before the election the now Prime Minister promised he would deliver on reducing cost-of-living pressures for Australian families because he had a plan. Because of Labor's policies, interest rates are rising higher than they otherwise would, and Australian families are paying an extra $18,000 per year on a typical mortgage. The Prime Minister is failing Australians because he doesn't have a plan. Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor? 14:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The Governor of the Reserve Bank has made a number of appearances this week, and one of the things that he has said is that our policies are taking pressure off inflation. He has indicated that monetary policy is working hand-in-hand with fiscal policy. That is what he has said. Indeed, what we are seeing is the measures that we've put in place making a difference. This is what the Origin statement to the Australian Stock Exchange declared today: The announcement in December 2022 by the Federal government of price caps on gas and coal … is in response to these global and domestic shocks. More recently we have seen prices decline … That is what Origin have said. Dr Steven Kennedy of the Treasury, who has served both the former government and the current government with distinction, said: Following the December announcement, National Electricity Market futures prices have declined significantly … If sustained, lower futures prices will be reflected in the default market offer announced by the regulator around the middle of the year … Over the year to June 2024, Treasury expects the coal and gas caps to reduce inflation by half a point. That's what he had to say. But not everyone supports— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister was talking about mortgages, the cost of living and inflation pressures, I remind the House, which was about the question. I'll call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Ms Ley 00AMN A point of order on tedious repetition, Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Resume your seat immediately. I call the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW As the questioner should know, having been here for a long time, that standing order applies to debate. If it applied to questions, none of her questions would be in order. The SPEAKER 53517 It was a relevant point of order—just. I just want to remind the House: if the Prime Minister or any other minister is addressing the House and is being directly relevant and an abuse of standing orders occurs, there will be consequences. I give the call to the Prime Minister. Mr ALBANESE R36 Those opposite oppose every action we put forward to try to reduce inflationary pressure and to deal with the challenges which arise at a time when we acknowledge the ongoing struggle of the people of Ukraine. The Ukrainian war and the actions of Russia, unfortunately, are having an impact on global energy prices. They're feeding into inflation globally. That's just a fact. But those opposite oppose price caps. They oppose the safeguard mechanism legislation. They oppose the Housing Australia Future Fund. They oppose the National Reconstruction Fund. They oppose us increasing wages for the lowest-paid workers in Australia. What is it about the last election where they didn't get the memo? People are over conflict fatigue. People want to look for solutions and a positive agenda— Mr 138932 Everyone got the memo! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 and those opposite, having created the problems, now stand in the way of all of the solutions. Climate Change 48 14:13 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy: How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring our economy is prepared for the opportunities of a decarbonising world? What are the risks of not acting? 14:13 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Thanks to my honourable friend for his leadership on matters of climate and his advocacy on matters of climate. Australia is on the cusp. We're on the cusp of a remarkable opportunity. Around the world there is a search for clean, green, cheap energy. Around the world, there is a hunger for critical minerals and rare earths. We are on this cusp of a remarkable opportunity, and it will take policies to make this opportunity a reality. There are three key policies to making this so. Firstly, there's the government's safeguards reforms, which are important for reducing emissions by 205 million tonnes but also vital for certainty. They're vital as the world's consumers and investors are looking for companies with real plans for net zero and real frameworks to achieve it. This point was made by the Deputy Secretary of Treasury in Senate estimates today; Luke Yeaman pointed out that this sort of framework is vital for attracting capital to Australian industry. He also pointed out that there was a Treasurer who made similar points—not the current Treasurer but the former Treasurer. The former member for Kooyong was making this point just a few months ago, but a few things have changed since then. The second policy that is vital is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This is an existing policy, but it is still a key policy. It's a policy that was opposed by those opposite. The member for Bradfield predicted it would be a financial disaster. For every dollar the CEFC invest they unleash $2.60 of private investment. I'll give one example. They are co-investing in new electric vehicles for mines, reducing emissions by 46,000 tonnes a year and delivering trucks and mining equipment that is more comfortable for the drivers and workers. Of course, the coalition has opposed the CEFC. The final policy is the National Reconstruction Fund. There's up to $3 billion allocated for clean energy transition. We don't want to be the country that just provides the world with clean energy; we want to be the country that makes the things that provide clean energy around the world. There's also $1 billion allocated for processing and value-adding of critical minerals. Those who oppose this don't want us to value-add to our critical minerals. They don't want us to manufacture in Australia. The thing that brings these three policies together and makes them connected is not only that they are key but that the opposition has been against them in all three cases. The Leader of the Opposition is a triple threat in the worst sense of the word. He's a triple threat to the Australian economy. He's a triple threat to the opportunities available to us. I grant him this—his shadow ministry meetings must be pretty efficient. When the government wants to create jobs, it's just, 'Yeah-nah.' There is no need for a submission. It's just: 'Yeah-nah. We're not doing that.' When the government wants a housing fund, it's, 'Yeah-nah.' They must have really quick meetings. When we want to have a safeguards reform to actually reduce emissions and create jobs, it's, 'Yeah-nah.' Australia deserves better than this Leader of the Opposition. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 49 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Papua New Guinea: Parliamentary Delegation, Canada: Parliamentary Delegation, German-Pacific Parliamentary Group 49 14:16 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is the Deputy Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, the Hon. John Rosso MP, accompanied by a delegation of ministers from the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea. I'm also pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are visitors from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, including the Speaker, the Hon. Ted Arnott MPP, and the Deputy Speaker, Ms Donna Skelly MPP. I'm pleased to inform the House that also present in the gallery today is a delegation from the German-Pacific Parliamentary Group, led by chair and head of the delegation Mr Johannes Vogel. On behalf of the House, I welcome you all to the Parliament of Australia. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Climate Change 49 14:17 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. The Greens have offered to pass your government's climate legislation in full with one amendment—no new coal and gas mines. There's no ultimatum, just an offer to pass Labor's bill this afternoon if you stop opening coal and gas mines. But this morning you said on Sky TV that of course you would approve new coalmines. Are you seriously willing to dump your whole climate plan because Labor wants to open new coal and gas mines? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 There's far too much noise on my right and left. 14:18 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I really want to thank the member for his question. I can tell you that I am so very delighted to have a question from the Greens about practical action on climate change and the environment. We are the only government that has a plan to bring down emissions in Australia—an emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030 with a clear path to net zero by 2050 enshrined in law. I'd like to see you back that because when you lined up with the Liberals last time to block the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme— Government membe rs interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right, I can barely hear a word the minister is saying. She has the call. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M What we saw was more emissions for longer because you voted with them. I'm proud of what we on this side are doing to bring down carbon pollution. It's not just the safeguard mechanism; it's the $20 billion for Rewiring the Nation so that we can get more renewables into our electricity grid, it's the legislation I took through this parliament on reducing ozone-depleting gases, it's the methane pledge, it's the $3 billion in the National Reconstruction Fund— Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The minister is being directly relevant. The same rules will apply to everyone in this House if it's a frivolous point of order. The minister's being relevant to the question. She is referring to the issues that you raised in the question, so this point of order cannot be on relevance, but I'll hear from the member for Griffith. Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 Mr Speaker, I understand that reasoning, but on relevance— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I want to be clear with everyone. My rulings and respect for standing orders apply to everyone, no matter where you sit in this chamber. I specifically told the member for Griffith that the minister was being relevant. He has abused the standing orders and he will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Griffith then left the c hamber . Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I'd like to say to the Greens that the best thing they can do to see emissions reductions in this country is to back the safeguard mechanism. This is a legislated path that sees us reducing emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 on a credible path to net zero. But I would add that what I'd also like to see from the Greens political party is their support for our environmental law reform when it comes before this parliament, because those environmental laws will see faster, clearer decision-making for business and much stronger protections for our environment—because we know we have to protect our environment. We have to do better at protecting what's precious, we have to do better at repairing what's damaged and we have to do better at managing our natural environment for the future. So back us on the safeguard mechanism, back us on the National Reconstruction Fund, back us on housing affordability and back us on our environmental law reform. National Reconstruction Fund 50 14:22 Ms MASCARENH 298800 Swan AS () (): My question is to the Minister for Resources. How will the National Reconstruction Fund create jobs in the minerals sector, and are there any threats to these jobs? 14:22 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank the member for Swan for her excellent question. The importance of value-adding in resources is something she's well aware of. Of course, the nickel industry, which her father worked for in Kambalda, has been transformed by the world's demand for batteries—as well as all our other critical minerals that go into those batteries. We as a government are delivering action on climate change, and we are building industries that will create good, Australian jobs. The $15 million National Reconstruction Fund will support jobs in critical minerals industries by securing the capital investment to allow those industries to grow and their workforces to grow, and for the industry as a whole to prosper. The government's $1 billion Value-Adding in Resources Fund—part of the $15 billion NRF, in case those opposite had not been aware of that—is targeted squarely at the development of the critical minerals industry. The Value-Adding in Resources Fund will bring jobs to our regions, bring manufacturing capability and processing back to our country and ensure our national security by ensuring critical minerals supply chains for Australia's benefit and, indeed, for all of those in this region. Labor understands that Australians want us to be a country that makes more onshore, and that means backing the industries and the businesses that are making things here, and supporting manufacturing in regional Australia and also outer-metropolitan Australia. We stand at the crossroads of an immense opportunity in relation to the global clean energy economy. The world needs our resources industry and our critical minerals to decarbonise, just as our domestic energy system will need lithium, vanadium, nickel and copper products for our own energy transition. Just like the iron ore revolution of the sixties and the LNG industry growth in recent decades, Australia's prosperity and our jobs of the future will rely on decisions taken now to support the development of our critical minerals industry. On the few occasions that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments had some good ideas to boost Australian jobs, such as the Critical Minerals Facility, Labor supported them in the national interest. When they announced the $1.25 billion loan to the rare earths facility in Eneabba we supported that in the national interest and in the interests of growing the critical minerals industry. But now we have an opposition that doesn't support its old decisions. Those opposite used to support the critical minerals industry. Now they're in opposition they've decided they want nothing to do with the development of critical minerals, and they demonstrate that by not supporting the Value Adding in Resources Fund. Those opposite just demonstrate that they think they have a monopoly on good ideas. Well, that is absolutely wrong. We support the critical minerals industry in this country, and the Value Adding in Resources Fund is a critical part of that. (Time expired) Economy 50 14:25 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. In the job figures today we see the dangerous combination of stubbornly high inflation and job losses. Labor's only answer is to spend more money, when history tells us this is exactly the wrong approach. Why does Labor always get the big economic calls wrong? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! It's a very broad question. I give the call to the Prime Minister. 14:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler It is very broad, Mr Speaker. It's a question for every day the Treasurer sits there and he expects to get a question and it just never happens. Maybe when we get back that will happen. I live in hope! Of course, there was an increase in the unemployment rate today to 3.7 per cent, up from 3.5. I do note that that is still lower than the unemployment rate than we inherited when he came to office. I do note also that there were more jobs created on our watch in our first six months than under any government in history—any government in history! If you go back to any new government, no government presided over the creation of more jobs than we did. I'm asked as well about debt—from the mob that left us a trillion dollars of debt with nothing to show for it! And then you have our programs, like the National Reconstruction Fund. That is supported by industry, supported by workers and will be a great example of new industry policy creating new industries—particularly in the regions, allowing us to deal with the constraints that are there in supply chains. But those opposite are opposing it. And then you have the safeguard mechanism, where once again they're just opposing it. Well, this is what Innes Willox, the Chief Executive of Ai Group—manufacturers—said today: 'A form of political extremism is at play here. It has cost us before and it could cost us again.' That is what the Australian Industry Group have had to say. Andrew McKellar, the head of ACCI—again, not an affiliate—said: This is not the time for another climate war— once again being negative— For the sake of certainty and the achievement of our emissions reduction goals, the Safeguard Mechanism must pass parliament. …   …   …    Past failure to deal with this reality has crimped certainty for industry and investors, and left our energy sector in disarray. I wonder who the energy minister was? Australian businesses and households are now paying the price. Indeed they are! (Time expired) Economy 51 14:29 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Treasurer. How does the Albanese Labor government's economic plan help address some of the factors putting pressure on inflation? 14:29 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the wonderful member for Macquarie for her question. I haven't had a question from the shadow Treasurer since November, so it's nice to get one from anywhere I can get it! We've got a lot going for us in our country and in our economy. We're getting good prices for our exports. We're seeing the welcome beginnings of wages growth in our economy. And unemployment has got a '3' in front of it, and that's important. There are new numbers out today—unemployment with a '3' in front of it. But, as we all know—certainly on this side of the House we understand—inflation is the biggest threat to our economy, because it's putting pressure on families, pensioners and small businesses in every community, in every corner of this country. We know from the Reserve Bank governor that at least half, and as much as three-quarters, of the inflation in our economy actually comes from supply-side pressures, pressures in our supply chains and in our workforces. Much of that has global origins, of course, and it's beyond our control, but some of it stems from a decade-long failure to deal with these growing challenges, and Australians are now paying a really hefty price for the economic mismanagement that this country has endured for the best part of a decade. So it's no coincidence that a key feature of our economic plan is about repairing these broken supply chains. It's a direct and deliberate response to the problems that were left to gather and grow larger over that wasted decade that we've been through. On this side of the House, in response to these economic challenges, we said we'd deliver a National Reconstruction Fund to create more opportunities and to fix our supply chains and make them more resilient, and that's exactly what we're trying to do. We said we'd tackle our housing affordability and supply problems with the Housing Australia Future Fund, and we're doing that as well. We said we'd invest in cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy, and we're doing that too. We said we would clean up the mess that they left us, and that's what we're trying to do. Before the parliament there are a number of bills which go right to the core of the economic plan that all the objective observers in this country think is the right way to come at this inflation challenge in our economy, and those opposite, true to form, are voting against them. When they vote no to the National Reconstruction Fund or the Housing Australia Future Fund or cleaner and cheaper energy, they are voting for broken supply chains, for fewer affordable homes, for even higher energy bills. In saying no to all these things, they are saying yes to higher inflation for even longer, when inflation is punishing our families and pensioners and small businesses. I think Australians understand who is working hard on their behalf to address the inflation challenge in our economy, and they know for sure who is hell-bent on keeping inflation higher for longer with this ridiculous, pig-headed approach to the legislation before the House. Housing 51 14:32 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders My question is to the Prime Minister. According to KPMG analysis, hundreds of thousands of Australians will face a $16,500 increase in mortgage repayments this year, following eight consecutive interest rate rises on the government's watch. Where are the cheaper mortgages the Prime Minister promised to deliver, and why do Australian families always pay more under Labor? 14:33 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm asked about our shared equity scheme that we announced during the election campaign. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. The member for Bowman is warned! Mr ALBANESE R36 The New South Wales Premier had this to say when they announced their own shared equity scheme, under the heading 'Thousands register for Shared Equity Home Buyer Helper ahead of launch': 'I understand the federal Liberal Party opposed Prime Minister Albanese's scheme; I think it makes sense.' He was then asked if they could change their tune, if they could come to their senses, and he said this: 'They'll see the light. I think it makes sense.' Turn the light on. Housing 52 14:34 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. Why is the Albanese Labor government prioritising its landmark housing reform package— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Parramatta will resume his seat. I cannot hear the question. I remind members: that is not the time to interject when the question is being asked but before an answer begins. Dr CHARLTON I8M My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. Why is the Albanese Labor government prioritising its landmark housing reform package, and what are the consequences of delay? 14:35 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for Parramatta for his question— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin will cease interjecting immediately. Ms COLLINS HWM because he understands, as those on this side of the House understand, how critical it is for us to deliver more social and affordable housing. Indeed, it was great to be in his electorate last November, when we jointly announced more than 300 affordable rental properties that the federal government is contributing to at Westmead. We talked to a key worker, a midwife, about how great that rental property was for her and how important it will be for her to be able to continue her job. With the passage of our landmark legislation through this House, we have taken a big step forward to start addressing the nation's housing crisis. The legislation will create the $10 billion Housing Australian Future Fund. This is the single biggest injection by a federal government in social and affordable housing in more than a decade. Of course, part of that package is our National Housing Supply and Affordability Council—we will be getting advice from the council, for all tiers of government, about how to improve housing supply and make it more affordable—and the creation of Housing Australia, which will be the home of our housing agenda. The $10 billion fund, as I said, is the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade. We on this side of the House make no apologies for trying to get this done as quickly as we can. We understand that people on the ground—the people who write to me and, I'm sure, many members over there every day, talking about how tough it is to be able to afford to rent a home—understand how critical this is, and we need to get on with it. I'd say to those opposite: stop saying no. Go back to your electorates after this parliamentary flurry, talk to people about social and affordable housing, come back here and tell your colleagues in the Senate to vote yes for this legislation. Get out of our way so that we can get on and deliver on our election commitment to help those Australians who are doing it tough and need this social and affordable housing; to help the women and children who are fleeing family violence— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting immediately. Ms COLLINS HWM to help to build more homes for veterans; and, importantly, to improve Indigenous remote housing. That is part of the legislation and part of what we're trying to do with this Housing Australia Future Fund. I cannot believe that members on the other side continue to say no to this. I want to thank all those members who actually voted yes. The crossbench all voted yes. The member for Bass voted yes. Of course, all on this side voted yes. But those on the other side continue to say no, and all this will do is delay this critical funding and getting homes on the ground. We need to ensure we get more homes on the ground more quickly for those Australians who need them. Temporary Protection Visas 53 14:37 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson My question is to the Prime Minister. The last time Labor dismantled the coalition's strong border protection policies, over 800 boats arrived and, tragically, 1,200 people died at sea. Now it's been revealed that the Australian Navy has had to divert resources to provide a surge of extra patrols in anticipation of an increase in illegal boat arrivals. Doesn't this prove that Labor's policy to end the deterrent of temporary protection visas provides an incentive to people smugglers to restart their evil trade? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Macnamara will cease interjecting. 14:38 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. The government is fully committed to Operation Sovereign Borders. We have made that very clear. Mr Dutton 00AKI Rubbish! You’ve taken every step to dismantle it. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 as will members on my left. Otherwise they will not be in the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 This government will be tough on borders without being weak on humanity. That's the position that we took to the election, and that's the position that we're implementing. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman is warned. Mr R36 It might seem obscure to those opposite—the idea of a government implementing the policies that they took to an election. But that is precisely what we are doing. When Mr Pezzullo, the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, was asked about whether the department advised against the changes to TPVs as announced today, he announced as crisply as he could, in one word, 'No.' Those opposite are familiar with the word 'no'. It's their favourite word. I don't know why they missed it. Mr Pezzullo also said that Operation Sovereign Borders relies upon three crucial pillars that he went through: an offshore disruption pillar, where you operate against the people smugglers and you seek to disrupt ventures before they take to sea; an on-water component that involves interception after detection of arriving vessels and their treatment; and a regional processing element that ultimately sees third-country resettlement. Those are the three pillars. He went on to say that is precisely what the government is implementing. But I am asked by the member opposite about the potential for boats attempting to getting here. I seem to remember millions of Australians getting a text message on election day, not when we were the government, when they were the government. It is true that perhaps the minister was not the one who authorised it. Perhaps the other Minister for Home Affairs was the one who authorised it, one of the most disgraceful manipulations that we have seen in Australian politics on your watch. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? Mr ALBANESE R36 Yes. The SPEAKER 53517 The Member from Moreton is warned. Privacy Act Review 53 14:41 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Attorney-General. Today the Attorney-General released the Privacy Act review that was promised but never delivered by the previous government. What are its key findings and what are the next steps for privacy reform? 14:41 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the honourable member for Pearce for her question. The large-scale data breaches of 2022 were distressing for millions of Australians, with sensitive personal information being exposed to the risk of identity fraud and scams. Following those breaches, the government acted very swiftly to significantly increase penalties under the Privacy Act for serious or repeated privacy breaches and gave the Australian Information Commissioner improved and new powers. But we made clear at the time that more was needed to protect Australians' privacy. The Australian people rightly expect greater protections, transparency and control over their personal information. Today I released the long-awaited review of the Privacy Act by my department. This review was commissioned by those opposite way back 2019 but they never finished it. This is just another example of the Labor government cleaning up the mess left by the Liberals and the Nationals. The comprehensive review that my department has completed now has found that the Privacy Act is no longer fit for purpose and does not adequately protect Australian's privacy in the digital age. The department's report makes 116 recommendations for change, and the government wants to know what Australians think about those suggested changes. I encourage all Australians interested in the protection of their privacy to make a submission to help guide our decision-making. I hope the review sparks a conversation about the need for change and how that change is to be made. We are not afraid of robust debate; in fact, I welcome it. Our government listens when Australians tell us there is a problem and, unlike those opposite, we will act to fix it. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 54 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Maimon, His Excellency Mr Amir, Stewart, the Hon. Scott 54 14:43 The SPEAKER 53517 I am pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery is a great friend of the parliament, His Excellency Mr Amir Maimon the Ambassador of Israel, and also the Hon. Scott Stewart the Minister for Resources in the Queensland Parliament. Welcome to you both. Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 54 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Library of Australia: Trove 54 14:44 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question as to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. Trove, the National Library of Australia's online platform, provides one of the world's largest digital archives of local history but its funding is set to expire in June. This news is causing concern among historians, family researchers and students. Will the government commit to funding Trove beyond June and will you commit to keeping its status free for all Australians? 14:44 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Mayo for her question. The member for Mayo is among many members who have been raising this issue with me. Obviously, I'm not in the position to announce decisions that are going through the budget process at the moment. But in terms of Trove, allow me to say this. First of all, Trove is something that when we were last in government we were very committed to with the funding. That funding was stripped away when we lost office. An opposition member interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW Check with George—George Brandis cut it. What then happened was, when the previous government recommenced funding for Trove, the funding was time limited, so that's why we're confronting an expiry date of 30 June this year. For those people who aren't familiar with Trove, effectively, this is how what is available in our collecting institutions becomes available to the whole of Australia. A whole lot of people, whether they're researching family history or are academics, are able to get access to what's in our collections, even if it's not on display. They're able to find out a good deal, not just about Australia's story but often about their own personal stories in the background of their own areas. The government is very much aware of the significance of Trove. You'll not find us showing a lack of commitment to it, if I could put it in those terms. But decisions on exact funding profiles are being made in the current budget process. I'm certainly looking forward to being able to provide more to the House as those decisions progress. National Security 54 14:46 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. How is the Albanese government tackling foreign interference activities in Australia? 11:46 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I thank the member for Adelaide for this really important question. It's no secret that we face enormously difficult geopolitical challenges—in fact, the most difficult that our country has faced since the Second World War. How we, as a parliament, manage those challenges will define the Australia that my children enjoy as adults. Our ability to manage and shape our nation's future will depend on how free and fair our democracy is, and how much Australians trust and engage with it. The stronger our democracy, the more choices we have about what our future looks like. The member for Adelaide has asked me about what is probably the biggest challenge to Australia's democracy today, and that is the threat of foreign interference. Countries can, quite legitimately, influence what happens in other nations in perfectly legitimate ways. The Australian government does it through embassies, through the diplomatic corps and through our engagement with multilateral institutions. What we will not tolerate are attempts to engage in our politics or to interfere in our communities in ways that are coercive, corrupting, deceptive or clandestine. We will not tolerate attempts by foreign powers to harass, watch and coerce Australian citizens. Foreign interference is real, it is relentless and it is happening in all of our communities every day, and our government is stepping up efforts to fight it. Earlier this week I spoke publicly for the first time about how one country, Iran, is attempting to influence Australian democracy in deceptive ways and trying to harass, watch and control the activities of Iranian Australians. Earlier this week I held a round table with other ministers and community leaders to talk about how we can work together on these problems. ASIO is very focused on these issues. I shared on Monday some detail about a plot that was foiled recently by our security agencies, where an Iranian-Australian family were put under surveillance in their own home in our country by the Iranian government. My message to regimes seeking to interfere with Australia and Australians is: don't. We are watching you and we will catch you. To tackle this problem, some things are going to need to change. I have asked my agencies to develop an attribution framework. I think it's really important for us, as a parliament, to be able to point out this issue and to call out the perpetrators where appropriate. We need a public debate which is commensurate with the size of this problem, and we are nowhere near that today. That's something that I'm trying to change. When I talk to communities who are potentially at threat from this problem, the clear message I get back from them is that they need our help and that they need more information. That's why my agencies are going to undertake widespread community outreach this year. Opposition members interjecting— Ms O'NEIL 140590 I really hope we'll have bipartisan support for these initiatives. I'm getting a little bit of backchat here and I'm not quite sure why that would be the case, because these are serious national problems that we are only going to be able to confront and tackle if we work together across the aisle as one country. Interest Rates 55 14:49 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer. If the Prime Minister is happy to claim credit for increases in employment since the election, why is he not prepared to take responsibility for the eight consecutive increases in interest rates on his watch? 14:50 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler They are very predictable. Each and every day, question No. 1 is from the Leader of the Opposition and question No. 2 is from the deputy leader. We then go to the crossbenchers. Then we have question No. 3 from the opposition from the shadow Treasurer, not to the Treasurer but to me. Then we go to the back, and then they think about what they'll do. I say to the member for Bradfield, congratulations on giving yourself the MPI. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause and I will hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI On relevance, Australian families are hurting and this Prime Minister is arrogant and refuses— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. That was not a point of order. It was not stated. I'm going to keep going. I give the call to the Prime Minister. Mr ALBANESE R36 Certainly it is a fact that inflation causes pain to people, and interest rates, when they're 3.35 per cent, compared with where they were, are placing pressure on families, just as on the Leader of the Opposition's watch they were 6.75 per cent. They were 6.75 compared with 3.35. Those opposite come into this chamber and decide on their tactics. The Manager of Opposition Business, who asked this question, is in charge of their tactics in this place. They come in and they vote against every piece of legislation that would make a difference to people. They voted against assistance in our housing package. They voted against the National Reconstruction Fund. They voted against energy price relief. They voted against industrial relations changes which were aimed at lifting wages. They vote against every initiative that is put forward. But there is some hope, I say to colleagues. There is some hope because the Leader of the Opposition has not done an MPI since he took that high office—not one. But, this afternoon, don't be alarmed if the oxygen masks drop from above; it will just be because the member for Bradfield is speaking! Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 55 14:53 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What have we learnt from the royal commission into robodebt about concerns raised by those representing the robodebt victims? 14:53 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for Makin for his question. Over the last two weeks I have updated the House about royal commission evidence on how various groups in the community warned the government about the unlawful robodebt scheme: the whistleblowers, the lawyers, the media and the brave victims. There's another group the royal commission has heard evidence from: the welfare advocates. These people are underfunded. They tirelessly and continuously warned about robodebt on behalf of our most vulnerable. Specifically the royal commissioners heard from respected welfare advocates Genevieve Bolton, Katherine Boyle and Katherine Eagle. Importantly, they reminded the royal commission that Australia is a signatory to the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, specifically article 9. Article 9 states that social security is a right for people to access. In other words, it is not an optional charity to be taken on a whim by the government. These advocates further gave evidence that they repeatedly told the former coalition government they had concerns with the averaging process, the automatic application of a 10 per cent interest fee, the unreliability of the automated process. The victims had to chase information from employers who were no longer in business. The victims were told at Centrelink that they first would have to borrow money from payday lenders or use their credit cards in order to pay unlawful debts. There were victims fleeing domestic violence who were homeless. The first time they knew they had a Centrelink debt, a robodebt debt, was when the debt collectors found them. The victims were told that, in a significant departure from previous practice before the coalition government, they had the onus— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the minister will resume his seat. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right. The SPEAKER 53517 The Attorney-General will cease interjecting. I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, you have ruled on this repeatedly. The minister is a repeat offender. The principle is clear—that he ought not to be drawing conclusions about the conduct of individuals who are parties to the proceedings. He risks compromising the royal commission by doing this. And, once again, he's doing exactly what he— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The Manager of Opposition Business is correct. On numerous occasions I've reminded the minister. I want him to answer the question with respect to the evidence and not put any conjecture onto any findings or any outcomes. If he does so, I will ask him to resume his seat. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I want to say for the record that, whilst the truth was uncomfortable for those listening to it, it was more uncomfortable for the robodebt victims, and everything I'm saying is evidence; these are facts. And no number of interjections from the member for Bradfield changes the truth. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will continue with his answer. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Of the spread of clients, the evidence shows—the advocates put forward that, of the spread of clients— Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The minister can continue with his answer. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The evidence shows from the advocates that, of the spread of clients— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Minister for Skills will cease interjecting. This is a serious issue for the parliament. I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Speaker, the principle is very clear. The royal commission is charged with reaching conclusions as to fact. That is exactly what is in the terms of reference. The minister is repeatedly trampling— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The minister was eight seconds in, and he was, in his opening remarks, talking about evidence. And I'm going to listen carefully to make sure he is referring to the evidence. If he doesn't, he will have one last time and he will be resuming his seat. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG For the benefit of the member for Bradfield, read from page 996 of the evidence—that's what I'm quoting from. Of the spread of clients who were contacted by these advocates, 37 per cent of the robodebt victims these advocates represent had a disability— The SPEAKER 53517 The manager will cease interjecting. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG nineteen per cent were homeless, and 12 per cent were victims of domestic violence or in danger of it. In summary, the advocates said: 'We consistently raised our concerns about robodebt, which we believed to be unlawful. It consistently fell on deaf ears.' I also wish to advise the House that, as at two o'clock today, the government has announced, at the request of the royal commission, an extension to its reporting date to 30 June this year. Mining Industry: PEP-11 57 14:58 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister: In 2021, at Terrigal, you said, 'A Labor government that I lead will stop PEP-11 dead in its tracks.' In this place, you said, 'PEP-11 has gone through Labor caucus and been unanimously rejected,' and you voted in support of debate on my bill. Any joint authority decision risks being challenged for apprehended bias and so takes years to be resolved. The New South Wales coalition have agreed to legislate. My bill is again on the Notice Paper. To give our community certainty, will you list it for debate and support and kill off PEP-11? 14:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The member asks a question which invites an answer that is in breach of the law, that has been determined in a court case, which is why we are in this circumstance in the first place. The Minister for Resources will make a decision according to the law. Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide 57 14:59 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. What action is the Albanese government taking to respond to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide? 15:00 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I thank the member for Werriwa for her important question and for her advocacy on a continued basis as I've engaged with her on behalf of the 1,500 veterans in her community. All members of this place advocate on behalf of their veterans, and that is a very good thing. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, which was supported by this government, handed down its interim report in August last year. I'm proud that in September I was able to present the government's formal response to that interim report—a sign of a good, competent government getting on with the job that is required of it by the Australian public, getting on with the job of implementing those recommendations. We responded to those 13 recommendations and have taken steps in respect of all 13 recommendations. Today I was able to advance our work in respect of recommendation 1, to harmonise and simplify veterans entitlements legislation. As the royal commission pointed out, the complexity of the legislation veterans have to deal with, and the delays veterans have had to deal with because of the complexity of that legislation, has been a contributor to the suicidality of our veterans. That is a national tragedy we have had to confront. That's why today I announced our pathway for consultation—the Veterans' Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway—setting out a way forward for us to improve the circumstances for our veterans, looking at an alternative way, closing out the two older schemes that have been in existence for well over 100 years, over a century, and moving forward for new claims to be dealt with under the remaining 21st century scheme. What we have announced today is a proposal for consultation. We want to work closely with those who are affected the most—our veterans, their families, our defence personnel—as well as engage with health professionals, veterans advocates and the many other people engaged in our veterans support system. We will be taking this pathway out for consultation, listening to people and their views and making sure we get this right on behalf of our veterans. I very much look forward to, as well as engaging in those direct consultations around the country with organisations and individuals, engaging with the opposition, the crossbench parties and the Independents to make sure we can all deliver a better future for our veterans and families. If we don't, there will be lives that will continue to be lost. Rural and Regional Health Services 57 15:02 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn My question is to the Prime Minister. Regional health services in my electorate are under enormous pressure. Can the Prime Minister explain to the communities of Central Queensland why Labor has broken its key election promise to have an urgent care clinic up and running within 12 months? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. 15:03 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I need to check my calendar for 2022, but I'm pretty sure the election was in May! We are very proud of the policy we took to the election to deliver 50 urgent care services over the course of this year. I say to the member and to all people in the House who have an interest in making it easier and cheaper to see a doctor that there has been absolutely terrific buy-in from every single state and territory government, Liberal and Labor alike. For the last few months we've been engaged very closely with them on the locations of the services that will be in their jurisdictions, on protocols between the urgent care service and the local hospitals, on protocols between the urgent care service and local ambulance services, and I'm making sure the scope of practice that will be delivered by the urgent care service is appropriate to restrict it to those non-life-threatening emergencies. This is a really important reform in Australia. Many members of this House will know that primary care services have been trying to get up an urgent care service model in Australia for years. The truth is that the Medicare system alone doesn't support it, which is why we took a model to the last election that would combine a mix of MBS servicing with block funding to underpin the staff that would be necessary for an 8 am to 10 pm offering, fully bulk-billed, taking walk-in patients, working closely with acute services in the region. I'd like to think that those opposite would like to get behind a model that will make it easier to see a doctor after being responsible for 10 years of cuts and neglect to Medicare that have put Medicare in its worse shape in its 40-year history. I think the member should talk to his leader, who bears more responsibility than any single person in this country for the condition of general practice after trying to foist a GP tax on every single Australian pensioner, concession card holder and child, and, when that couldn't get through the Senate, instead freezing the Medicare rebate for six long years—a practice continued by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when she was the Minister for Health. So I am happy to take questions about the fact that we were the only party who went to the last election promising more investment in Medicare, promising to strengthen a model we have such pride in as the creator of that great universal healthcare system, and promising 50 urgent care clinics around the country. Literacy and Numeracy 58 15:06 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Minister for Education. What changes is Albanese government making to NAPLAN to lift standards and provide better information to parents and teachers? 15:06 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the member for McEwen for his question. Every year in May, students right across the country in year 3, year 5, year 7 and year 9 sit the NAPLAN tests. They sit tests in reading, writing, spelling, grammar, punctuation and maths. Last Friday, education ministers met and agreed to the biggest changes in NAPLAN since it was established 14 years ago. The changes mean that the tests will now be in March rather than in May, and the tests will be all online. We're also lifting the minimum standards that students are going to be expected to meet. Moving the test forward from May to March is important because teachers and parents tell us it means they get information on how students and their children are progressing earlier in the school year. It still takes too long, though, once the test is done for teachers and parents to get that information—it can take months. So one of the things we need to work on over the next few years is getting that information to parents and teachers as quickly as possible. I said we're lifting the standards students are going to be expected to meet, and we are. At the moment, about seven per cent of students don't meet the minimum standard for NAPLAN. The changes we are making mean we expect that this year about 10 per cent of students won't meet that level. We're also making it simpler. Instead of 10 categories, there will now be four. The fourth category, where students don't meet the minimum standard, will be now be called 'needs additional support'. We have done that for a reason, and that is that parents have asked us to call it that—in particular, Indigenous parents and Indigenous teachers—to make it clear that they are below the minimum standard and that more support is needed, to zero in on this and make sure we can make a difference. Can I thank them for their input, and can I thank the education ministers across the country—Labour, Liberal and National. It's a good example of what we can do when we work together. The next thing we've got to do is to make sure we are providing that additional support. There are always going to be children who fall behind; what matters is what we do to make sure they don't stay behind or fall further behind, to help them catch up. As I said to the House last week, if you are a child from a poor background, from the regions, or if you're an Indigenous child, you're three times more likely to be in that group. So what we do here matters. The funding is important, but so is what it's spent on and what it's invested in. As we begin the work this year on developing the next National School Reform Agreement, what's important is that we tie funding to the sorts of things that are going to help these children who are falling behind so that the children who need the support the most to catch up get that support. Climate Change 59 15:09 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Can the minister guarantee that no businesses will close and no jobs will be lost as a result of Labor's changes to the safeguard mechanism? 15:10 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for his question and welcome him back to Australia after his highly successful tour of nuclear success stories that he conducted just last week! I'll tell you what I will guarantee. I guarantee that the safeguard mechanism reforms that we are putting in place will put Australian industries in the best possible position to make the most of the decarbonisation that's occurring around the world. I guarantee this: the reforms that we put in place, for which I have always given due credit to the member for Hume, like I do, as a post-partisan figure—I always give due credit to the member for Hume for the safeguard credits which he said would provide business with the opportunity for the lowest-cost abatement. I guarantee that it will provide that basis for the lowest-cost abatement. That's what I guarantee. I guarantee that the support of the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry reflects the views of industry. So, finally, after 10 years of denial and delay, we have a government with one energy policy, one climate change policy, which we are implementing— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will just cease for a moment. Resume your seat. I couldn't hear a lot, but I'll hear from the member for Fairfax. Mr Ted O'Br 138932 Mr Speaker, he did not answer the question— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister has concluded. Resume your seat. The minister has concluded his answer. Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 Answer the question! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 You're too scared to answer the question! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax will cease interjecting immediately. If he interjects one more time, he won't be here. Tertiary Education 59 15:11 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the delivery of the Albanese Labor government's fee-free TAFE and VET plan working to relieve cost-of-living pressures and repair supply chains? 15:12 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I'd like to thank the member for Corangamite for her very good question and for the fact she's been a strong advocate for skills. We had a wonderful roundtable in her electorate, talking to local businesses about how we can supply skills locally. Having inherited a massive skills shortage, we promised to respond accordingly. It's why we convened the Jobs and Skills Summit. It's why we announced the 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places for 2023. It's why we've established Jobs and Skills Australia. It's of course why we struck eight agreements with state and territory governments. Many people in this place, certainly on this side, fully understand the transformative power of education and training. We understand it for individuals and we understand the impact on the nation if we can invest in skills wisely, and of course that's what we look to do. And it's more important now than ever before. Nine out of every 10 jobs created in our economy require a university degree—which of course Minister Clare would fully understand—or a VET qualification. That's what we know. It's essential therefore that we remove barriers to education and training, and one of the barriers to education and training is cost. That's why we invested in 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places—to provide access to areas of skills that are in demand. The other reason we need to invest in skills is that, if we invest in skills that are in demand, we have a more productive and more efficient workforce. That's the reality. That's why it's so baffling that those opposite oppose this plan. If we are to rewire the nation and fulfil the Powering Australia plan, then we need to ensure that we invest in skills. If we're going to get the absolute maximum out of the National Reconstruction Fund, then we need to invest in skills. If we're going to look after older Australians and teach preschool kids, we have to invest in skills, and that's we've chosen to do. We need to do that because we need to be a better economy. If we invest in manufacturing, we're going to deal with the supply chain problems that the member asked about. These things matter. That's why our plans are being supported by ACCI, by AI Group, by the Business Council of Australia, by the ACTU and by many, many others. It really begs the question: why do those opposite oppose a plan that is good for workers, that is good for businesses, that is good for consumers and that is critical for this nation's future? Energy 60 15:15 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Has the minister received any advice from his department about the likely impact on energy prices of the forthcoming closure of the Liddell Power Station and any information about this government's delays in delivering the Kurri Kurri gas plant? 15:15 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I have received advice on the closure of the Liddell Power Station, which was announced when, I think, Malcolm Turnbull was the Prime Minister of Australia. I have received advice on the pressures in our energy system as a result of four gigawatts of dispatchable energy leaving our grid over the last decade and only one gigawatt of dispatchable energy coming on. I have received advice about that and the pressure it applies. The honourable member asked me about delays in Kurri Kurri and Snowy 2.0, or related to Snowy 2.0—two separate projects being managed by Snowy Hydro, both of which are running late as a result of mismanagement by the previous government. I have received advice on those matters. I'm happy to confirm it for the honourable member. Albanese Government 60 15:16 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Prime Minister. In 2022 the government passed legislation for cheaper medicines, cheaper child care and energy price relief, to take pressure off families. What is the government doing this year to strengthen our economy, and is there any opposition to these plans? 15:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Reid for her question. Indeed, when we were elected, we did hit the ground running. We are a government with a sense of purpose, and that's because, after a wasted decade of delay, denial and inaction, Australians wanted solutions, and that is what we are delivering. I am asked about what we're doing this year with legislation to make a difference. Of course, there are three pieces of legislation that are before this parliament: the Housing Australia Future Fund, affordable housing, housing for veterans, housing for women escaping domestic and family violence, housing for front-line workers; the National Reconstruction Fund, supporting Australian manufacturing, secure jobs, dealing with supply chain challenges; and the safeguards mechanism, providing business with certainty and ending the climate wars, which is why it's supported by the business community across the board. Across the board, all of those policies are supported by the sectors. Those opposite come here and ask about the challenges that we're facing. Well, they say no to every solution. Having presided over the creation of the problems, they say no to the solutions—no to affordable housing, no to housing for veterans, no to housing for women and children escaping domestic violence, no to secure jobs, no to manufacturing, no to industries in our regions, no to energy price relief, no to ending the climate wars. They don't have amendments. They don't have ideas. They just say no. At a time when Australians want us to come together and offer real solutions, those opposite offer nothing but cynical, negative politics. Making Tony Abbott look positive is what they are doing. We're investing in making things here in Australia, in value-adding. Those opposite are determined to add no value at all, either in industry or in this chamber. We're investing to make sure that Australians have a roof over their head. Those opposite are determined to slam the door on them. We're investing in ending the climate wars and moving Australia forward, giving business the certainty that it needs. Those opposite are stuck in the past, and they want us to all go back there and join them. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has a different view. He said this week: I think it's in Australia's interest for us to try to have greater policy certainty in the long run there. He argued for the safeguard mechanism in their team. He said this: … we need to be making sure that we are as a country leading in terms of our work around emissions reduction, that we are as a parliament trying to provide greater certainty for Australian business for the long run … He had that to say after the election. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister's time has expired. Mr ALBANESE R36 And on that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 60 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Christian, Mr Colin 60 15:20 The SPEAKER 53517 Colin Christian is retiring from the Department of the House of Representatives and is in the gallery today after 43 years of service supporting this parliament. He commenced in 1980 in the Joint House Department down the hill at the provisional Parliament House. As head chef at the old building, Colin provided input into the design of the kitchens for the new building and moved to this building when it opened in 1988, 35 years ago. He had a role in managing formal functions, including for visiting dignitaries. In 2001 Colin was awarded a Centenary of Federation medal for many years of dedicated service to the Commonwealth Parliament in the field of catering. After changes in parliamentary administration, Colin moved to the office supporting parliamentary relations on behalf of both the House and the Senate, where he focused on function coordination and providing admin support for international delegations. Indeed, even today Colin was providing his usual expert support for a visiting international delegation at lunch time. On behalf of the House and all members, Colin, I want to thank you for your service to the parliament over such a long period, and I offer you our best wishes for a well-deserved retirement. Honourable members: Hear, hear! STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 61 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Davis, Mr Trevor, Langridge, Mr Dylan 61 15:21 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Can I have the time of the House for the miners at Cloncurry. Our miners create three-quarters of Australia's income. Mining is an intrinsically dangerous occupation. I represent Mount Mulligan, where 72 human beings ceased to exist in 15 seconds—the entire male population of the town. Twenty three died in 15 seconds at Mount Leyshon, at Charters Towers, where I live, where my son worked in the mines. Near my home town of Cloncurry, where I once was a miner myself, Dylan Langridge and Trevor Davis are the two boys trapped underground in Cloncurry's Dugald River mine. In such times when I face darkness I turn to Slim Dusty and Stan Coster's very sad song: 'When life's going easy God is far from our mind, but when the bad things and sad things darken our day, we call out to Jesus in a most selfish way.' I ask for the parliament to give one minute of prayer and reflection for these Australian boys in the gravest of danger. 15:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I pay tribute to the member for Kennedy for the work that he does as a local member and for the passion that he has for the community in Cloncurry, which I've visited with him on no less than three occasions over the years. These two men are missing some 125 metres underground at a zinc mine in Dugald River some 70 kilometres north-west of Curry. Dylan Langridge and Trevor Davis are in our thoughts at this time, as are all of their family and their friends. I know that the Australian Workers Union are talking with the workers on site, and this will be a difficult day for all who work in what is a difficult and sometimes dangerous occupation. The men's ute fell into a large void at the zinc mine at about 8.45 yesterday morning. Their ute fell into the void after a 30-tonne drill rig fell 25 metres. The mine is run by MMG Ltd. Another worker was injured when the rig fell, but I am advised that he is stable. At this time our thoughts are with the family of these two men and also with all the people of Curry. I know what a close knit community Curry is—everyone knows everyone in that town—and our thoughts are with them today. 15:24 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I want to say thank you very much to the member for Kennedy for raising this issue in the parliament. Everybody has been watching anxiously and waiting—hoping and praying for a miracle—in relation to these two men. I commend the Prime Minister for his very generous and warm words. The mine has about 500 workers and they'll all be incredibly anxious. Family members in the local community, and, obviously, the family members of Trevor and Dylan, will be beside themselves. The work of the emergency services is always to run towards the danger, not away from it and, in people's hours of darkness, they know that those emergency workers will be doing everything humanly possible to find the miracle that we all hope and pray for. I am reminded, of course, of the miracle that we saw in Beaconsfield, and I acknowledge Bill Shorten's efforts, and those of many others, in Tasmania in 2006. But it does look dire, and it's a reminder of the dangerous work that is undertaken in a very significant industry and sector within our community. On behalf of the opposition, I want to send our thoughts and prayers to the families and to the community in Dugald River, Cloncurry and the surrounding areas. We are all hoping for the best possible outcome, but fearing the worst. The SPEAKER 53517 I ask all present to rise in their place to show our support for the missing miners. All m embers present stood, in silence. STATEMENTS 61 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 61 15:26 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Ms STEGGALL 175696 Yes, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 Please proceed. Ms STEGGALL 175696 The Prime Minister has misrepresented me in his answer to my question in question time just now. The question was very clearly about whether or not he would stay true— The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Warringah, that is not a misrepresentation. You need to state very clearly if you have said something which has been misrepresented. Ms STEGGALL 175696 He has misrepresented me in identifying that somehow I do not know the law, in that it is not possible to bring on legislation in respect of the PEP 11 matter. That is a misrepresentation. The SPEAKER 53517 It's not a misrepresentation of what was said, it is a debating point. There are other forms of the House where you may raise that. I remind all members that if you are seeking a representation, it's common courtesy to let the Speaker know before seeking the call. I shall send the members information about misrepresentation. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 62 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER House of Representatives 62 15:28 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah With my utmost respect, Mr Speaker, I'd like to raise my concern about the question of procedural fairness in the House when it comes to the application of standing orders. Standing orders clearly identify that a member may raise a point of order on the issue of relevance. The point of order may then be considered and ruled upon by the Speaker. The Speaker has now, on a few occasions—and I don't dispute that we do, on a number of occasions in this place, have repeated questions and repeated points of order on relevance that may not always be appropriate. But I would respectfully request consideration of the application of standing order 86 in relation to points of order, which states: … a Member may raise a point of order with the Speaker at any time. So a member should have the opportunity to make the point of order, consideration should be given to that point of order and: … consideration and decision of every other question shall be suspended until the matter is disposed of by the Speaker giving a ruling thereon. I'm concerned about pre-empting points of order and not giving a member the opportunity to make it. Respectfully, I would say that in circumstances where a member is raising a point of order for the first time that it's not contrary to standing order 104, which is in relation to whether or not the point of order is vexatious or out of order itself. I would like to bring the Speaker's attention to this issue and ask for a consideration of the interpretation of the standing orders in relation to points of order. 15:29 The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member. I will also hear from the Leader of the House on this matter. 15:30 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Mr Speaker, in the discussion that has just been raised there is a competing principle within the standing orders about the way in which a ruling of the Speaker can then be canvassed. There's a very strong limitation under standing order 87 as to the only way we can disagree if the Speaker has made a ruling. The only two circumstances that I've seen this term where the Speaker has not allowed a point of order on relevance was where he had immediately before that moment ruled that at that point the minister was being relevant, so to take the point of order at that moment is to canvass the ruling. It doesn't prevent later during the answer a point of order being taken on that basis. But the specifics of canvassing a ruling are very common. By doing it that way, members, it means that you still have the opportunity to make that point of order later. It hasn't actually been used up. In previous terms, the practice of Speakers, including the very well regarded Tony Smith when he was in the chair, would be that if he thought it was being taken in a frivolous way to not even hear someone. You would stand there and sometimes not get the call. The concept of limiting it to only the circumstances where a ruling has immediately been made is completely consistent with the standing orders and Practice. 15:31 The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member for raising that issue. I shall report back to her. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 62 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 62 15:31 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Bradfield proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's lack of focus on 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— 15:32 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield The most urgent issue facing Australian families is the cost-of-living crisis. We see a drumbeat of pieces of evidence for this proposition. Just last week the Reserve Bank of Australia lifted rates for the eighth consecutive time on this government's watch to 3.35 per cent, and of course the actual rates that households pay are much higher than that. The last time interest rates were this high was when Labor were last in office. The Prime Minister was forced to admit that 800,000 Australians will move from lower fixed rates to higher variable rates over the course of 2023, creating a serious shock to the budgets of many households. If you're presently on a fixed mortgage rate of 1.8 per cent and you're suddenly going to 5.8 per cent, that is a huge cost to the family budget. For a typical family that has entered into a new mortgage of $750,000 that means additional payments of $18,000 a year. Just think about the likely knock-on effects for local restaurants and clothes retailers—in fact, all across the economy. Reports are showing that an alarming one in five Australian households are suffering mortgage stress, including an estimated more than 100,000 pushed into it after the latest rate rise under the Albanese government. Many small businesses are in the same boat. The Prime Minister was asked about this very issue in question time. He has failed to tell us how many, but we know that a significant proportion of small businesses will have a loan that will move from a fixed rate to a higher variable rate this year. We know that rents are increasing. Recent reports show that rental prices are at historic highs across most capital cities. We know that energy bills are skyrocketing. The government itself admitted in its budget that it expects electricity bills to be up 56 per cent and gas bills to be up 40 per cent over the foreseeable future. We know from the instances that hardworking members on this side of the House have highlighted that Joe and Julie Siragusa, in the electorate of Flinders, are facing a $667 increase in their gas bill. The member for Barker told the House that the food manufacturer Nippy's is facing an increase in its gas bill of 92.5 per cent—$900,000. And today, of course, we learned that unemployment has jumped to 3.7 per cent, with over 30,000 people losing their jobs in the last two months. So there is no question that this nation and Australian families are facing a serious and pressing cost-of-living crisis. But what do we hear from this government? The telling and grim reality is that this government has no answers or plan. What do they say when they are asked about these issues in question time? What do they say? Mr Rae 300122 There's a trillion dollars of debt. Mr 240756 Calm down, Hairspray! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Order! Member for Barker, withdraw the comment. Mr Pasin 240756 I withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Thank you. Manager of Opposition Business, you may proceed. Mr FLETCHER L6B They tell us that they recalled parliament on 15 December. It was supposedly to come up with a plan on energy prices. But the simple fact is that these measures are hopelessly inadequate. If we just look at rising interest rates, on a typical mortgage a family is paying $18,000 more a year. You would need to have 1,400 scripts a year for the savings to outweigh your extra mortgage costs, and obviously almost nobody is going to be in that position. Of course, child care is important for Australians with young children, but the relief won't start until July and, for millions and millions of Australians, they are not at a stage of life where that is going to be providing assistance. What is the plan to deal with rising interest rates? It is increasingly clear that this government does not have a plan beyond repeatedly saying, 'The independent Reserve Bank of Australia.' Who says that? The Treasurer. The man who appoints the board of the Reserve Bank of Australia constantly says, 'The independent Reserve Bank of Australia.' This government is in disarray in how they are dealing with the challenge of repeatedly rising interest rates. Last week the Assistant Treasurer had this to say about interest rate rises. He said he was hoping that 'if this is not the last it's near the last of the rate increases'. Hope is not a plan, and it's clearly not a very well-founded hope because, regardless of what the Assistant Treasurer in his bumbling fashion might say, if you ask the man who's actually got responsibility, together with the board, he says that further increases in interest rates will be needed over the months ahead. So we have this bumbling Assistant Treasurer saying that he is hoping it is near the last of the rate increases. What is very clear is that this government simply does not have a plan to deal with rising interest rates. That's before we turn to the pressing problem of energy. On 97 occasions before the election, the Prime Minister promised that energy bills would be lower by $275. He arrived at that conclusion based upon modelling work done by the member for McMahon. What a distinguished track record he has had in this place! He's the same genius who came up with Fuel Watch, Grocery Watch and the Malaysian solution, and the Labor Party turned to him and said, 'Tell us what to do about energy prices.' He came up with dodgy modelling and, on the basis of that, on 97 occasions the Prime Minister told the Australian people before the election that energy bills would go down by $275. Exactly the opposite has been happening. As bills have been rocketing around the country, their solution was an urgent parliamentary recall in the middle of December. Supposedly the details were going to be finalised by the National Cabinet by March. We've now learned that's not going to happen until the budget in May. The New South Wales Treasurer, repeatedly quoted, I must say, by the Prime Minister, has come out and said the money promised by the Commonwealth has not yet materialised. Let's be clear. Even if this relief is ever delivered, the simple fact is that Australians' power bills will be going up by hundreds of billions of dollars, even after whatever the government manages to deliver, not down by the $275 which the Prime Minister repeatedly promised. Perhaps the single most troubling aspect of all of this is that, in the face of these pressing problems, which are urgently engaging Australian families around the kitchen table all across our country, it is abundantly clear that dealing with these problems is not the central focus of this government. They have their mind on other things. Indeed, the man who is supposed to be right at the centre of the response—instead of focusing on how he can drive down interest rates, how he can get inflation under control—has been writing 6,000-word essays quoting Greek philosophers. He does want us to know that he's really clever. He reads weighty books like Jared Diamond's Upheaval; he name checks cool leftie economists like Mariana Mazzucato. He's au fait with Nouriel Roubini's gloomy predictions. He has fascinating conversations with people like the Canadian central banker Mark Carney. He wants us to know that he's a big Labor thinker, because what big Labor thinkers spend their summers doing is writing essays for the Monthly. We know that because he pointed it out in the very essay. He said, in case we didn't know, that Kevin Rudd wrote one in February 2009, and that other big Labor thinker, also from Queensland, Wayne Swan, wrote one in March 2012, and Jim's very much in the same tradition—a big Labor thinker, pondering these complex issues over Christmas— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Excuse me, Member for Bradfield— An honourable member interjecting— Mr FLETCHER L6B Not for Jim; he's got a big to-do list— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Bradfield! Mr FLETCHER L6B Not for the Treasurer, Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You will use the correct titles when you're referring to members in the House. Mr FLETCHER L6B That's true, because— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Thank you. We're relying on you to set a good example here. Mr FLETCHER L6B Indeed, Deputy Speaker—you are absolutely right; I am rightly rebuked, because I should acknowledge and respect the big plans of the Treasurer. He's not rearranging the sock drawer. Instead, he's going to redefine and reform our economy and institutions; he's reimagining and redesigning markets; he's renewing and restructuring the way that our markets allocate and arrange capital; he's going to build a better capitalism, uniquely Australian, and he's going to do it this year, if you read the essay carefully. The simple fact is: if the Treasurer just got on with his day job and had a real plan to get the cost of living down, get energy costs down, get interest rates down and get inflation down, then maybe the rest of us might have quite the high opinion of him that he has of himself. 15:42 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper We understand that the rising cost of living is hitting a lot of Australians hard. Inflation is the defining economic challenge of 2023, as it was in 2022. Australians understand that we did not create these challenges, like the war in Ukraine. But they elected us to take responsibility for addressing them, And we are. In this MPI, the opposition are leading with their chin. I'm not a violent person—I don't even like violent analogies—but I know that my colleagues and I today are going to look at that poked out chin and we are going to sock it to them. The Albanese Labor government is absolutely delivering the positive change Australians voted for, including sensible non-inflationary measures to tackle the cost of living. Those across the way just don't get it. Unless there's a colour coded Excel spreadsheet attached to a budget policy, they seem to have no idea. Managing the economy, of course, is far more complicated than that, and we are staying focused on easing pressure on households and helping Australians manage their budgets, fixing the mess that those opposite left, and getting on maturely and responsibly managing the budget. We are focused on immediate household budget relief. Just last week in this House I was so pleased to see us pass legislation to improve the Paid Parental Leave scheme. I take the opportunity to thank the Minister for Social Services. As someone who struggled through a difficult time without paid parental leave, having four children, I can tell you that this would've eased the cost of living for me, and it has definitely eased the cost of living for families, including people like my daughters. Who would have thought that those on that side did everything they could to scuttle that scheme. On 1 January, our cheaper medicines policy took effect—the first time ever there has been a cut to the cost of medicines, which most definitely leads—would you believe it?—to an ease on the cost of living for all Australians who rely on prescription medicines. Imagine, when those opposite were in government, on their watch, people had to make a decision: 'Can I afford my medicines this month or can I pay my rent or put food on the table?' They no longer have to do that. We have introduced cheaper child care. One point two million families will see a significant easing of their cost of living when the policy takes effect on 1 July. And let's talk about energy costs, which they like to go on about. Can I say here, before I explain what we're actually doing with our superfabulous energy policy, that what people are experiencing now with rising energy costs is in no small way due to 10 years of complete incompetence and mayhem under the previous coalition government, which was incapable of setting up this country with adequate, secure renewable energy, which is the cheapest form of energy, the most sustainable form of energy and the form of energy from which we can draw the most energy security. It's thanks to them for nothing. You see, we have an energy policy supported by the vast majority of people, businesses, peak bodies and unions. We've introduced legislation that will drive investment in cleaner and cheaper energy, which will without a doubt put downward pressure on prices and—dare I say it?—ease the cost of living. As well as that, we haven't wasted a moment upgrading the grid. Investing in renewables has increased by 50 per cent in a year—most of that since May—and already things like electric vehicles are cheaper and more accessible. We've taken urgent action, with our Energy Price Relief Plan, to shield Australian families and businesses from the worst energy price spikes, easing costs, protecting local industry and saving jobs. To think the opposition voted against that policy! Again, thanks to them for nothing. We now have Treasury data showing our policy is working. Another vital part of easing the cost of living is making sure people earn decent wages, because they have been stagnant for too long, and we are getting wages moving. We have successfully argued for a minimum wage increase, the first cabinet submission of the Albanese government. The coalition would not back it. They opposed it. They cautioned that the sky would fall in from a $1-an-hour pay increase for the lowest-paid workers. We are about easing the cost of living. They don't seem to be at all. We supported the aged-care wage case in the Fair Work Commission. We've now seen an interim decision pushing up minimum wages for some aged-care workers by at least 15 per cent—dare I say it?—easing the cost of living for some of the lowest-paid workers. We passed the Secure Jobs, Better Pay legislation, modernising the bargaining system so workers can get their fair share of the national income; their share of the national income had been the lowest it's been for decades. We've introduced paid family and domestic violence leave so that women don't have to lose their jobs when they are struggling with everything it takes to leave a violent home. We are going to make sure there are gender pay equity mechanisms, improving pay for women. We've introduced Revive, a national culture policy that ensures better pay and conditions and more financial security for people in the arts industry. We'll be allowing pensioners to keep more of their income. All of these things immediately ease the cost of living. You see, we have a vision. We have a plan for this country, which those opposite simply could not manage in 10 long, sorry years, leaving Australia in a mess. We are cleaning up that mess. Not only are we relieving cost-of-living pressures immediately but we have a plan for the longer term to repair the economy. We have long-term plans that will make life easier for everyone and ensure the cost of living continues to ease. We are so proud to have our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which, along with the National Housing Accord and the homebuyer guarantee, will see millions of homes made available, making housing affordable and accessible and tackling homelessness. But they on that side of the House would not support this. Unbelievably, they would not vote for that. We know that keeping people healthy is an incredibly important part of making sure they can live their best life, and we are reforming and strengthening Medicare, ensuring Australians can get the health care they need, when they need it, where they live. And we are introducing a National Reconstruction Fund, making sure that things are made here, securing supply chains, creating jobs, restoring manufacturing and making Australia a leader in industrial innovation. What could be more vital for the economy? They on that side of the House will not support it. Anyone would think that they want to increase the cost of living, want to keep inflation high and want households to suffer. We will be introducing 180,000 fee-free TAFE places so that people can get the skills they need to work in the better paid jobs our policies are creating. We will make sure that financial security is front and foremost in our policies by showing fiscal restraint with mature and sensible decision-making, mature and sensible government that goes beyond colour coded spreadsheets, beyond mere political pointscoring, beyond student politics style posturing, beyond cheap social media clips collecting likes and email harnessing, beyond jobs and contracts for the boys. The best thing we can do to ease the cost of living is to be prudent ourselves with the nation's resources. Finally, I would like to add that the vision of a fairer, more affordable and secure future will be done with the advice and counsel of a First Nations Voice to Parliament and a commitment to treaty and truth-telling, because this is a pathway to reconciliation, a pathway to lasting change. We believe that pathway to a better future is done with people, not to them. Those opposite are so quick to throw barbs, so quick to accuse us of not addressing the cost of living that people are facing, but Australians know better. Australians know that the cost-of-living crisis is due to their inept policies, their mishandling of the economy and their incompetence— Mr Violi 300147 It was Russia. Ms KEARNEY LTU He's right; I'll take that—along with other external things that are out of our control. Thank you for reminding me. Australians know we are the government of great reform. We are the government that will always look after them. They elected us to manage these challenges, and we are taking up that challenge. 15:51 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Deputy Speaker, I want to take you back—it wasn't really that long ago—to the election campaign we had through March, April and the early part of May of last year. If you were look at the news clips and the campaign slogans, there were a few campaign slogans from the other side. If you look at the press conferences that the now government and then opposition held, and if you look at what they were putting out into their campaign paraphernalia, they were saying some very specific things. One of the main themes they ran with was that families and people were going to be better off under Labor. Now, when people hear that they are going to be better off, it has very clear connotations to Australians that they are going to be better off financially. They were quite specific, to give them credit. I will give the now government and then opposition credit because at least they did come up and say exactly what they planned to do. They said on hundreds of occasions—I think the Prime Minister was known to say it on 50 or 60 occasions, and many other ministers said the same thing—that they had one of the most extensively modelled campaign commitments that have ever done. They weren't just making it up, they weren't just having a guess at the figure; they said they had extensively modelled, better than any opposition in the country's history, that they were going to give every family a $275 cut to their power bill. They were even saying that after the election. Some of the ministers after the May election were then saying, 'Yes, that's right.' The Prime Minister didn't, but some others were caught out in interviews still saying that. Then, of course, there was a dawning, and the now minister for climate change suddenly said, 'Maybe things happened,' and did a bit of a slow crab walk away from it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Hawke. Mr HOGAN 218019 The joke about the other side is they say, 'The Ukraine war!'; but the Ukraine war started before the election, sunshine! The Ukraine war was going before the election. They were saying they were going to do a $275 power bill cut when the Ukraine war was on, but suddenly after the election they say, 'The Ukraine war means we can't do it.' Mr HOGAN 218019 The Ukraine war was going before the election. Go back and google it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Order! Member for Hawke, if I say it again, you're out. Mr HOGAN 218019 The other thing they talk about is supply issues, but suddenly— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Page, I'm not deaf. Mr HOGAN 218019 Good point, Deputy Speaker. I couldn't hear myself because of the loudmouth over there. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I am feeling it, so let's dial it down. Mr HOGAN 218019 I am glad you called him out. The other thing was, those opposite talked about the Ukraine war, which started before the election, but suddenly it was a problem after the election with their power bill promise. They then said 'supply-side constraints'. Well, wasn't that put into the extensive modelling that was done? Apparently not. I would have thought that a lot of the supply-side constraints got better post COVID. Not only that but in the October budget, a few months later, they said, 'Actually, your energy bills are going to go up 50 or 60 per cent over the next couple of years.' It was exceptionally deceitful of this government. What is their solution to that? Their solution—this is a smart—to the problems with power prices is actually to cut one of the supplies to energy transmission—that is, gas. In the gas industry, many people are saying those opposite have stuffed up the supply of gas into the system. That was their solution. We will see how that plays out, but I will not put anything on it to lower prices. The other thing the government said was 'cheaper mortgages'. Can you actually believe they said this? In April and early May, they were saying, 'We're going to give you cheaper mortgages.' Now their line is, 'There are a lot of things in train that you did that mean it is not going to happen.' Could they not see it then? They couldn't see any problems with delivering cheaper mortgages before the election, saying 'you're going to have cheaper mortgages' but, suddenly, after the election, there have been eight interest rates increases from eight Reserve Bank board meetings. Before that, the government were saying 'cheaper mortgages' but, no, there are all these things happening. Did they not see that when they were saying 'cheaper mortgages'? Again, it was exceptionally deceitful to the men and women and families of Australia. You would think, 'Okay, the Treasurer would have solutions to this.' His solution was a waffly 6,000-word essay. (Time expired) 15:57 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I will try to tone it down a little bit and avoid inflaming those opposite. I am happy to speak on this matter of public importance brought by the member for Bradfield. It is interesting that something that is important enough to be introduced in parliament was not important enough for the member for Bradfield to stay and listen to. I think that goes to the nub of those opposite, really. They are happy to pay a little bit of lip service to cost-of-living issues but they will not actually vote for anything that will help. This is for the benefit of the member for Casey, someone a little bit younger. There was an ad back in the eighties for Stainmaster carpet, where there is a cleaning lady for Pro Hart comes in and says, 'Oh, Mr Hart, what a mess.' You could google it or look for it on YouTube. She says, 'You have left me this mess.' Obviously, those opposite are not Pro Hart—they are more no heart—but they have left us with a cost-of-living mess—and it certainly ain't art; I can tell you that. Let's detail how the people of Australia were left with this cost-of-living mess by those opposite and it will help them. I am really keen to help a party of government. I am all for a party of government. I have seen what those extreme parties do when they come in here, but a party of government should listen because they are a little bit lost at the moment. They do not know where they're going. The first thing they need to know is where they are. If they are going to have any hope of being a party of government again, they need to work out why they would vote against $1.5 billion in support of the cost of energy. That is a cost-of-living issue. People opposite have told me, 'You are sheep. You have to vote where the party goes.' They are the rules of the Labor Party. Those opposite get to decide every single time they vote on an issue—every single time. They are supposedly not sheep. Nodding like goats, I see, or like some other animal perhaps—a lemming or something like that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Moreton. Mr PERRETT HVP Collective goats, Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I think it might be easier if you just withdraw. Mr PERRETT HVP I withdraw both the lemmings and the goats bit. Why would they vote against support for people who have cost-of-living issues if they cared about the cost of living? Look at all the other things they've voted against. They are the pin-ups for political cynicism, even voting against their own energy policy. Well done, Angus, if you can vote against your own energy policy! Sure, they had 20 of them, but that was obviously bizarre. And they turned energy into a culture war, making scientists somehow a contested area—questioning the CSIRO. It was bizarre that they would do that. As I said, they've got a free vote every single time. Let's look at some of the other things that the Labor Party have committed to, including manufacturing industries, which will result in secure, well-paid jobs, which is actually something that is good in a cost-of-living crisis. Secure, well-paid jobs are good for national security and our sovereignty because we're making more things in Australia. How could you vote against that? What about making child care cheaper? That is good in itself, but in terms of boosting productivity we've heard that investing in cheaper child care is the lowest-hanging fruit we have. What about social and affordable housing? I can understand why some extreme hypocrites would vote against it, but why would a party that saw the housing crisis that is being rolled out across the bush, in Bundaberg, in Brisbane, in Booval—everywhere there is a housing crisis—vote against our housing policy? Remember that election campaign where the member for Grayndler held up a dollar coin and said, 'This is what we're trying to give the people of Australia,' and their economic team started frothing at the mouth, saying that it was going to end up with cats and dogs sleeping together and the end of Australian civilisation. Mathias Cormann belled the cat when he said that low wages are a deliberate design strategy when it comes to the coalition. If you're going to keep voting no, you're going to end up in the wilderness forever. Those seats are going to be painted teal for the Liberals—sit down, sunshine; I'm not finished yet! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You've got one minute. Mr PERRETT HVP They'll be teal forever unless you can find direction. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Take a seat, Member for Moreton. Member for Barker, you have a point of order? Mr Pasin 240756 The honourable member opposite should refer to members by their correct title. Mr PERRETT HVP Sit down, sunshine. The DEPUTY S PEAKER: Could you please sit down. I'd like to take this up now. Member for Moreton, I ask you to withdraw that comment, please. It was made twice. You know it's out of order. Mr PERRETT HVP I withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Barker, I have also warned you about those sorts of interjections, so you are on red alert as well. 16:02 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler We humbly accept the apology from the member for Moreton. I think it was the acronym he was intending to use: GOAT, greatest of all time. So we forgive him. I want to start with some quotes, and we'll play a little guessing game about who these might be from: 'Look, it's the job of the Prime Minister to deal with the challenges Australia faces and not to constantly just blame someone else.' 'As your Prime Minister, I won't run from responsibility.' 'I think you've got to accept responsibility.' I want to step up to the plate. I will accept responsibility.' 'I'll take responsibility. I'll show leadership.' And, finally, 'I think that Australians want a government that does its job, that doesn't always blame someone else, that accepts responsibility.' Who do you think that might have been? Well, it was the now Prime Minister, the member for Grayndler. They are quotes from the now Prime Minister. Every single question time, we put questions forward to the Prime Minister, to the Treasurer, to others, about, firstly, the $275 that was promised in reductions in electricity prices and, secondly, about the cost of living, because the people that I represent, and people right across this country, are hurting. They are absolutely hurting. We have seen significant increases. The most recent report I've seen is that the cost of living is up 9.3 per cent. I genuinely do not know how they are paying their bills. We have some 800,000 mortgage holders who are going to come off fixed interest rates onto a change of rate and have a substantial change in the payments they have to make every month. We continue to ask questions about what is a serious issue, yet those opposite don't answer those questions; in fact, they find them funny on occasion. They think it's more important to have a shot at the member for Hume, for example, or others. These are serious issues for the people of Australia, and I think they will see through the answers that are being put forward, because they are not taken seriously. There is nothing that matters more to the Australian people right now than their ability to pay their bills, and it is getting harder under this government, not easier. It is getting much, much harder, not easier. Then, of course, we come to the great champion with the great solution of Jimbonomics. Now, Jimbonomics— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Excuse me, Member for Hinkler. I think it would be helpful for you to withdraw that comment. Mr PITT 148150 I withdraw it. It's a description of a particular treatise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I withdraw it if it assists the chamber. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Thank you very much. Mr 148150 We see in this 6,000-word treatise that will rebuild capitalism that the priority of the new Labor government is to change the way that capitalism has worked in the country for a very, very long time, and worked successfully. We see proposals where they can take your superannuation—as in mine, not yours, Madam Deputy Speaker—to build someone else a house but not to pay for your own house. We see proposals where investments will be about social outcomes, not returns. I'm confident that those who are out there investing in superannuation want to maximise the ability for them at the time that they retire, so that they get more benefit, so that they can live for longer without looking for support from the Commonwealth and others. With the cost of living up 9.3 per cent, I'm advised that wages are up only three per cent. That is a significant differential, and it hurts. What happens locally is things like this. This is a story from Bundaberg today on the School Savvy program. I congratulate CatholicCare's Shari Jackson and the rest of the team, but I am absolutely appalled that it's even necessary. The School Savvy program is in its fourth year. This time round, in the first half of a week they had a thousand people utilise these services. What are these services? They're services—essential school supplies, haircuts and second-hand uniforms—provided to people who are facing significant financial pressure. The fact that we have a thousand people in my local area who need this support is an absolute disgrace. I congratulate those individuals out there working hard to make sure they help individuals who cannot pay their bills. They are taking responsibility. Our local community is taking responsibility to help those less fortunate who are really struggling, whether because of power prices, gas prices, changes in wages or massive increases in interest rates. We've seen eight interest rate increases in a row in a very short period of time, and they affect everyone who has a mortgage. I say to those opposite: next time you have a question in question time on cost of living, don't have a shot at the member for Hume; answer the question. Tell us what the plan is and how it will be fixed. 16:07 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid I welcome the member for Hinkler's empathy towards his community. It's just a shame that it has only come now that he's sitting on the benches opposite. I welcome the focus from those opposite on helping families with the cost of living. It's just a shame it's only come now you're in opposition. Let's look at your report card from when you were in government, firstly on wages. What happened to wages when those opposite were in power? They stagnated. It was a deliberate design feature of their economic strategy. How do we know? The former minister for finance Mathias Cormann told us. Well, the strategy worked—one of the few things you were able to achieve while you were in government. Wages flatlined. During the campaign, when those opposite were given an opportunity to back ordinary workers in this country, they baulked. Low wages were so ingrained in their thinking that they refused to back a wage increase in line with inflation for our lowest-paid workers: aged-care workers, childcare workers, cleaners—those who got us through the pandemic. Those opposite wanted to deny them a $1-an-hour increase. So on wages you failed. What have we done? We passed the secure jobs, better pay bill to get wages moving. We supported an increase in the minimum wage, an outcome that has helped around 2.7 million Australians. That's because we on this side of the House will back workers. We will back good wages. We know that the best way to fight the cost of living is to have a good, well-paying job. There's child care. Child care is one of the biggest expenses for families with young children. What happened to childcare costs while you were in government? They climbed 41 per cent in eight years. They were taking a bigger and bigger chunk of the household budget. Some parents simply dropped out of the workforce altogether. Just last year, 73,000 people who wanted to work didn't look for work. Why? Because of the prohibitive cost of child care. So, on one of the biggest expenses for household budgets, childcare costs, you failed again. What are we doing? We are investing $4.5 billion in early education and care to make it more affordable and accessible to families—96 per cent of families will be better off—because we know that the best way to fight the cost of living is cheaper child care. It's good for kids, it's good for parents and it's good for the economy. There's gas and electricity. Events around the world have meant that families and small businesses have had to contend with higher power prices. The war in Ukraine, disrupted supply chains and increased international demand for gas have had an impact on energy prices. We can't control those events. So what can we control? Having one energy policy, not 22 attempts, is certainly a good start, so that we can give industry the certainty they need to make long-term investments; providing government commitment to and investment in renewable energy; and providing support to a bill that brings households relief on their power bills. These are all things that we can control to help bring down the cost of energy. These are actions that we on this side of the House are taking to help households and small businesses with power prices. But, again, those opposite refuse to support it. So, on gas and electricity prices, you failed. So let's check the cost-of-living report card for those opposite. On wages growth, those opposite failed. On the cost of child care, those opposite failed. On the price of gas and electricity, what did they do? They failed again. You failed in government, you failed during the campaign and now you're failing in opposition. Lift your game. Come over and support some of these important bills that we are putting through. That's all I'm asking of you. If you care about the cost of living, if you want to show empathy to your community, vote for and support the bills that we are putting forward. 15:12 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies It's easy to feel like this place focuses on theatre. It's easy to forget that outside these walls is the real world, a real world where, from dinner tables to water coolers to checkouts, families are asking themselves one thing: how am I going to make ends meet? It is a question that has no easy answer but prompts many more tough questions, like these: Where will I find another $18,000 in mortgage repayments? Where will I find an after-tax wage increase of $24,000 to pay for that? What will my family have to cut instead? How will I tell the kids that there won't be a camping trip this year? How will I tell them that they can't go on a school excursion with their friends? How will I tell them that we can't afford to go to the cinema, go to the football, keep a streaming service or go out to dinner as a family, and, hardest of all, that they will be spending less time with a parent because the parent has to take extra shifts? For some, how do they tell them that they might even lose their home? Others will ask: 'How will I tell them that I've let them down?' This place is about politics, but for these families it isn't. It isn't about tactics, as the Prime Minister said today in question time. These are real questions that have been spoken out loud in every corner of our nation. In a democracy, it is vital that the losing party acknowledge and respect the result, and we do. Australians placed their trust in the Albanese government to lead our nation and to put the people first. They did so at a time when the war in Ukraine was well underway, as the member for Page pointed out. They did so at a time when we were all well aware of the supply chain challenges that occurred during the COVID pandemic. They did so, because they listened to and trusted what the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, said. He said: And—as your Prime Minister—I won't run from responsibility. I won't treat every crisis as a chance to blame someone else. I will show up, I will step up, I will bring people together. They did so because they trusted him. They trusted him when he said that costs would be lower. They trusted him when he specifically said that energy bills would be $275 lower—97 times. They trusted him when he said that mortgages would be cheaper and that families would be better off under a Labor government. Day after day in that campaign they saw the now Prime Minister look down the camera, and they put their trust in him. They trusted you, as a Labor government, at your word—that it was not just puff, that it was not just a line. They trusted you as a government that would be capable of being like a statesman and not a brawler. So what has happened since? A cost-of-living crisis has hit them hard. Electricity prices are going up and gas prices are going up. And many who have to drive long distances to get to work are seeing prices of two dollars or more as they put petrol in their car. We have spoken many times about the Treasurer's long-form essay. It has been instructive, but not for all of the reasons he might wish. He also wrote an even longer form paper for his PhD thesis—and I won't go over that. But neither of these papers have much economics in them. Neither of them are about the national interest. What they instead offer is an insight into the focus of this Treasurer and this government—a focus on power. The clue is in the title of his thesis, 'Brawler Statesman: Paul Keating and Prime Ministerial Leadership in Australia'. It even has an entire chapter entitled 'Throwing grenades'. This is a Treasurer, Prime Minister and government more focused on power: how power is obtained, how power is wielded and how power can be retained. In last year's campaign, the Treasurer also looked down the camera and asked Australians to take him at his word. So we ask the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to close your laptops and to take your focus off the backbench and your ambitions for further promotion. We ask you to focus on struggling families; to stand with them at the dinner table, the water cooler and the check-out and to give them comfort about those questions. Give them comfort that, as the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the government, you can be a statesman and not a brawler. We ask you to focus on the cost of living. 16:17 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke The hypocrisy of those opposite in coming into this chamber and arguing about the cost of living is absolutely breathtaking! While I have regard, as individuals, for some of those opposite, that their collective intelligence propels them to come in here as a group to argue cheap political points on matters that are either irrelevant or entirely misleading in terms of this debate is truly extraordinary. Despite what they say, Australians are very clear on the Liberal's record on the cost of living and whether they care about it. Indeed, as my colleague the member for Reid rightly pointed out, perhaps they come in here now, dripping with empathy, but they're a decade late. They had a decade in government in which to address these issues and they made an active choice not to. In fact, in many cases, they made active decisions, such as suppressing wage growth, to inflame and expose the Australian economy and the Australian people to the cost-of-living challenges that we now face. That can be summed up by a very simple number, despite its magnitude: a trillion dollars of debt. The Liberals have left this country with $1 trillion of debt, and there is no economic dividend for it. We don't see the returns—we don't see social or economic returns for it. In fact, what they did with that trillion dollars—that trillion dollars which belongs to the Australian people—was flood it away on various rorts, with car parks, colour-coded spreadsheets and whatnot. They lined the pockets of big business and they invested poorly in projects that, ultimately, didn't stack up because they hadn't put the work into them to determine whether they would. That $1 trillion of debt hangs around their neck, and they hate it. They get very upset whenever we raise it. It has been well covered by a whole range of respected economic and fiscal analysts. One can only draw the conclusion that it affects them at a personal level in a way that many of the social issues that we raise in this place don't. Ultimately I think we all know that their flaccid masculinity is splintered by the self-propelled myth of their own economic competence, and it doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist. It is an utter lie on their part that they are somehow superior economic managers. History does not bear that out in any sense whatsoever. So they come in here and essentially seek to put themselves forward as having some superior sense of knowledge or belief on these matters when in fact history shows very clearly that their economic credentials are extraordinarily lacking. The sad part about that is that the Australian people are now suffering for that. We had a wasted decade under that government. They exposed us to international pressures which are now driving cost-of-living issues. That's on top of the rorts that we talked about and the very deliberate design feature of their economy that was zero wages growth. They set us back, and it is now up to our government to try to clean up that mess and to be the mature and responsible government this country needed for the last 10 years and didn't have. Let's talk about the drivers of inflation. They are critical to why we're facing a cost-of-living challenge. In their most recent advice that the RBA put out, they acknowledge that supply-side inflation issues are a really significant proportion of the inflation and that it is purely driven by international pressures. The war in Europe is putting pressure on supply chains. It's putting pressure on global energy prices. It is having a really significant impact on inflation here in our country. On the independent RBA, I note that a member opposite got up and sought to carry on about whether the RBA is truly independent. I would urge those opposites to show a little restraint and responsibility when it comes to the long-term belief in our institutions and the independence of the RBA. You are the conservatives of this country, apparently, and you should have respect for those institutions. The independence of the RBA is an underpinning institutional reality that protects our economy and protects the policymaking in that space. Nevertheless, those opposite seek to undermine that to score cheap political points. The RBA have made very clear in their public advice that international pressures— (Time expired) 16:22 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I would agree with the member for Hawke that the independence of the RBA is very important. It's great for him to suggest to us that we should respect their independence! I would urge him to speak to some of his colleagues who may be in the chamber and also in the caucus and ask them to maybe not verbal the independent RBA and the governor. So I thank him for that contribution. I agree that the independence of the RBA is very important, although I do need to address this standard line of political spin from the ALP that I have addressed before—the $1 trillion in debt that they like to talk about. The only challenge with that is the facts. Facts get in the way of political arguments. The fact is that the net debt stood at $517 billion at the time this government took power, and $517 billion is a long way from $1 trillion. But we know with this government that it's all about politics and spin. I commend all those government members who stood up to talk about this because they are actually choosing to disagree with the ALP national secretary, Paul Erickson. Even their national secretary said, 'You must look like you are responding first and foremost when talking about the cost-of-living pressures.' So he even acknowledges that this government has not been focused on the cost-of-living pressures. It is really important that we listen to his words. This was his quote: 'You must look like you were responding first and foremost.' Look like? So he's not advising this government to fix or address the cost-of-living crisis. He says they need to 'look like' they're addressing it and 'look like' they're fixing it. That is the reality of this government. It is all about politics. It is all about spin. It's all about playing the game. We've got a prime minister that's spent his whole life in this place and a treasurer who has spent his whole life in this place. The member for Menzies addressed quite well the Treasurer's focus on power, so I won't talk about that. But I will talk about the Prime Minister and his focus on power. Don't take my word for it. For my sins—it was quite an interesting article, actually, so I shouldn't say that; that's not fair—I took the time over the break to read Katharine Murphy's Quarterly Essay No. 88 from November 2022 about the Prime Minister. She spent a lot of time with him through the campaign. I think it would be fair to say that I don't think anyone in this House would disagree that, generally, the Guardian and Katharine Murphy would be more disposed to this Prime Minister than to our side. I'm going to use her quotes here. To her description of Prime Minister Albanese: Power is his natural habitat, and he's spent a lifetime studying all its forms, covert and overt. In order of preference, Albanese is fascinated by power, politics, parliament, policy and process. This is what the Australian people have—a prime minister that puts policy and process at the bottom of his list. This is the challenge we have. If you don't have great policies and you don't have great process, you're not going to deliver cost-of-living relief for the Australian people. We saw that on display today. Katharine Murphy said it in November, and the Prime Minister gave us a great example of it today: when he was asked in question time about the cost of living, he insulted Australian families. He did not address the question at all, did not offer any answers for the Australian people about cost-of-living relief. What did he talk about? He talked about political process. He talked about the order people ask questions in this House. Isn't it amazing? I'll give Katharine Murphy credit; she was onto it—cost of living, and he talks about political processes. He doesn't talk about the $45 billion in off-budget spending his government has committed to, that the IMF has warned will drive inflation. We know that if government wants to reduce inflation by around a quarter of a per cent, it needs to reduce spending by $6 billion. But we're adding $45 billion to the Australian economy in off-budget spending. That's going to be, based on those numbers, a 1.875 per cent increase in inflation—so they're driving inflation up. What's that going to do? It's going to force the independent RBA governor to increase rates. We've got the governor putting the brake on in the car and we've got this government putting the accelerator on through increased budget spending, through increased off-budget spending, all so they can play political games. (Time expired) 16:27 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I think we're all aware in this place, in the other place and certainly out in the community that we have rising cost of living. Things are pretty tough out there. I have to say, having worked in the homelessness and poverty sector, this has not suddenly arisen in the last eight months. Over the last decade I have worked with people who have experienced poverty, who have been on the streets, who have a superannuation balance of $4,000, who are unemployed long-term. This is not something that's suddenly arisen in the last eight months. Quite frankly I find it incredibly offensive that those opposite would use these people and their lives and their suffering to make these cheap political points. Now I will get back to the speech I wrote! These increases have been a long time coming, in some ways. We know the rising cost of health care has been coming for a long time. We know that, at the last election, those opposite said 80 per cent of services through Medicare were bulk-billed. We also know that's rubbish! Your primary service—which is your actual appointment—is not bulk-billed, and you have a gap payment. Then maybe you have something sutured or a lump or a bump burnt off, and that might be bulk-billed. But the underlying actual appointment is not bulk-billed. When I talk to Australians, when I talk to people in Boothby, and I say to them, 'The opposition says 80 per cent of your medical services are being bulk-billed', they tell me they can't find a doctor that bulk-bills. I have to say, having also worked in the health sector, that I don't blame the doctors for that. The doctors know that the cost of running these services has gone up. The rebate for Medicare has been frozen. Those opposite froze it for the last six years. The doctors are under pressure. ADJOURNMENT 72 ADJOURNMENT Fiji: General Election 72 16:30 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I would like to brief the House on what was an extraordinary opportunity to observe another nation's exercise in democracy, and that was the elections in Fiji last December. Due to the recalling of parliament, I stepped into the role of co-chair in the multinational observer group, affectionately known as the MOG, in Fiji. I was honoured to co-chair the MOG for Fiji's 2022 election, alongside our friends from Indonesia and India. This is the third time Australia, India and Indonesia have been asked by the government of Fiji to co-chair an observer mission for the general elections as trusted friends of Fiji. The MOG's previous reports from 2014 contributed to Fiji's strengthening democratic processes, and the final report for the 2022 election will be delivered shortly. I'd like to extend my thanks to the previous co-chair, the member for Fremantle, as well as other observers: the member for Banks, Senator Chandler and former senator Lisa Singh. I would also like to extend my thanks to the foreign minister, my fellow South Australian, Senator Penny Wong, for this opportunity. On 14 December last year, just as Australians were gearing up for their summer breaks, Fiji was going to the polls. From Nadi to Savusavu, from the Yasawas to Taveuni, and in many other places that many Australians have never been to, Fiji voted in a proud and peaceful manner, and I was so impressed with the sense of calm and the strong desire of individuals to have their voices heard, often queuing for a long time in the rain, the heat or the wind. The support given to the elderly and disabled was extraordinary, even having braille ballot sheets. Fijians voted in an election which was professionally run and managed in a manner which the MOG felt allowed the Fijian people to express their voices. Most importantly, the observers felt the outcome of the election broadly reflected the will of the Fijian people. This election saw the most Fijians registered to vote, and there were more political parties and candidates, reflecting that Fijians are engaging actively with their democratic system. I also saw a historic peaceful and orderly transition of power through an election, showing that democracy is alive and strong in this important Pacific nation. As the co-chairs announced immediately after the election, the observer group did not observe any irregularities or issues during the prepolling, postal or election date voting. Throughout the election-observing process, members of the MOG attended all aspects of the electoral process and attended nearly a third of polling stations. There were nearly 100 members of the MOG, coming from 16 countries from right across the Pacific Islands Forum and the secretariat of the Melanesian Spearhead Group. Representatives came from across the Pacific, as well as Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, Indonesia and India. The region's engagement demonstrates our collecting valuing of democratic processes and good governance. I'd like to pass on my thanks to the secretariat of the MOG, including Paul Wojciechowski, who was ably supported by Australian officials Andrew Edgar, Peter Lothian, Kirsten Storey, Nish Perera and Xander Burns and by Luke Kingi from the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as well as two international electoral experts: Carlos Valenzuela and Mariela Lopez. The operations team, headed by consultant Gary Frost, did an amazing job in ensuring members of the MOG were able to travel to every corner of Fiji safely. To the Australian consulate and to the acting high commissioner, John Williams, and his whole team, including Melissa Tipping and Joanna Houghton: a big thank you. And a big vinaka vakalevu—which is 'thank you' in Fijian—to all the Fijian liaison officers who guided our observers across Fiji. I'd also like to thank my co-chairs, Mr Sharma, representing India, and His Excellency Ambassador Syihab, representing Indonesia. Congratulations to everyone. I would particularly like to thank the people of Fiji for their hospitality and for showing their faith in the democratic processes and values: vinaka The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member for Mayo: bula vinaka Bennelong Electorate: Australia Day Awards 73 16:35 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I would like to acknowledge and congratulate members of the community of Bennelong who recently received Australia Day awards. The Australia Day honours recognise the incredible work of Aussies who have made a positive impact on our society. They are a celebration of our shared values and of the remarkable people who embody them, and I can say with confidence that each of Bennelong's honorees is a true embodiment of those values. It's an immense honour to recognise here in the parliament some of the exceptional members of our community who were recipients of these awards and recognitions. For Ryde, the City of Ryde Citizen of the Year was Ross Forster, a volunteer coach who for the last 40 years has dedicated his time to the athletics community in Ryde. He played a crucial role in setting up Ryde Athletics' fundraising activities to provide travel grants for their athletes who represent New South Wales or Australia. The Ryde Young Citizen of the Year is Maria Gharemanian, who supports our vibrant and large local Armenian community. She volunteers her time and skills at a community club. She volunteers at various organisations throughout the community and encourages young people to volunteer as well, particularly to support migrant families settling in Australia. Two members of the Bennelong community received the privilege of becoming members of the Order of Australia. Jennifer Collins of Ryde has received an AM for her significant service to veterans and their families and to nursing. She has served as the chair and director of the Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway, as well as deputy chair of the New South Wales branch of the War Widows Guild of Australia. In Eastwood, Emeritus Professor Richard Lionel Howitt, someone I have met a number of times, received an AM for his ongoing and significant service to education and to the Indigenous community. Professor Howitt has served at Macquarie University since 2009 and became professor emeritus in 2018. He was instrumental in looking at opportunities to connect the university with the local community through his role as director of the Macquarie-Ryde FUTURES project. Emeritus Professor John Thomson of Marsfield received an AM for his service to botanical science and research and to tertiary education. He served at the University of Sydney as professor emeritus in the school of biological science and at the Royal Botanic Gardens as an honorary research associate. Eight members of our community were awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia. This is a nice story: in Denistone, Warren and Clare Hopley, a husband and wife, received joint OAMs for their service to education, particularly to the disadvantaged and to children who are hard of hearing. Warren and Clare have both served outstanding long-term careers as teachers in schools across Sydney. Clare has had an outstanding career working with children who are deaf or hearing impaired and developed a program that improved the social and educational outcomes of children with hearing loss. Her husband, Warren, has always chosen to work at schools where he can advocate for the marginalised in our community. He has had a long and extraordinary commitment to welcoming, settling and integrating refugee children, as well. In Marsfield we have Janet Craik, who received an OAM for her service to her community. She served as coordinator of music at the Australian Christian Music Seminar in Cooma from 1978 to 2002, as well as being coordinator of the World Festival of Praise in Fiji. In Ryde and West Ryde, Trisha Gardiner-Wilson received an OAM for her service to the community through charitable organisations. She founded the Adam Gardiner Fund in 2006 in loving memory of her husband, Adam. The fund's mission is to raise awareness for amyloidosis. Ronald Palmer won an award for his service to lawn bowls at the ripe young age of 93. Ronald has a remarkable record of achievement. He won 20 club championships, won 20 singles titles and took part in 35 pairs finals. Joan Ryan has served at St Michael's Catholic Church in Meadowbank. She serves as a bus driver for frail and elderly people, and she does a fantastic job. In Gladesville, Giles Gunesekera received a medal for service to social welfare in the community. He has served as a White Ribbon Australia ambassador since 2014 and has done a wonderful job locally for the Ryde Hawks Baseball League. Finally, in Denistone East, my old neighbour, the late Rosario 'Ross' Rocca received the OAM posthumously for his service to the community through a range of organisations. He was an outstanding member of our community, particularly through his service to state emergency services, and he established many parks in the area as well. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I give the call to the honourable member for Casey. McCarthy, Mr Bryan, AFSM 74 16:40 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey We talk often in this House about community, and ultimately our community is about its people. Last year the Casey community lost a tireless volunteer, and I lost a great friend. Bryan McCarthy passed away from cancer last year. He had two great loves in his life: his family, including his wife, Maria, children Chris and Andrea, and his large extended family; his second love was serving his community. His life of service included decades working at the MFB, the Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade, and serving as a volunteer in the CFA, including volunteering at the Coldstream CFA and the Wandin Fire Brigade. In addition to this service, he spent many years as part of the Lilydale Rotary and the Chirnside Park Rotary, serving as president on multiple occasions. He was also the president of the Mount Evelyn Sports and Community Hub, playing a leading role in developing the new facilities for the Mount Evelyn Cricket Club, the Mount Evelyn Football Netball Club and many in the wider Mount Evelyn community. It is truly humbling for Bryan's family that the new community centre at this facility will be named the Bryan McCarthy Community Room. That room and that facility will be opening in a few months, and I'm very much looking forward to attending that great community asset that Bryan will have as a legacy; his name will carry on for generations, and people will remember and know the service that he gave to our community. He was also on the advisory committee for the Rivers and Ranges Community Leadership Program, supporting council areas from Mitchell shire, Murrindindi, Nillumbik, Whittlesea, and Yarra Ranges. Very importantly, in addition to the community work that he did, Bryan was an unwavering support for his wife Maria in her role as mayor and councillor of Yarra Ranges Council, as well as her many community roles across the electorate of Casey, including as part of Yarra Valley Business and the Mount Lilydale Mercy College Old Collegians, and many more organisations. Many people who knew Bryan would also know that it was never 'Bryan' and never 'Maria'; it was always 'Bryan and Maria', and they were connected together through their life after being teenage sweethearts. Many people, including me, send our love to Maria, who we know is a strong woman, but it's never easy to lose someone like that. I was fortunate to meet Bryan when I joined Liberal Party and he was chair of the Evelyn SEC, our state electorate. As a senior leader at the time, Bryan took me under his wing and provided guidance and support. Really importantly—and something that doesn't always happen in politics—he created opportunities for me and he stepped aside from leadership roles within our local organisation to, honestly, put me into leadership roles that I wasn't ready for. But I guess he saw the potential in me at the time and supported me by putting himself second, and that's something that I think we all know can be a very rare commodity in politics. It's a bit of a cliche, but I can confidently say that I would not be the person I am today without the support, the love and the guidance of both Bryan and Maria McCarthy. I pay tribute to Maria, who I know is watching at home today. I was overwhelmed with gratitude that Bryan made the trip to see my first speech. I can still picture him just up there watching. He shouldn't have travelled. It was a big strain and a huge physical effort for him to make the trip. I am forever grateful. I know he and Maria are forever grateful that they were able to be here on that day because we in this House represent not just ourselves and our families but our friends who support us. I've not had a greater supporter in my time in politics than Bryan McCarthy. The Casey community mourns him. I mourn a great friend. Rest in peace, Bryan McCarthy. Chung Wah Association 74 16:45 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney I stand before you to speak about an organisation that has a rich and profound history, an organisation that has been the cornerstone of the Chinese community in Western Australia for over a century. I speak of the Chung Wah Association founded in 1909. It is one of the oldest ethnic associations in the state. The Chung Wah Association was formed to support the social welfare of its members, promote Chinese culture and foster goodwill between its members and the local community. It serves as a connection and bridge between the Chinese community, businesses and other organisations, with Chung Wah's members being very active in professional and cultural networks, promoting Western Australia throughout Asia and the world. I worked with the Chung Wah Association for many years as a police officer and for many years they have run amazing community programs, such as the Chinese New Year Fair in Northbridge. This year over 20,000 people attended and celebrated the Chinese New Year Fair, welcoming the year of the rabbit. The Chung Wah Chinese School has five campuses with more than 1,000 students. Two of the five campuses are in Tangney. I wish to place on record my appreciation for the President of the Chung Wah Association, Dr Ting Chen; its Vice President Mr Yudy Kodratjaya, he's Indonesian; and the entire committees. I thank you for all your leadership and commitment in ensuring that these activities and events continue to engage the multicultural communities and beyond. Chung Wah Association also provides government funded aged care and community care support, serving nearly 900 seniors from Asian and Spanish backgrounds. Almost all of the city of Melville is contained within my electorate of Tangney. The Mayor of the City of Melville is George Gear, a former member for Tangney in this House. I applaud Mr Gear's continuous service to our community and his ongoing support and advice to me. At one of the citizenship ceremonies Mr Gear spoke of the 160 nationalities that reside in the city of Melville. Therefore, the electorate of Tangney is a very multicultural community, which I'm proud to represent. In Tangney about 16.5 per cent of the residents have Chinese ancestry. With the pandemic and global events of the last few years Chinese Australians have been through a lot. The former government did not do enough to support multicultural communities, especially the Chinese Australian community. The previous Prime Minister refused to take a photograph with the Chinese Australian leaders when he visited Perth on 15 March 2022. It is so pleasing to see our Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs working hard to stabilise Australia's relationship with our neighbours, including Asia, China and the Pacific region. I note that our Minister for Trade and Tourism recently had a productive meeting with China's Minister of Commerce. I'm confident that Minister Farrell's work in the trade portfolio will continue to bring prosperity to Australia. I am confident that under the Albanese Labor government this will continue to improve. One of my priorities when I was elected was to set up an advisory group known as the Tangney Multicultural Advisory Group. This advisory group has many passionate and engaged community leaders, sharing ideas and working together. I'm hoping that my work in this place, informed by those multicultural communities, will contribute to our government's work on delivering a better future for all Australians. Motor Neurone Disease, Ovarian Cancer 75 16:50 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Citizens should be confident that their taxes are spent appropriately, while preserving our reputation as a humane and civilised country. They want to ensure that those struggling with terminal diseases have dignity. This dignity begins with service delivery, with the right level of taxpayers' money allocated through Treasury to the organisations charged with delivering them. It is frustrating for taxpayers to watch the organisations doing as much as possible with meagre resources, and going unfunded while money rains on ministerial whims. Expert care for cancer patients and MND sufferers is expensive, and often families can't afford the necessary treatment and support. Two of these organisations are the Motor Neurone Disease Association of Queensland and Ovarian Cancer Australia. MND Queensland is the only MND state association in Australia not receiving any funding from its state government. With just $1.5 million a year, MND Queensland could ensure that all Queenslanders suffering from MND have access to specialist, integrated multidisciplinary care. They could remain at home with their families and avoid unnecessary hospital admissions. With this funding, MND Queensland could provide access to the MND expert advice, occupational therapy, speech pathology, physiotherapy, mobility equipment, communication devices and health aids that a person with MND would typically require through their journey. This support would include a regional presence through permanently locating MND advisers at key hubs, and monthly visits to regional Queensland by allied health professionals. I call on the Queensland government to do what is right and fund MND Queensland, just as other states and other jurisdictions have done. Ovarian Cancer Australia is another organisation that deserves government funding to provide free-of-charge specialised psychological support for women with ovarian cancer, using a telehealth model that prevents women from falling into crisis. It would require funding of less than $1 million a year to offer specialist psychological support to more than 300 ovarian cancer patients. Four years of psychological support with specialised therapists would cost only $3.7 million. Every year in Australia more than 1,500 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and more than 1,000 will pass away from the disease. Around 70 per cent of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer experience a recurrence. The former coalition government provided the organisation with $16.2 million in funding for ovarian cancer research, and this research work continues. The federal Labor government should find this less-than-$1 million a year to help women in significant distress who live daily with the fear of ovarian cancer returning. Both MND Queensland and Ovarian Cancer Australia offer tailored, specialised support, with clear outcomes showing value for money for taxpayers, and patients and their families both in the cities and in the regions of Australia. We can't change the fact that MND is terminal or that ovarian cancer is highly deadly, but we can ensure that sufferers can get sufficient quality of life to enjoy the time they have left with their loved ones. We must ensure that taxpayers funds are not frittered away on frivolous projects. No-one can call free telehealth psychology for a woman living with the side effects of two major surgeries, three long-term chemo treatments, four bowel obstructions caused by surgery, a permanent colostomy bag, as well as the trauma of all of the treatments she has undergone a waste. It would be difficult to argue that specialists providing walking aids to people— (Time expired) Hockey 76 16:55 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan In the heart of Swan we have elite players from the Hockeyroos and Kookaburras training at Hockey Australia's high-performance program in Bentley at Curtin University. This program has an impressive reputation. In fact, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Australian women's team in the International Hockey Federation Indoor World Cup in Pretoria, South Africa. I would especially like to shout out to two remarkable Swan locals who were part of the team: Emma Reid, who is also a physiotherapist, and Elizabeth Duguid, an electrical engineer. Talk about high-achieving women! High-performance hockey in WA has had a long and successful history. Hockey Australia high-performance program has been at Curtin University since 1984. The program's contract was due to expire in 2024, and there was not a guarantee that the program would stay in WA. In December 2022 the Western Australian state government and Hockey WA were successful in their bid to keep the program in Perth and in my electorate of Swan. This bid was one of the biggest investments in Olympic sport history. The $135 million bid will transform the current facilities at Curtin University into a world-class purpose-built Australian hockey centre with three international hockey pitches, a specialist goalkeeper training facility, an indoor hockey centre and a gym. These facilities will be used by our national field hockey teams, the Hockeyroos and the Kookaburras, and help support them in climbing the ranks. These new facilities are a win for all hockey players in my electorate and really the whole of Australia. I note that at the 2022 Birmingham Commonwealth Games the Hockeyroos won a silver medal and the Kookaburras won not their fifth or their sixth but their seventh consecutive gold medal. I wish to congratulate some Swan locals who were part of this achievement—Jocelyn Bartram, Jane-Anne Claxton, Amy Lawton, Kaitlin Nobbs, Karri Somerville, Matthew Dawson, Jake Harvie and Jeremy Hayward—for their stellar performance in representing Australia in field hockey at the games. This is a significant achievement, and I hope that the investment into the centre of excellence will allow Hockey Australia to sharpen their skills through this new world-class training environment—but hopefully they will still wear their shinpads! Hockey Australia CEO David Pryles believes this centre would be the best hockey facility in the world, very fitting for one of the best teams in the world and certainly the best in the Commonwealth. I would like to recognise the advocacy efforts of the state, Hannah Beazley, and the Hon. David Templeman, the state Minister for Sport and Recreation. From one hockey player to another, I would also like to acknowledge the advocacy work from a star goalie, the very talented member for Brand, the Hon. Madeleine King, Minister for Resources. Sporting clubs are an integral part of building community. Club rooms have become second homes for many, and those connections bridge cultural divides and build lifelong friendships. It's also a place where people learn to build and work in teams. Often in the school environment we see that people operate on an individual level, but the truth is that in the real world, in the workplace, in the parliament, we work in teams. Team sports are a wonderful way to learn how to work collaboratively, have each other's backs, celebrate the wins but also work through some of the challenges. I am pleased that this hockey facility will also be used by the wider community. As much as this is an investment into elite teams for Australian field hockey, it's also an investment in community sport and hockey clubs throughout the metropolitan area. The other thing I hope is that this will inspire more kids to pick up a hockey stick and give hockey a go. Occasionally you might get whacked with a ball, but it makes you tougher and it's a really fun game. The thing I'm hoping is that in the heart of Swan there'll be a little girl or boy who recognises that they could have a role in representing our national teams and maybe becoming an Olympic gold medal winner. House adjourned at 17:00 NOTICES 77 NOTICES Presentation 77

Thursday, 16 February 2023

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

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 78 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Melbourne Electorate: Lunar New Year, Melbourne Electorate: Vietnamese Australians 78 09:30 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Earlier this month, I was lucky to attend the local Lunar New Year Festival in Victoria Street, Richmond, in my electorate. I try to get down to the Lunar New Year Festival most years, as it's always a spectacular display of dance, music and food, and it shows off the bustling energy and activity of Victoria Street. I think it's fair to say that the Victoria Street Business Association outdid themselves this year as we welcomed in the Vietnamese Year of the Cat. My kids and I spent the day watching mesmerising lion dances, a martial arts performance, and a Vietnamese traditional ao dai fashion show, all whilst enjoying delicious foods, like the xoi gac, a Vietnamese red sticky rice dish, which I'm still thinking about days later. This event, now in its 23rd year, was a truly inspiring display of Vietnamese culture, and the Victoria Street Business Association should be congratulated for their tireless efforts in putting together yet another memorable day of events. The cat is the fourth of the zodiac signs, and I read that the Year of the Cat is predicted to be a year of hope, something I think most of us could use at the moment. I'm always honoured to share in the celebrations of our vibrant Vietnamese community in Melbourne, and I look forward to attending Tet next year. I'm extremely lucky, as the member for Melbourne, to represent such a diverse electorate with so many local groups, many of whom have a proud history of working within the community to provide the support and services local people need in culturally safe and accessible places. One such organisation is the Australian Vietnamese Women's Association, which this year celebrates its 40th year. I could not possibly relay all of the services that the AVWA provides to the Vietnamese community in Melbourne in the limited time that I have to make this speech, but let me tell you that the amount of work they do is monumental. To give you just a glimpse into their work, the AVWA provides support to young children, to the elderly, to people doing it tough with substance and gambling addictions, and to people experiencing family violence. They provide social support, NDIS support, and support to Indo-Chinese prisoners. At the heart of the organisation is the founder, president and previous long-time CEO Ms Cam Nguyen. Cam and her family moved to Australia in 1976, and she became a teacher and then principal at the Adult Migrant Education Services in St Albans. It wasn't long before she decided to set up an organisation which would assist newly arrived refugees, many of whom had experienced significant trauma before arriving in Australia. Cam and those at AVWA have always understood that refugees and asylum seekers add tremendous value to our society and deserve protection and support when they com Australia. It's a privilege to witness the incredible work the AVWA does every day to support our community, and I know that my electorate is much richer and stronger because of the Australian Vietnamese Women's Association. Congratulations on 40 amazing years. Tangney Electorate: Prime Minister Visit 78 09:33 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney I recently had the Prime Minister come and visit my electorate of Tangney. It is always a privilege to have the Prime Minister come to your community. Thankfully, Perth put on its best weather to welcome our leader to Western Australia. I was suffering with COVID for the previous 10 days. It was the second time I caught the virus and it hit me really hard. I couldn't celebrate Chinese New Year and was confined in isolation until the Prime Minister's visit. We brought in the Year of the Rabbit, which to Chinese people represents hope, peace and prosperity. This is what the Albanese Labor government represents to Australian families. With any new year comes new opportunity, and I have been telling my constituents that the Albanese Labor government means a lot of new opportunity for the Australian people and the people of Tangney. I took Prime Minister Albanese to a local coffee shop in Point Walter in Tangney. I was so proud to introduce my boss to my wife, my daughters and my granddaughter, Alina. I know that our government will deliver on this promise of closing the gender pay gap for women like my daughters and my granddaughter. It will create a better future for them and for all Australians. Members in this place know that I often speak about the many multicultural communities in Tangney. I was pleased to introduce the Prime Minister to some of these community leaders. I thank Prime Minister Albanese and his staff for being so generous with their time on their visit. He met many community leaders in Tangney, and among them were the representatives of the Malaysian, Indonesian, Chinese and Indian communities. He took many photographs with them and had some very positive conversations with all of them. When former Prime Minister Morrison came to Perth on 15 March 2022, he avoided taking photos with Chinese-Australians in Western Australia. There is a clear change between the Albanese Labor government and the Morrison government: a change in the way Australia and the Prime Minister engage on the global stage, and a change in the way that the Prime Minister engages with multicultural Australians on the ground in communities like Tangney. I really appreciate the Prime Minister spending time, being accessible and spreading some of his love in my electorate. The people of Tangney are really looking forward to his next visit. Thank you. Swadling, Mrs Rose, OAM 79 09:36 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Today, I would like to speak about a constituent in my electorate of Capricornia, Mrs Rose Swaddling OAM, who was awarded an Order of Australia Medal in January. Rose is a stalwart of the Rockhampton community and a very deserving Australian to receive such a high honour. When Rose heard she was awarded the OAM, her first comments were, 'There are more deserving people than me.' Growing up in Rockhampton, one of the first community projects she was involved in was with the Salvation Army at the age of nine. Rose remembers being inspired to serve her community by the then mayor, Rex Pilbeam, when Rockhampton was experiencing the flood of 1954. Mr Pilbeam visited her home and others living in the flooded suburb of Depot Hill by boat to make sure they were safe and to deliver bread and milk. This one act of kindness by the mayor would lead Rose down the path of serving the community she so loves. Encouraged by her husband, Graham, and a number of friends, Rose ran for a place on council. In 1994, Rose was sworn in as a councillor to Rockhampton City Council. It was here that she would serve her community for 26 years. Rose saw Rockhampton through floods and droughts, de-amalgamations and amalgamations, and saw mayors come and go, yet Rose was a stability and constant for the Rockhampton region residents. It shows her character that during the 2012 council election, Rose was elected unopposed—it shows her character that no-one would run against her. Rose was well-known for saying, 'I'm into people, not politics.' This saying is something that has stood by her through her life. Rose has dedicated her life and much of her time to many community groups: Neighbourhood Watch Rockhampton; Crime Stoppers Queensland, Rockhampton Region; Australian Red Cross; Mount Archer Lions Club; Victims of Crime Association, Central Queensland Branch; Glenmore Community Service Club and the Capricorn Citizens Advocacy Committee; the Rockhampton Auxiliary of the Royal Flying Doctor Service; and as a patron for many other community organisations. She has always lobbied for members of the community—some of our most vulnerable: the veterans, the elderly, Indigenous and multicultural communities. Her belief that the broader community has much to learn from these people has shone through with everything that Rose puts her hand to. Many people across the Rockhampton region have experienced Rose's care and thoughtfulness. With her talent for leaving anyone she meets feeling like they're the most important person in the room. On a personal level, as the federal member for Capricornia, I have worked with Rose over the past 10 years. Rose has always guided and advised me throughout difficult times. I love that she's so dedicated to the community. She loves them and they love her. There is something truly amazing about a person who can dedicate so much time and support to an organisation, let alone as many as Rose does. On behalf of my constituents, thank you, Rose, for your tireless dedication to our community. You have left a great legacy in our region. Thank you. Harding, Professor Ann Margaret, AO, FASSA, Leovic, Mr Radovan 79 09:39 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I rise to pay tribute to two Canberrans who recently passed away: Ann Harding and Radovan Leovic. Ann Harding founded NATSEM, the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, in 1993—over a fish-and-chip shop. She later settled into an $11 million state-of-the-art building on campus, and her legacy lives on in the name of the Ann Harding Conference Centre. Ann worked on microsimulation and was made a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia in 1996 and the inaugural president and co-founder of the International Microsimulation Association. She served as the president of the ACT branch of the Economic Society of Australia and authored or co-authored over 300 books, chapters, articles, papers and commissioned reports. NATSEM did critical work in policy. Ann was constantly serving on academic and government boards, including the Treasury and the departments of social security, health, housing, and community services. I remember meeting Ann for the first time in the 1998-99 discussions over the introduction of a goods and services tax. I was then working for the late Senator Peter Cook. As I brought her upstairs for the hearings she said to me, 'You know, you Labor people will come to like this tax, because it'll allow you to spend what you need on health and education.' Ann always had a ready wit and a generosity of spirit and helped many in NATSEM, including yourself, Deputy Speaker Payne. She was generous to me as a young economist, too. Radovan Leovic was born in Yugoslavia in 1927. He yearned to escape and as a teenager decided that if only he could be selected to represent Yugoslavia in the European Games he'd be able to get out. But he wasn't quite good enough, so he did something else. He got hold of a national team uniform, travelled to the north of the country, where the games were held and, wearing a national uniform, cycled with the peloton over the border, where he escaped and ultimately made his way as a refugee to Australia. He became a regular in the Canberra triathlon scene, receiving the Legend of the Sport Award from Triathlon ACT just last year, at the age of 95. As recently as 2018 he was running, cycling or swimming every day and said he was 'all the time warm and all the time ready to race'. My friend Alex Gosman said of Rad: 'I can remember Rad always being one of the last to leave after a race as he stayed around to help pack up. Rad always gave 100 per cent, never complained, and had a smile and a hello for everyone.' Triathlon is an extraordinarily competitive sport, but triathletes are generous to one another, and Rad was the epitome of a sport that combines endurance and generosity to fellow competitors. Berowra Electorate: Faith Leaders 80 09:42 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra In recent weeks in the Berowra community we've had the opportunity to welcome Andrew Kyrios to be the new Anglican minister at Cherrybrook Anglican Church and to farewell Reverend Geoff Smith, who has concluded 11 years as the minister at Galston Uniting. Freedom of worship is central to who we are as Australians, and it's always a joy to share with communities of faith as they celebrate a moment in their life together. Geoff Smith is a particularly special fellow. Not only has he served the Galston Uniting Church community, but he's been so much more than just the minister. He's been a mentor to young people. He's been a great football coach. He's chaired the local child care and steered it through the difficult period of COVID-19. He's involved himself with myriad community activities, from the Galston schools to the Anzac Day commemorations to the Galston concerts. He's made an outsized contribution to our community. People across our community will miss Geoff, with his big heart, his warmth, his kindness and his desire to see the church as a place that's integrated and connected to community. On behalf of everyone in the Berowra community, I wish Geoff well as he moves to live and serve in Parramatta. We're fortunate to welcome Reverend Andrew Kyrios and his family to Cherrybrook Anglican, and I look forward to spending time with Andrew and building a friendship with him over the years ahead. Cherrybrook Anglican is a very different sort of a church. It's a church community without a building. They meet in the Cherrybrook community centre or the Cherrybrook sports house. Andrew comes to Cherrybrook Anglican after several years at San Souci, and many of his former parishioners at San Souci gave the GPS a good workout finding the way from San Souci to Cherrybrook to see him installed in his new role. Andrew was installed by the Reverend Chris Edwards, the Bishop of North Sydney. He's the first rector I've ever known who's got an economics degree—I'm sure the church books will be well-balanced! Not only does he come to serve the community but he brings his beautiful family: his wife Sally and their four children, George, Thomas, Anastasia and Theo. On behalf of our community, I welcome Andrew and his family to our beautiful part of Sydney. I want to take a moment to honour all the faith leaders of our community. I have 73 churches, temples or mosques in the electorate, and I'm grateful to all the men and women who choose to serve, often at cost, particularly in a time when communities of faith are perhaps less understood than they once were, although no less important. I'm also grateful for the congregations they lead. Whenever we speak of the good things churches bring, we sometimes speak of their volunteers, their sense of service and the ways they offer a helping hand in times of crisis. We're right to consider these things. But I also think we should talk more about their understanding of the value of human life and the beauty of faith itself. Communities of faith understand human dignity, that every life has meaning and that we're more than the sum of our possessions. I think the diversity of our faith communities and their strength in the Berowra community is one of the fundamental things that makes Berowra such a wonderful place to live. It's always, for me as a Jewish Australian, such a privilege to involve myself in these special days of both welcoming and farewelling people in the Christian denominations who have made such an important contribution to our community. Iran: Human Rights 80 09:45 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong As we enter the fifth month of the Woman, Life, Freedom protests in Iran, more horrific accounts have emerged of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps beating, torturing and assaulting men and women arrested for exercising their human right to protest. This is the fourth time I've brought this to the parliament's attention and it is something I intend to continue to do, standing with the Iranian Australian community in my electorate of Bennelong. More than 500 people have been killed by security forces since these protests began. Seventy of them were children. Four protesters have been executed and at least a hundred more face possible death sentences. Regimes that fear the power of public protest have, in turn, no recourse but to make the public fear the regime. This is why Iranian state security forces beat and torture prisoners: to terrify and to terrorise, to instil fear and to try to instil shame. But the shame is theirs and their regime's. The IRGC is a malignant actor that has long threatened security internationally in its near region and, of course, within Iran. Its actions are unconscionable. Two weeks ago, our foreign minister, Senator Penny Wong, announced additional sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities for abhorrent abuse of human rights. These included Magnitsky-style sanctions, including on senior law enforcement, political, and military figures, some within the IRGC. Just two days ago, the home affairs minister reiterated that the Australian government will not tolerate any attempts by the Iranian regime to disrupt peaceful protests, encourage violence or suppress views here in Australia, as they have been found to do. Nor will we tolerate hostile acts in the form of surveillance, harassment or intimidation against individuals or family members here in Australia. This government will not stand back and have Australians watched, tracked or intimidated by the Iranian regime. Additionally, Australia is joining partners to impose additional targeted financial sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities involved in the production and supply of drones to Russia. Iranian-made drones have been used by Russia to target Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure. The government intends to employ every strategy at its disposal towards upholding human rights, ranging from dialogue and diplomacy to sanctions, consistent with our values and our interests. I'd like to thank the Iranian Australian community in my electorate of Bennelong for their ongoing advocacy and commitment to bringing this issue to my attention. I will continue to be their voice here in this parliament. Labor governments have a strong history of taking decisive steps on action with the IRGC and will continue to do so. Piesse, Mr Brian Harold 81 09:48 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I rise to acknowledge Brian Piesse, who passed away recently following a battle with liver cancer. Brian was dedicated to his family and his community. He was a stalwart of the Forrest division of the Liberal Party, a member of the party for over 50 years and a man who also gave countless hours of voluntary service across many sectors and interests throughout his life. He was strong, happy and passionate about what he believed in. He was never afraid to speak up and he had the courage to speak up even if he was the only one with a different opinion. He gave countless selfless hours to local, regional and community groups and organisations, and he always showed up. That included local government in agriculture, land management, regional development, port and transport, education, politics and numerous community groups, including longstanding memberships of Rotary and Apex. The majority of these roles were voluntary throughout his life, and he always in those meetings ensured that due process and meeting procedures were followed to protect the organisation. Wherever Brian and his wife, Lucille, and their family lived he became involved with the community, but I know that one of the roles he dedicated an enormous amount of time, energy and commitment to was his time serving as the president of the Donnobrook Balingup shire. He'd had a lot of previous experience in Capel shire, but he saw this as a really important part of what he was able to achieve in life. He gave many, many years to so many different groups, whether it was the Warren Blackwood Alliance of Councils, Capel community groups, Edith Cowan University—very important—in the south-west, Agricultural Protection Board, CY O'Connor Institute, South West Catchments Council or Kings Park and Botanic Garden, there was one after the other. He was very, very committed to regional development through the South West Development Commission and also spent a lot of time on Western Dairy. That's on top of almost every position in the Forrest division of the Liberal Party itself. He was strong until the very end, fighting cancer with the same approach he took to life. He was interested and involved in community affairs right until the end. He lived a full, active life, supported and loved by his wonderfully strong wife, Lucille, and his daughters Miranda and Juanita and their families. As Abraham Lincoln said, 'In the end, it's not the years in your life that count; it's the life in your years.' Brian, may you rest in peace. Cost of Living 81 09:51 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck The Albanese government understands the pressures being felt across Australia, in homes, particularly in my electorate of Hasluck. I hear regularly from people who are experiencing particular cost-of-living pressures, such as pensioners who are close to paying off their mortgage but not quite and are now concerned about the interest rate rises and what that means for them, and young families who are just working hard to try and get ahead. While the RBA will make its own decisions on how to manage the interest rate rise, we are delivering on the commitments we made at the election to help reduce the cost of living. In education and training, for example, the government is providing 20,000 extra university places. In my electorate of Hasluck, Curtin campus has a health-science focus, which means many students will be able to access a career pathway into health. Additionally, with Midland TAFE—I'm lucky to have that in the Midland precinct. The prospective students there will be benefiting from a number of fee-free places as well as commitments to advance technology in renewable manufacturing of wind turbines. There are 180,000 fee-free places across Australia. Being able to step into a new job and upgrade skills, at no cost, will be a way of getting ahead. In health, we know how much pressure there is on hospital systems around the nation. This is why the commitment through recommendations coming from the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce Report will result in there being more additional urgent care clinics. For Midland, we will have a return of the fee-free bulk-billing urgent care clinic. I look forward to welcoming Minister Butler to the electorate to discuss that but also the opportunity to have a second one out in the growth corridor of Ellenbrook. We need to take the pressure of emergency departments, and we know that that's a way forward to do so. Additionally, we've heard the great news that, for the first time ever, we're getting a reduction in the PBS prescription costs. The maximum co-payment is now dropping from $42.50 to $30. That is a way of reducing costs for individuals and families, when it comes to their take-home pay. There's early childhood education. So many wonderful young families, across the electorate of Hasluck, are looking to get ahead and return to the workforce early. They know that the opportunity for their children to better access early childhood education is the way. For my electorate, 5,000 families will benefit from being able to access affordable early childhood centres. That's a million families across Australia. We also saw this week the housing future fund— (Time expired) Riverina Electorate: Citizens of the Year 82 09:54 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Volunteers are the lifeblood of all our communities, and today I pay tribute to the citizens of the year, those people who have led the way in the Riverina and Central West. In Bland shire, Greg McIntyre, for the past 15 years, has created and sustained the Can Assist annual charity walk. It's one of Can Assist West Wyalong's biggest fundraising events, with a total of 943 walkers, 391 kilometres walked and $310,000 raised. Well done, Greg. In Coolamon shire, Paul Horan leads the way. Ardlethan born and bred, he's a long-term member of the local SES, and he's the fire captain for Beckom. He's involved with the Ardlethan Picnic Races and the annual Ardlethan Show. Cootamundra Citizen of the Year, Garry James, has spent 37 years contributing to his local RSL, where he's been president and has held other positions. He's also a big supporter of Legacy. Cowra shire Citizen of the Year was Hellen Horton. Thank you, Hellen. She's a dedicated youth worker at the Cowra Information and Neighbourhood Centre. She helps youths get their lives back on track. In Forbes, Paul Faulkner led the way, and his community spirit during the recent flooding had to be seen to be believed. Gundagai Citizen of the Year, Phil Smith, was duly recognised for being a stalwart of Can Assist in that wonderful town. He's helped to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars and awareness for cancer research et cetera. Harden Citizen of the Year, Grahame Taylor, has been a member of the Murrumburrah-Harden Rotary Club for 40 years and has been involved with so many organisations in those twin towns, such as Murrumburrah-Harden Flexible Care. He's also helped out with his carpentry skills to construct backdrops and scenery for the Young theatre company. Junee Citizen of the Year was Gail Commens, and what a powerhouse and dynamo she is. She's the founder and chairman of the Junee Roundhouse Railway Museum, and she's also involved as president of Eurongilly's Country Women's Association. Keith Edgerton was Lockhart Citizen of the Year. He's been a Lockhart and District Aged Care Association stalwart for 30 years and a member of Lockhart Lions. He's done so many things with the Lockhart Bowling Club, the Lockhart Ex-Servicemen's Club, the Lockhart Local Health Advisory Committee—I could go on. Parkes Citizen of the Year was Bob Strickland. Bob has been tireless in his volunteering efforts for the Parkes community, with the Police Citizens Club, Parkes Centenary Committee, CareFlight, Southern Cross Village, Parkes Community Choir, and Parkes Can Assist. In Temora, Ros Hartwig was Citizen of the Year, and we thank her. She's spent so much of her time with the Rotary Club, Quota Club and Red Cross. Wagga Wagga Citizen of the Year was Alan Pottie. He's done so much for Wagga Wagga's Relay for Life and the Cancer Council. In Weddin shire, Glen Ivins was Citizen of the Year. I know Glen well. He's done so much with the Grenfell RSL sub-branch. He became its president in 2017, a position he still holds. Young Citizen of the Year was Christine Burnett, and she plays a major role in showcasing the region's vibrant art and cultural communities as president of Hilltop Arts. I say to each and every one of them: thank you. Tumbatrek, Murrumbateman Winery Trail 82 09:57 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro It's almost apt that I'm following the member for Riverina, because today I want to talk about Tumbatrek. Tumbatrek is an annual event which was started back in 1985 by Tim Fischer, a man who wanted to highlight the extraordinary surrounds of a place in the mighty Eden-Monaro called Tumbarumba. It's a place known for its absolute beauty, and every year we get to go along. As the custodian of Tim Fischer's walking stick, I feel a great sense of responsibility. Tumbatrek was, of course, resurrected by the member for Riverina in his time representing Tumbarumba, and the member for Riverina and I share a deep love of making sure that this trek continues on for many years. Each year it changes its location, and this year's trek was on part of the Hume and Hovell Track. It was 16.6 kays of mostly up and a little bit down, in the hills of Tumbarumba. It was enjoyed by 100 people, and a huge thank you goes to the Snowy Valleys Council for putting this on each and every year. They do so not to make a profit but to carry on the legacy of the great Tim Fischer, and I want to thank everyone for being part of the day. It was extremely hot—about 36 degrees—and, at the end of that 16.6-kilometre walk, everyone enjoyed the lunch and a cool drink, down by the Tumbarumba creekscape. Thank you, Member for Riverina, for resurrecting it. It is a fantastic walk, and I look forward to it continuing in 2024. The Murrumbateman Winery Trail is a fantastic project that's supported by $1 million from the Australian government and $1.2 million from the Yass Valley Council. It is 10 kilometres of track, which connects the town to multiple wineries in the region. For those of you who don't know, in Murrumbateman we have some of the best and well-known Canberra region wines. It will maintain and enhance the tourism and visitor experience there, but it also does something fantastic for our local community: it provides them 10 kilometres of trail to walk on, to ride on, to push the pram on and to get out for a bit of exercise. I want to thank the council and the councillors for working so closely with the Murrumbateman community in making this dream a reality. That community is so fantastic. It works so closely, not only together but with the council, to make sure that they can achieve their dreams of a better and more productive area, one which will attract more tourists and more people to come and live there. If you haven't been out there, Murrumbateman is 30 minutes from the ACT. Get out there. We know how amazing the region is but, for those of you who don't, the mighty Eden-Monaro will gratefully accept your donations to a number of our businesses. There's something for everyone, and I urge you to visit those places close to us. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH 83 GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH Address-in-Reply 83 10:00 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Whenever I stand to speak as the Independent federal member for Indi, I'm grateful to the people of our proud Federation seat who gave me the responsibility and the privilege of being their voice in this place. In 2019, when the people of Indi first elected me, they told me they wanted a different style of politics. They wanted integrity and trust returned, real action on climate change and more opportunities for rural, regional and remote Australians. They wanted me to work for them, not for a party machine. In 2022, their message remained consistent with that. There was frustration at the lack of progress on climate change and a sense that we were missing real opportunities to harness the transition to new renewable energy technology in rural and regional Australia. But the message that came through the loudest, the strongest and the clearest on the street, at the footy grounds and in town halls—no matter what people's political persuasion was—was that they wanted us to be better representatives. They wanted more accountability, more transparency and more integrity. 'Keep going on integrity, Helen,' I would hear: 'You get that commission, Helen. Clean that place up.' I heard it everywhere, and I worked doggedly in the last parliament on that mission to implement a federal integrity commission. I met many times with the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, to talk about my proposal and the need to allow debate on such a vital issue, but I was always told that this wasn't a major issue for Australians and that it wasn't a priority. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that this was absolutely not the case. Integrity in politics and a better standard of behaviour are vitally important to Australians, and we can see that in the election result and in the many new faces in this place—particularly sitting alongside me on the crossbench. There are many, many Australians—most of us, actually—who value integrity. I never doubted it. I'm proud that already in the first eight months of this parliament we have passed the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and that the NACC will be in action later this year. I'm proud of my role as the deputy chair of the committee that examined the bill, of the improvements we made and the bipartisanship that we brought to that. Now, as the member of Indi, representing the people of Indi who called on me to do this work, I am now the deputy chair of the joint standing committee on the NACC, and I promise I will be an independent voice for integrity on this important oversight body. The work of integrity, of course, is never done. Now that we have the commission, it's not a case of just set and forget. I want this government to know that I will be watching you closely. In the same way that I spoke up to the former government when it fell short on integrity, I too will speak up if and when you also fall short of what Australians expect. As the Independent member for Indi, I have the privilege of advocating for what my electorate really needs now and into the future. In the wake of the pandemic, I heard again and again of the need for better investment in our health care in the regions. I heard of the difficulty in getting an appointment with a doctor, of accessing the right specialist somewhere close to home and also of accessing appropriate aged-care services close to where people have spent their lives. A major issue in the election campaign in Indi was funding for a new single-site hospital on the border in Albury-Wodonga, to ensure that the growing population across our region is properly served without the complication of services spread across the whole border region. I know the member for Robertson would understand this. People in rural and regional areas have to travel vast distances to get the kind of health care that people in metropolitan areas simply take for granted. The Victorian and New South Wales governments have since committed to redevelop the existing hospital site in Albury, with a small amount of federal investment. While the funds committed are well below what we as a community have asked for and need, I am committed to work constructively with all levels of government, including this federal government, to ensure that our community gets the top-quality health service we need an deserve. Under the Albury Wodonga Regional Deal, $35 million will be directed to our local health infrastructure projects and to accommodation for workers in the health sector. This funding was promised in March 2022, before the election, and then recommitted to in the October budget, but it needs to be delivered urgently to allow these projects to start. I also commit to working with the government to secure funding for better health services right across Indi, including the redevelopment of the Bright Hospital Precinct for better access to services for those suffering from eating disorders—young people in particular. The spike in eating disorders across the nation is extraordinary, and in rural and regional areas such as mine access to services is almost non-existent. The psychologists and the healthcare teams across Indi tell me they simply cannot keep up with demand, and they don't have the resources they need to meet that demand. I really hope I can work with government on this one. Rural and regional young people, in particular, should not be left abandoned. As a former nurse and midwife, and then a rural health researcher focussing on rural and public health, I know the impact that a lack of access to proper health care has on people in rural and regional Australia. Just last week we learned that women in remote areas are likely to die 19 years earlier than their city counterparts, and for men in remote areas it is 13.9 years earlier than their city counterparts. This is simply unbelievable in 2023. It's not good enough. At every chance, I will be working to improve health care for people in regional, rural and remote Australia, so that we can thrive right now and into the future. Surely this is not too much to us. From big towns like Wondonga and Wangarratta to small towns like Corryong in the north and Alexandra in the south, people of Indi talk to me about health care and, gee, do they talk to me about the crisis in housing! This is the thing: all of these things are interrelated. We are currently experiencing an unprecedented level of housing demand and mortgage and rental stress. A study conducted by national housing welfare organisation Everybody's Home in March 2022 found that 40.6 per cent of renters in Indi experienced housing stress and 61.4 per cent of homeowners in Indi were under stress with there mortgage. That was last year. We haven't got the data for this year, but I know it will be worse. A lack of affordable housing has disastrous flow-on and economic impacts. If 10 per cent of workplace positions cannot be filled due to housing shortages, this flows on to a $200 million economic loss. The regions will lose tens of millions of dollars in economic activity if the housing crisis is not met. If we're going to improve housing supply, we need build critical enabling infrastructure: sewage, water, electricity. Without that, it does not matter how quickly councils approve lots for housing, they simply cannot be built on. For Benalla and Wangaratta, the cost of enabling infrastructure is out of reach for a small council, and it's a complete handbrake on our housing supply. As a parliament, we simply must address this. During the election, I campaigned for a regional housing infrastructure fund—a dedicated fund to build critical infrastructure which would help unlock more housing supply in regional Australia. This is about infrastructure from street lights and water supply to community centres and gardens. The government should work with me on this fund. I've spoken to the housing minister about it, and I will continue to. It's so important, because if the government's own ambitious housing agenda to build 30,000 new social and affordable homes can be delivered, they need this enabling infrastructure. If it isn't there, I struggle to see how they could deliver on this election promise. The government's proposed housing legislative package seeks to provide an ongoing funding stream to build social and affordable Australian homes. This fund, as we all know here, will cost $10 billion—the biggest government investment in housing in more than a decade. With such an enormous amount of money on the table, I want to see legislation that explicitly considers both social and affordable housing, and the critically-enabling infrastructure to make it happen, in regional, rural and remote Australia. Addressing the housing crisis in regional Australia is the first step in addressing our other challenges: the economy, better health care and better opportunities—I've said it over and over. We used to say, 'Build it and they will come.' Well, they've been coming, and we haven't built it. None of our issues can be truly fixed if we don't have places for people to live. For regional and rural Australia to thrive we also need to think about our local governments. Our councils need appropriate funding to support our growing and changing communities. In Indi, our nine local government areas provide essential services with just small rate bases to call on in really challenging geography. Because of this, they rely heavily on the Commonwealth's financial assistance grants. Over the last three decades grant payments have declined from one per cent of Commonwealth taxation revenue to just 0.53 per cent, and at the same time the demands on councils have only increased. The No. 1 ask from the nine local governments of Indi, year in, year out, is to increase financial assistance grants. I was pleased to see that the government has committed in its national platform to: … focus on the long-term financial sustainability of Local Government … including fair increases to Financial Assistance Grants. So I say to you that we need to see a restoration of these grants to one per cent of federal tax revenue. This is a fair increase. I've been pleased to meet with the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, Kristy McBain, herself a former mayor from a regional community, to make this case. I truly hope she can do better than the previous government on this issue, so that our communities have the infrastructure they need. Action on climate change is a real priority for the people of Indi—a huge priority—and a huge priority for me. When I first ran for parliament, people said that you can never get elected if you talk about climate change. Well, I'm back here again. Regional Australians understand this; that's why I am here. Regional Australians are on the forefront of the impacts of climate change, but we also have the most to gain from smart, practical action to lower emissions and create new industries. Renewable energy is the cheapest form of power, and our country is blessed with the world's best supply of it. This could be our next gold rush in the regions, if we get it right. We must do much more to ensure that we take science backed action on climate change and that we make sure our communities truly benefit from the economic flow of taking that action, because renewable energy could be a huge economic boom for regional Australia. Australia's regions have all the resources we need to fuel our energy future, powered by the sun and the wind, but we have to make sure that the profits from the generation of renewable energy in Australia aren't funnelled offshore. They must not be. We have to be certain that the communities at the point of generation of this new renewable energy truly benefit from it. The money needs to flow into the pockets of rural, regional and remote Australia. And that's why in the last parliament I introduced a bill to create the 'Australian Local Power Agency', with a particular focus on regional communities, where energy reliability, stability and security is not always guaranteed—particularly in times of natural disaster. The government has introduced the Community Batteries for Household Solar Program. It's a good start to increase energy storage around Australia, to lower bills and emissions, and to take pressure off the grid. That's why, I've got to say, it was very disappointing to me to see the first round of funding from this really important program go to a majority of urban and metropolitan communities. Only 14 per cent of communities who received a grant are in rural Australia. I'm pleased that there's a minister sitting here right now, because I know that he knows that 30 per cent of Australia's population actually lives in the regions. To make matters worse, the electorates that received that funding are almost 60 per cent of Labor seats. I know the government will tell me this is an election promise. Well, make some election promises that benefit rural and regional Australians, and that are equitable. It's not good enough from a government that promises transparency and equity. Do better in the next round! Community energy is not just about funding batteries. The time is now for the Commonwealth to scale up support for community owned renewable energy. Across regional Australia there are incredible examples of communities working together to own and share renewable energy. In Indi, we have the highest number of community energy groups of any electorate in Australia. These groups are in towns like Yackandandah, Euroa, Benalla, Mansfield, Corryong, Wodonga, to name but some. We are really good at this, but we need more support—we actually need some support! There's genuine opportunity right now for government to review how ARENA can assist these groups. I've spoken to the minister about this. It's really clear that ARENA is not providing funding to these kinds of projects, and I want to see that changed. The rising cost of living is hitting households across Australia, including in my community of Indi. Outside of mortgage and rental payments, the biggest bills Australians face are their energy bills. Now, the simplest way the government can assist in lowering both energy bills and emissions is to think domestically: help households and businesses move towards electrification and lower emissions appliances. I brought a policy to the election which would reduce the cost of home batteries and offer no-interest loans for low-income families to switch expensive, old gas appliances like hot-water systems and heaters to new, efficient, electrical versions. Now, I didn't make this up. Countries across the world are doing this. We need to get on board. Australian households want to do this but there are economic reasons that are holding them back. This is a really great opportunity. The government's considering a similar package to be included in the budget. My cheaper home batteries bill that I introduced last year included a plan for no-interest loans as a way to make smart choices, not just for the environment but for the household budget. I plan on reintroducing this bill in this term of parliament, and I really want to work with the government on this one. I think we could do terrific work on this. It's something that would really make a big difference to the home budget. I want to talk about farming. Farming generates 16 per cent of Australia's carbon emissions, with emissions rising by 3.3 per cent in the year to September 2022. The government has signed our farmers up to hit net zero emissions by 2050 but has given us very little in the way of actual policies, actual real support, to reduce emissions. We've got to support farmers to reduce emissions, not just talk about them. Now, I grew up on a dairy farm, and I still raise cattle today. And as a member for a regional and rural electorate, I know how hard farmers work and I know that they're always trying to do what's best for them and their land. But right now it's way too confusing and difficult to get the right information and support about reducing emissions. We need to help our farmers protect their access to world markets by supporting them to lower their emissions and to certify their products as zero carbon. My plan would fund 200 agricultural extension officers around regional Australia to help farmers, one-to-one, to lower their emissions, access carbon credits and hit net zero emissions. These extension officers would be qualified and trusted, with the local knowledge to provide on-the-ground assistance to farmers. We've done this in the past when we've seen major transitions in agriculture. This stuff works. The government could then certify those farms as carbon neutral, which would then help them access price premiums for their products and protect their access to overseas markets. Now, I know this government is considering a range of different programs to reduce emissions in agriculture. An agricultural extension officer network is sensible, it's efficient, it's a location appropriate pathway towards delivering these programs, and I really want to work with government on this. In closing, I want to say that, as a rural and regional Independent—a very, very proud one—I am determined to be a champion for the people of Indi and to bring the perspectives of regional Australia to this parliament. I will continue to be a voice for integrity and transparency, and I will hold this government to account. Residents in Indi know that every time I stand in this place, I will be working to create a community where we have appropriate and accessible health care, aged care and housing. I will stand here for better phone and internet coverage, for safer roads, for action on climate change. I will be working every day of my term as the member for Indi to help our communities to thrive and to be the best that they can be. 10:19 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I rise today as the member for Chifley. I was enormously humbled to be elected the first time in that capacity to represent communities I've grown up in and care about, and every single election where I've been given the opportunity to represent the community again means a great deal. There are a lot of communities in our part of the world, and in my part of Western Sydney, where it is hard to get the voices of people in our area heard. Some of the communities do it tough, but they're very proud communities of people that know, if they have the chance, they can show what they're made of, show what they can do and improve the quality of life in neighbourhoods across Chifley. I've always seen myself as being a part of that—being a servant of the people of the area that I represent and being able to represent their views, their ambitions and their aspirations in this parliament. When you take into account the number of people that have actually been elected to the House of Representatives relative to the size of the population, it's a small group of people. I mention that because it emphasises, in my mind—and I'm sure in the minds of others, like the member for Robertson, who's here today, and like yourself, Deputy Speaker Ananda-Rajah—that it's a massive honour. Having the chance to be able to represent our communities and, in doing so, having the huge honour of being able to form a government, being able to give effect, in a much greater sense, to what people want is huge. In my neck of the woods, in particular through the course of the last term of parliament, we were hit hard by COVID, as were a lot of others. But there were communities in Western Sydney where the failure of decision-making at a federal level hurt hard and those failures triggered the lockdown. It's something that is hugely impactful on me when I consider that 60 per cent of the deaths throughout the course of 2021 were felt in Western and south-western Sydney during lockdown, through that delta wave. We needed the vaccines that weren't there. As we got out of it, we needed RATs to be able to get back to work. People were prevented from being able to continue in their livelihoods. It enforced or emphasised to us the massive value in investing in health care. But there are a lot of communities in our area that are under particular pressure in getting access to primary health care in a way that will help them do exactly what they want to do in their lives, exactly as others are able to. It's either in the outer suburbs or in regional Australia—places away from the capital cities—where this is an even bigger challenge. There are a number of things that I wanted to canvass in my contribution to the Governor-General's opening speech, but health care in particular was the big one that I wanted to kick off with. We've gone through the seismic event of the pandemic. We said that there were lessons to be learned. It's now time to do just that. We've seen that Medicare is under huge pressure. This didn't just happen overnight. There has essentially been an underinvestment in primary care and in recognising and respecting the role of general practitioners in communities. That's particularly so in my area. I look at my communities—from Lethbridge Park, Bidwill, Whalan, Tregear and Mount Druitt—and people who really need to be able to see a doctor are not doing so on the basis that they're making a calculation about whether or not they can afford to. We are rightly proud as a country of Medicare providing universal access, but that universal access is under huge pressure. I'm seeing that in parts of Western Sydney where people are being asked for the first time to pay to see a doctor. That is a symptom of neglect that has been there—a failure to keep pace with what is going through. And it's doctors and GPs saying to me—I certainly understand this from the doctors I speak with in my area—that they're under huge pressure. Their costs have gone up as inflation has soared, and Medicare hasn't kept pace with that. It's impacting on their ability to provide health care at that point in time when it matters most and where it could be hugely beneficial from a preventative aspect, as well, for being able to identify issues that might cause longer term health problems for individuals in my area—for people in the communities I represent. We need a strong Medicare system and, again, I come back to this point: being in government, where you can make a difference, is a huge honour. We have seen our colleague the Minister for Health, Mark Butler, take this issue on board. Importantly, he recognises what we need to do to invest in Medicare. There's a lot of work to do there, but I'm sure that he's determined to make a difference. If we don't have improvement in community care in particular, with people able to see their GP in their local area and get the type of advice and support they need at the time that they need it most, then it does have consequences. For example: at Blacktown and Mount Druitt hospitals, we see what happens if people can't go to a GP—they turn up at the emergency departments. It's enormously upsetting to know that Blacktown and Mount Druitt have the worst treatment response times for emergency patients in Sydney. In the last year there were instances where there wasn't enough space for some patients wanting treatment at Blacktown's emergency department. I've heard several times that we have quality health services in New South Wales; but patients are needing to camp outside the hospital. Some patients needing emergency treatment had to wait on the footpath until midnight. We know that a timely response by hospitals is, in some cases, critical for survival, so residents in our part of Western Sydney being told to wait at the back of the line is simply not good enough. We need to make sure that all parts of the health system are working in a way that avoids that wait. When we get to that point, it's not an issue of thinking it's just a problem at that hospital; there's something underlying that situation, and it needs to be dealt with. From my point of view, as a member in this place, making sure that we have all the pieces locked into place which deliver affordable and accessible health care for people at the time they needed most is hugely important. I want to thank the doctors and GPs in my area, along with everyone who works with them, delivering the support that they need, in their practices and medical centres. I have started representing the concerns of those GPs about getting the support they need in their practices—and also for getting doctors. We have shortages in GP numbers, and that's playing out in our part of the world. The other area I wanted to touch on is education. The big thing for people in our area is recognising the value of education in changing their lives and opening up opportunities. We have a very young population, with a lot of students in schools—particularly, if I may say so, in government schools. At the end of the year, I always enjoy going to the presentation assemblies to see how they're going. We need to make massive investments in this and to work with state governments in terms of what will happen with long-term schooling support. In my area, we need to make sure we see a lift in investment in the school-resourcing standard. I know, from talking with principals in my area—for instance, I have spoken with principals out in parts of Doonside—that additional investment saw a transformation in results in maths. It meant they could provide one-on-one student support outside classrooms. I also know that with the access to technology through the course of the pandemic and lockdowns, there were schools in my area where year 12 students performed their best relative to other generations. This defied expectations that the lockdown would affect them. But it was largely leveraged off them getting access to laptops and mobile coverage. We could see where that wasn't available and learning couldn't occur during lockdown: we could see the results for those who didn't have that access. We could see the impact of not having that technology in year 10 performance. So ensuring that investment is there is really important. I'm very proud, as I'm sure a lot of my colleagues are, that we have committed to vocational education, making sure that TAFE gets the backing it needs. One of the great things is that we've backed in the value of TAFE and have been talking it up. For too long it has been seen as the poor cousin. It's not that; it's very important in delivering the skills that businesses need and in opening up a career for people which they'll want to throw themselves into. Our government is committed to close to 500,000 TAFE fee-free places. That's a big deal for people in our area, providing skills that businesses need and—I again come back to this point—opening up careers for people. That means a great deal. On top of that, the commitment that we've made to invest in more university places—the existence of Western Sydney University and Australian Catholic University opening up campuses, to their great credit, in Blacktown as well—is making sure that people from underrepresented groups have access to university education. It is something I'm enormously proud of that is being done by our government. I look forward to championing that as well. Infrastructure is another huge issue. Our part of the world is expected to welcome nearly 200,000 new residents in outer suburbs. While there are some state governments that love to cheer on the opening of huge tracts of land, believing this will deal with housing supply—and they take the stamp duty that comes with that and pocket that very nicely—there seems to be a difference between the speed at which they take the stamp duty and the speed of turning that into investment in infrastructure. In our part of the world, with major roadways like Richmond Road, leading into Marsden Park, there is a huge frustration by people that we haven't got things right linking in infrastructure. People can't believe that you could have all these new homes appear and the infrastructure not keep pace with what people would expect to occur. We as a government certainly committed to working with the New South Wales government on, for instance, different stages of Richmond Road, and we committed money to ensure that was available for planning and designing work to happen. But, as residents rightly say in my neck of the woods, a plan's great, but you can't drive on it. They're right. You can talk that talk, but you have to be able to drive that road, frankly. I understand the design work has been done to improve bottlenecks and pinch points on major roadways in my area such as Richmond Road, and yet we have to wait for a state election for a decision to be made about investment, which is, frankly, hugely disappointing and outrageous. People shouldn't be tethered to an election to see whether or not they'll get the infrastructure they need to make their lives easier so they're not stuck in traffic and they can get to and from work quickly, and so, importantly, business in my area can open up. It's not just homes that are opened up to provide a workforce that has to travel all the way into Sydney—in many cases it is over an hour in a car to get there. We should be able to do better. On that point, the provision of proper public transport so people don't feel like they have to rely on a car is also important. For example, the extension of the north-west metro from, currently, Tallawong station to St Mary's, plus fixing roadways and opening up the M9, will not just mean it is easier for residents to move around their neighbourhood; it will also, importantly, open up economic activity and opportunity for new jobs and industries in our part of the world. Increasingly, too, we're asking people to go on and take on university education that puts them into careers where they can do much better than their parents, and it's exactly what their parents wanted. Most of us who are parents will say we want our kids to do better than we did. If the type of economic activities present in our outer suburbs doesn't ensure that people with those qualifications and training can be there, the gravitational pull to go closer to the city occurs because they can't earn the same salaries. In my mobile offices I've had people approach me and say: 'I have gone on. I've done my undergraduate degree. I've done my postdoc.' They've had huge investment in their own skills but do not have the jobs locally to use them. We need that talent to stay in our area to drive economic development. I think the big challenge longer term is to get the infrastructure right so we can see the type of firms come in that changes the nature of neighbourhoods and deal with some of the chronic unemployment we've had. If we get that right, some of the economic development that would occur will be close to areas where some of the highest and most persistent levels of unemployment have been—in suburbs, for example, around Shalvey, where we could easily get them access to one of the biggest employment estates. The Sydney Business Park out at Marsden Park is actually the second biggest creator of jobs in Sydney. We could make that happen and connect people to jobs, and I think that is hugely important, because of the type of work that's there—the manufacturing and capability we're encouraging through things like the National Reconstruction Fund, where we're thinking about areas where people can make a big contribution. There are a lot of great manufacturing firms in Chifley that would benefit from that extra support. And talking this up and talking about the need for businesses to work together is huge. The other thing I think is important longer term for our area is getting the planning right around the Marsden Park area. That CBD in the Blacktown Council area, which is the biggest council in New South Wales, will open up a new CBD, and we can do it free of the colonial footprint that has dominated the design of so many cities in Western Sydney. We do need to get that right. Infrastructure is another thing I will continue to advocate for, for our people in our part of Western Sydney, because it's not just about freeing people from traffic jams but also about opening up opportunity and having a much better quality of life longer term. The other big thing for people in this term but specifically this year will be the decision we make around the Voice. I'm proud to say that I represent one of the largest urban communities of Aboriginal Australians in the country, around the postcode 2770, and there are terrific organisations in our area that are doing really important work. They recognise the value and the importance of being recognised in our Constitution and being able to have a say on things that affect them—as I'm often being told, 'nothing about us without us'. That is emphasised quite a bit. I think that is the right way to go. We represent people who want to be able to have a say on things that impact them. In terms of First Nations people, we should be able to get this right, and I think we can. So, it is something I look forward to working with communities in our area on, to make sure that we do the right thing, that we put in a positive decision and that we encourage a voice to emerge in our area. In concluding, I want to reflect on the fact that, as we all know, not only do we get here with the support of people who vote for us, but also there are a lot of people who devote a lot of their own time, and I'm very humbled and enormously appreciative of what people have done to volunteer on my campaign or work with me as the member for Chifley. There were a lot of volunteers from my FEC—in particular, my FEC president, Gayle Barbagallo, as well as the secretary, and a lot of others who contributed. There are so many, so that once you start it becomes a bit tricky to name everyone. But certainly within the branch, within the FEC and the branches in my area—the people who helped out in my mobile offices at the train stations that I visit and all the community events that I went to through the course of the term, even though we had the disruption of COVID-19—it did mean a great deal. I'm very grateful for their continued support in helping me to do my job of trying to make sure I won and was able to hear firsthand from communities about the things they think are important to them and that they need me to lean into and to be able to feed back to them as to what is going on and how we can work together to improve that. There was also a very close team, both in my electorate office and in my shadow ministerial team, whose names I want to put on the record: Akano Amuda, Katie Booth, Kate Boyd, Brad Bunting, Amanda Feuerborn and Nicholas Petkovic, and also Melanie Bridge, who was with me, and then she and her husband welcomed their first child. I just want to say to Mel that I'm looking forward to her rejoining us at some point. Again, a lot of work has been done to perform a job that has meant a great deal to me so that I am able to have the opportunity to represent people I care a great deal about, who deserve the support and ability to achieve the things they want to achieve in their lives. I think parliament and in particular politics can make a difference if it's done right, and I'm very grateful for the chance to yet again represent those communities as the member for Chifley. 10:39 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise, with respect to this address in reply, to talk about the needs of the Mayo community. In many cases, these are needs reflected more broadly across regional Australia. The first one I want to talk about is health—health, health, health!—in particular GPs and access to GPs, and then that elusive ability to see a GP and be bulk-billed. Just yesterday, my daughter went to the doctor. She got sunburnt. I told her off. In fact, I warned her beforehand. I said, 'The sun's really hot. Make sure you absolutely cover yourself in sunscreen.' But sometimes 18-year-olds don't use their ears as well as they should. Anyway, she got quite sunburnt, so she went to the doctor. That's a good thing to do. The doctor saw her. The nurse also saw her. It's amazing to be able to get a GP appointment, because in many parts of my electorate it takes weeks. However, the bill was $165. My family can afford that. She said, 'Geez, I'm not going to do that again.' The thing is, while she says that, there are a lot of people who are also saying that and will go and use the emergency department simply because they cannot afford that bill. Yes, some of the money will come back. I think the out of pocket cost is just under $50. I do remember standing in this place and hearing many people, who are now in government, when they were in opposition saying that the only thing you need to take to the doctor is your Medicare card. What we are seeing is an erosion of bulk-billing. I don't think there's anywhere in my electorate that bulk-bills. I'm hearing this from pensioners too. I'm hearing this from people who are on all sorts of Centrelink payments, that they are not being bulk-billed. The problem is that the pressure is happening on emergency departments or people are not going at all. Then we're seeing worse health outcomes. Added to that, with respect to my doctors—I don't begrudge the doctors—some of my providers have closed. Others are saying they're facing huge losses with the cost of running a practice. One said to me they'd lost $90,000, I think, in the year to date. That's just not sustainable. We absolutely need to make this a priority. This is frontline health. This is the gatekeeper to more expensive health treatments, so we absolutely need to fix this. What we have seen is that the issues around access to a GP, if you live in a regional area, have been made more difficult since the changes to where overseas doctors can practice. It used to be that an overseas doctor needed to practise in regional or remote Australia for a period of time. What we've seen though, with the changing of classification, is you can effectively, in South Australia, be living in Unley and service down at Noarlunga. You don't need to be in the regions. You could be living in North Adelaide and service Elizabeth. We have had contracts cancelled in my electorate, where we had overseas doctors not doing a stint in regional Australia. This is making the health outcomes for people who live in regional Australia worse. I would urge the government to put the magnifying glass on this. If you are there to represent all of Australia, you will make sure that regional Australia has an equitable connection to the health system. I'm pleased to see that there's a task force report happening and that there's money flagged in the budget, but every day that we have people not accessing a doctor because it's just unaffordable to see a doctor is a day too long. Other urgent health priorities in my electorate include addressing the funding shortfall for the Southern Fleurieu Health Service hospital upgrade at Victor Harbor, to meet the projected needs of the growing community. It's the oldest community, by median age, in South Australia, and one of the oldest in the nation. I think the median age across my south coast community is over 60 years of age, so our health needs are quite acute. There is also funding for the National Kidney Registry at the Flinders Medical Centre, which will obtain better data and drive improved health outcomes for patients. I was able to get dialysis chairs into the Mount Barker hospital. Mount Barker is a very large and fast-growing area. It was hard to believe, when I was first elected, that we did not have any dialysis chairs at all in this region. People were travelling down to the city to have dialysis. I surveyed all the GPs in my electorate, asking, 'How great is the need?' They told me about patients who had said: 'Do you know what? It's just too difficult to do this drive. It's the tyranny of the distance.' So they elected to stop having dialysis and subsequently passed away. We're now at a point in Mount Barker where there's a wait list. We need to make sure that we get dialysis into the regions and to keep that up. We need to make sure we address the demand. This is a huge issue. I'd also like to address another issue that's come to mind and which sits in the health spectrum: age-discriminatory rules under Medicare. If a person needs to have an MRI on their knee and they're over 50 years of age then a GP referral isn't enough to get the Medicare rebate and they have to go to a specialist. This sort of ingrained discrimination against older Australians needs to stop. We're putting barriers up to people accessing health care. If you're 49, you can get a GP referral and Medicare rebate—not a problem. If you're 51, it's a different story. I think that these arbitrary and discriminatory lines that we put in place are particularly unhelpful. Again, I've talked to many people in my community who cannot afford to get that MRI because they can't afford the gap. I'd also like to talk about sport and recreation. I think that sport is very much the glue that holds our communities together. Not everybody is playing sport, but many people around the periphery are spectators, volunteers or join in for the social interaction. I note that many older people in my community spend their Saturday afternoons going to watch the local football. I love it: many of them sit in their cars—it's normally freezing cold—and then they get out, get themselves a drink and a meat pie, and go to spend some time in the stands. But we saw the whole sports rorts saga, which was incredibly disappointing. We actually had an infrastructure round that could have put money into areas of enormous need for sporting infrastructure across Australia. That was poorly managed—I think by everyone's standards—and rorted. But we haven't seen future rounds, and that's a real shame. When I look at so much of the infrastructure for sport in my community, it was built by volunteers in the fifties. It had a bit of renovation in the eighties or nineties, but it's no longer fit for purpose. In many places, we don't have mobility accessible bathrooms—a lot of our footy clubs certainly don't. And we've got lots of girls teams and we don't have anywhere for the girls to get changed. Madam Deputy Speaker Ananda-Rajah, I don't know if you've spent much time in a locker room in a footy club, but it's got a certain aroma and a certain, you could say, 'ambience' to it! Perhaps that's not really conducive for women who also want to feel included in that scenario. We need to spend money on this. We recognise that sport assists our community so broadly, including with health and mental health, yet we don't put the resources behind that ageing infrastructure. To name a few places, Strathalbyn and Districts Basketball Association has outgrown its existing single court—one court in a great big shed—and training is held off-site. New players are being turned away, and that could be the one thing that makes a young person feel so disconnected from their community. We are seeing regional competitions where we're not able to hold them or participate in them, because we just don't have the facilities. We desperately need, just for Strathalbyn, $8 million to develop a three-court venue. That's not a huge ask, and yet we don't have any grant rounds where we can put forward for that. With Willunga Netball Club, players are playing on ageing courts and injuring themselves. One million dollars would help redevelop those courts. Another example that really stands out to me is the Strathalbyn Strikers Soccer Club. They have two portaloos—the kind you see on a building site. That's what they have for all of their kids. This is the fastest-growing sport in my community. They have so many kids playing and taking it up. They don't even have sinks in thee portaloos. Players have nowhere to change. We really need to do better. Many areas are experiencing huge growth. With the Aldinga region, we've just seen the state government announce that they're going to build more homes up to Sellicks, and yet that whole area does not have any sort of aquatic facility. When we're talking about aquatic facilities, we're talking about hydrotherapy, so, again, there's that link into health. Going back to the Strathalbyn Strikers, we're not talking about a little club here, with two portaloos. We're talking about 200 players, and they're keen to host—and they do host—championships. Every time they hold those championships, they inject a couple of thousand dollars into the region. People stop at the local bakery, they stop and buy some food and they get some petrol. The club's facilities really do not match the standards that are expected. I'm aghast when I drive through the metropolitan area and I see their flashy facilities. It's extraordinary. They're beautiful. And we're dealing with portaloos. I also would like to talk about the need for infrastructure in the regions, particularly in my electorate. The roads in the Adelaide Hills, in Mayo, are overrepresented in South Australia's crash statistics. Sadly, I read in a newspaper this morning that we lost another young person on our roads overnight. That family will never be the same. Four per cent of the state's population reside in the hills, yet we have five per cent of the fatalities and seven per cent of the serious injury crashes on our roads. In South Australia, we don't have a very large part of the federal road network, so we are underfunded when it comes to the funds that come in from the federal government towards our road network. I ask the government for $80 million to urgently address the black spot areas, road-widening corridors, ceiling shoulders, modifying embankments, removing road hazards, rehabilitating pavement and improving signage. These are just basic things we need. Another significant infrastructure spend that we need is a new heavy rail corridor for our Hills. We have been talking about this for ages. We really need to get the freight network out of the hills. That will give us a corridor for some public transport. It's hard to believe that a community that will be over 50,000—that's just in the Mount Barker area, not looking at the broader area across the hills—has no rail. We used to have rail until the mid-eighties, when they decided that it was no longer necessary. There is no tram network. We talk in here about climate change and pollution, yet we're not putting in the infrastructure to allow people to change how they live their lives. We desperately need to have a train network again, or some sort of rail network. On a positive note, though, I do live in the most beautiful electorate in Australia. We have been voted the happiest electorate in Australia—I think we still hold that title—and part of it is our beautiful scenery. We have a number of bike trails, but we need to connect it all together with the Adelaide Wine Capital Cycle Trail. That essentially will be a cycling pilgrimage across 250 kilometres. They have something like this in France, and it's a huge part of the tourism right across France. You can, essentially, cycle from one point of France to the other, entirely off-road, up and down, through all of the different regions. It's connected with the tourism there, so your bags get taken from one hotel to the other—it sounds very civilised. But we really need to have those visitors come up to the Adelaide Hills, down to the Fleurieu, across to Kangaroo Island—and I should really also say up from the Barossa; I no longer have the Barossa in my electorate, but I think that's what visitors expect. They want to see an experience, and we need to put that investment in. Further afield, we regularly have 220,000 visitors per annum to Kangaroo Island, but in that area we have just over 5,600 rateable properties. A number of those belong to absent ratepayers, but they're servicing a $400 million road network asset. It puts enormous pressure on the whole of the Kangaroo Island community. I think Stokes Bay was just voted the best beach in Australia. We can't, on one hand, champion these locations and say how wonderful they are and then, with the other hand, not back them in with the resources and the funding that's needed. One other infrastructure piece that needs to be done is the Victor Harbor Road, and not just the Victor Harbor Road, I might say, but the Mount Compass to Goolwa road also needs to be done. These roads, sadly, are overrepresented with respect to crashes. They are incredibly busy roads, and I urge the government to invest here. It's another area of my electorate that has very limited public transport. I think essentially one bus per day will go up to the city—or maybe a couple of buses per day. Many people call for the rail to extend all the way down to Victor. We need to make sure that we have accessible transport, particularly if they're also very fast-growing regions, as Victor Harbor is. I'd like to close by talking about the Stronger Communities Program. I was really pleased to see that the Stronger Communities Program is currently open at the moment, and all of us are taking submissions for that. This program has been around, certainly, for all of the years that I've been a member of parliament, and it's a program that our whole community really looks forward to. I think one year I had about $1.5 million worth of applications for just $150,000 of grants. What you could do with $150,000 in your community back in 2016 was very different to what you can do with that now. So I would urge the government to perhaps look at increasing that, because with that program you get enormous bang for your buck, a huge amount of buy-in and in-kind support from communities, and really good grassroots projects. There's no money wasted when the money goes directly from the federal government to the community group. It doesn't waffle through some kind of state and local government puzzle, where money somehow seems to get lost. I would really encourage the government to look at this program with fresh eyes and perhaps to enlarge the program. We need to make sure that we can also have those other great programs we've had in the past with respect to our school communities. That was another good one, very similar to this. In the year where many of our Soldiers Memorial Halls—which are particularly important in the regions—are turning a century old, why not have a further program to make sure that those beautiful 100-year-old buildings have a life for the next hundred years? 10:59 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin In making my contribution to the address-in-reply, I want to start by thanking the voters of the Scullin electorate for putting their trust in me for the fourth time. It's a very humbling privilege, and I thank those who did support me. But I acknowledge that many did not. Indeed, there were more who did not at the last election than at the election before it, and that's something I have been reflecting on. I commit myself here, as I go about my work as the member for Scullin, to earn the trust, if not always the support, of all the people I have the privilege of representing. I think that's an important point right now at this juncture in democratic politics, where we know that the trust in politics and political institutions is much lower than it has been, much lower than it should be and much lower than in needs to be. I am very conscious that, for all of us who come to this place, we bring our values, our sense of how the world should be and our sense of the role of government. But for us to be able to play out these debates about how our politics should be, this must rest on an understanding and appreciation across the community that the work we do in this place matters and that it can improve the lives of our constituents and people around the country. Rebuilding a sense of trust and confidence in this institution, this parliament, is absolutely vital, and I hope that over the course of this term in parliament I can do more to engage with the full diversity of the people who I represent in the Scullin electorate. I also hope that we make a contribution as we go about our work in this place—and I acknowledge the shadow minister, who has just come into the Federation Chamber—to see if we can do better, not always at striving for bipartisanship, because I think that's a false hope, but in working out how we can play out our differences in a more respectful manner, recognising that there are many issues upon which people will disagree by reason of their background or their world view. But I think we need to find a way to better engage all of our communities. That's in the sense—and I strongly believe this to be the case—that what happens in this place is the work of a diverse group of people of goodwill who come to this place with a firm desire to do the best for their communities and to see the best done for the country. We haven't always conducted ourselves—and I include myself in this criticism—in a way that builds that trust and confidence upon which a strong democracy should rest. I will do my best and, again, I know the shadow minister will hold me to account in this respect as well as in other respects, as he should, to see if I can make a contribution to raising the standard of political debate and dealing with, I think, the greatest threat to our democracy, which is an increasing sense of cynicism towards what we do and alienation from politics and political institutions more broadly. I do think, in making these reflections, that we can't divorce this sense of grievance and cynicism from how the experience of the pandemic affected so many in our communities. That's something that I have reflected on, as I've also reflected on the particular challenges of being a representative through that difficult time. I want to acknowledge the former Speaker of the House Tony Smith and the former President of the Senate for the work that they did in ensuring that our parliament continued to function. I believe it functioned well through a period of great disruption. I think it was important that our constituents saw us continuing our representative work through that period, and some very important work was done. I also want to acknowledge the work of the group of people I'm very fortunate to have worked with in my electorate office during that time—indeed, always. I want to acknowledge Lori, Sally, Nick, Alice, Zoe, Eric and Olla, as well as Jim Tilkeridis, who has recently retired. I want to put on record in this place Jim's extraordinary record of service working with me and serving the community, including as Mayor of the City of Whittlesea. He's a dear friend, a source of wise counsel and someone who has made an extraordinary contribution—a contribution that continues, I add. But the work of all of our electorate officers was incredibly important through the challenges of the pandemic. In those early stages, so many people sought to engage with Centrelink, often for the first time in their lives. In a country like ours, a majority migrant nation, the closure of the borders had such an extraordinary impact, with people trapped. I was so proud of my team's work, in getting people connected to relatives stuck overseas, making such a difference to so many, as well as the work of my team more broadly. I think all of us, in this place, know that we are nothing but for the people we have the privilege of working with. During the period of the pandemic that was particularly so. I'm so pleased at the work the team I work with did, during that time, and that work continues. Some are in new roles, and I want to acknowledge the contributions in my team, right now, from Sam, Hamish, Khadija and Maureen who've joined us in the electorate office. The electorate office of a minister for immigration has some unusual pressures applied to it, from time to time, both on the phone and occasionally on the street out the front. Again, I want to acknowledge that my staff and, indeed, the staff of all us members of parliament, often have to put up with a lot by reason of our actions or inactions. I'm very conscious of some of the pressures put on them as they go about doing really extraordinary work supporting the communities that make up the Scullin electorate. Right now, the devastation in Turkiye and Syria particularly affects thousands of people I represent. I want to recognise in this place the pressures and stresses I'm seeing in the community, and I look forward to engaging more directly on these things when I'm back in Melbourne next week. I want also to touch on, in these remarks, the last election itself. I've already thanked the people of Scullin for their continuing support and acknowledged those who did not support me. But there are a couple of dynamics from that election that I saw again in the recent Victorian state election that I found concerning. I made some remarks earlier about my concern, to see our disagreements and disputes in this place play out in a different manner, because I do see a change in the tenor of politics on the ground. I was particularly concerned to see that in the recent state election. I saw some very disturbing behaviours, particularly at early voting centres and particularly directed at female members of parliament and candidates. Across the political spectrum, I think we are seeing some concerning signs in our political life. We really do need to create political conversations in the community as well as in this place that are respectful and, fundamentally, that are safe. We need to remove any sense of apprehension or disincentive that might deny people from thinking about taking on a role in public life. I am concerned that the tenor of our debate and some of the behaviours we have seen do have that chilling effect on an important aspect of our democracy. That is something I would like to see reflected as we all go about our work. I was very pleased, as I went through that election campaign, which now seems quite some time ago, to see a number of significant commitments made, in opposition, that will be delivered as part of the work of the Albanese Labor government. I want to touch on two, in particular. One is the funding commitment to the Peter Hopper Lake in Mill Park, a really significant investment in a beautiful part of the electorate that had needed help. The place had been such a focus for community members but had been so degraded. I'm really looking forward to working with the community and the council to see this beautiful lake restored to its pristine state so that it can be enjoyed by early morning walkers and families enjoying the playground and the off-leash dog park next door. I'm also really pleased that something that I've been fighting for, for a long time, moves a step closer, with the commitment of funding for a feasibility study for rail or public transport out to the growing communities on the north-western side of the Scullin electorate, going into the McEwen electorate. They are vibrant and diverse places but access to the amenity that many Melburnians appreciate as well as access to work, particularly in the CBD, is being held back by the lack of public transport opportunities there. We see everywhere in suburban communities the cost of congestion to people's lives. It is important that everyone has the ability to access everything that is good in Melbourne—the ability to access a wider range of employment opportunities, as well as all the other great things that make Melbourne undoubtedly the greatest city in our country. I'm very pleased to see that commitment. I look forward to ensuring that, along with very significant road investments, we're going to make it easier for people to get around the northern suburbs and also to get around our city more broadly—particularly with expanding public transport access. I see the enormous difference that the extension of the train line to Mernda has made on the other side of my electorate. To see that play out on the other side, particularly as the Epping precinct expands with the developments around the hospital, is something that I really want to work towards making a reality soon. At a broader level, I'm conscious that there is much work to do, particularly on addressing two big issues. The cost of living that's impacting on everyone is a critical challenge for all of us in this place. The first act of this government was of course to support an increase in the minimum wage. There is more to be done in that regard, and it will be a relentless focus for me—as a local member, as well as being a member of the government—to work with our economic team and Minister Burke, in his industrial relations responsibilities, to see more done in this regard. The other critical question—and it's a common one—is access to primary health care. That's something that I'll continue to work towards with our community and with our excellent health team. I was very privileged to have been given the opportunity by the Prime Minister to serve as the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs shortly after the election. It's an extraordinary honour to have these responsibilities, which impact the lives of every Australian and give me an opportunity to play a part, not just in shaping our recovery from the pandemic and that period of border closure but to play a significant role in thinking about the nation that we are and the nation that we might be. In terms of multicultural affairs, I'm extraordinarily proud of the achievements that we have made, and I recognise the bipartisan commitment to multiculturalism that has played such a role in boosting social cohesion and making this country—this modern nation—so great, with our unique blend of the world's oldest continuing cultures and people bringing and sharing their cultures from all around the world. But when I say this, I am not and I will not overlook the barriers that many Australians face by reason of their background; discrimination still occurs, holds individuals back and holds us all back by denying people the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Ending these barriers is a critical part of my role and, I believe, a critical responsibility of national government. I think a vision of our country as a place where everyone belongs in every place, where we see people represented in proportion in all the places that matter, including in this place, is an important part of realising our potential as a country. Recognising that there are still barriers that hold back too many Australians from fulfilling their potential is something that, morally, we need to attend to as an equal and egalitarian society. But it's also about taking that next step to recognise that this denial of individual equality and capacity is not just a problem for them but a problem for all of us. I want to recognise that. I want to speak very briefly about one of the critical questions that this government has put before the Australian people, and that is my commitment to all aspects of the Uluru Statement from the Heart—in particular, my strong support for constitutional recognition and an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. This is something that matters to many in the community I represent, and I will be working with them to secure strong support for this generous gesture that First Nations people have made and to remind people that, whilst the Albanese government is resolute in its support for the Voice, this is not an idea of the Albanese government; this is the product of a process of engaging so many First Nations people for so long. That is a point which often gets lost in what passes for the debate here, but it's something that I'm very conscious of. What we are doing, in asking Australians to support the Voice, is simply to say yes to an offer extended to non-Indigenous Australians by First Nations people. It's a simple, generous request, and it's a request that we must answer in the affirmative, if we are to fulfil our potential as a nation. I stand here in this parliament because of the support of the voters of the Scullin electorate, but, of course, I only stand here because many worked hard to make Labor's victory in Scullin a reality. I want to acknowledge some of those people who made a real contribution to my campaign and to acknowledge the debt I owe to each of them. I think about: Helen Said; Paul, Bruce and Carla Seidl; Rana Javeed; Jim Kerin and everyone from the Men's Shed at Lalor; Tom Watkins; David Cannavo;    Kris Pavlidis, who's given so much to the community for so long, as has my friend Sucettin Unal and all of his family; Connie Boglis; Brian and Ellen Smiddy; Jim Bannon; Vince O'Grady; Anthony Mancuso; Samil Demir; Sonay Dilekcan; Ray Yollie Rosales; Nessie Sayer; Judy Snell; Nora Rocca; Yogi Thurinathan; Yammi El Rassi; Pam Macleod; Maureen Corrigan; Joe Caruso; Stephanie Santos; Sam Alessi, again, a giant of the community; Regina Huning, a person who's done so much and has been going through very difficult challenges in her family—I'm thinking about her and Emily, as I stand here now—Eugenia Pavlopoulou; John Fry; and Joe Petrucci. I stand here because of all your work and your support, and I'm always grateful for both. I recognise that, as well as the fantastic team in the electorate. Just so it's on the record, I'll go through them: Lori, Sally, Nik, Alice, Zoe, Eric, Olla and Sasha, who worked for me in the last term. And there's Lachlan, who also worked with me in my portfolio responsibilities. I said, a few minutes ago, that I was proud and feel privileged to be Australia's Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I am pleased at the role that I've been able to play, with all of my colleagues, in making a difference for the lives of Australians who rely on a migration system that works in our national interest and in the interests of every Australian. I'm pleased that we've been able to get the visa backlog down. I'm thrilled that more staff are engaged—more than 485 in visa processing roles since May of last year. I'm pleased that we've managed to process and finalise more than 4.7 million visa applications and that we've been able to prioritise skilled visas in critical sectors, like health and education, to fill those critical shortages that have been impacting the lives of too many Australians. As someone who's long been concerned about people seeking asylum, I note, now, that we've filled almost 9,000 visas as part of the humanitarian program, and that, in particular, more than 4,250 permanent humanitarian citizens have been granted to Afghan citizens in this program year, as well as more than 1,300 family visas. There is, of course, more to be done supporting them, and I think we all acknowledge in this place our particular moral obligation to the people of Afghanistan. There's work that's being done, and I acknowledge the former government for their support for Ukrainians who have sought our protection as well. I'm pleased that we're seeing the first arrivals through the community sponsorship pilot. Again, that's an initiative the former government began, but it's one that I believe we can make a big feature of our migration program, as we harness the generosity that's found in communities right across Australia. I'm thrilled that we're bringing down the citizenship backlog. I can't say how pleased I am that people who've been in this country for a decade and who've been found to be owed our protection can now move their circumstances beyond simply existing and towards living and making the choices that each of us take for granted. That decision, announced on Monday, was one of the proudest days of my life, and I'm pleased that I have the opportunity to continue to build on this body of work. 11:19 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I want to put some context into this debate, for all those who are listening. The Governor-General's opening speech to the parliament is basically the Governor-General delivering a message from the Prime Minister, from the government, about what its priorities are for the coming term of government. It's an important speech in outlining what the government hopes to achieve. I'd like to refer to the Governor-General's speech just to give a sense of where we're at. We're not quite 12 months since the last election, but we're already starting to see some trends and developments—where the government has got some things right and where the government has gone completely off track and is getting a lot of things wrong. My deep, deep concern is that if it continues down the track that it is things are going to get a lot worse, sadly, for Australians, rather than a lot better. In the opening of the Governor-General's speech, he said the government knows this country faces serious and pressing challenges. The first one mentioned was the rising cost of living. What you would have hoped for was that, having identified this as the No. 1 priority, the government would have been doing everything it can to make sure that it was putting downward pressure on these rising costs of living. Yet, sadly, we're seeing the exact opposite. If you look at interest rates, the Reserve Bank has met eight times since May, since the change of government, and eight times it has raised interest rates. The sad reality is that interest rates are always higher under a Labor government. The facts prove that. We have the facts, and we can demonstrate the facts showing that under Labor interest rates are always higher. There is a very simple reason: Labor spend more, you pay more. If governments don't spend wisely, spend productively and spend in a way that is in the interests of the nation for the longer term, then it puts upward pressure on interest rates. That is, sadly, what we are seeing. We know you will always pay more under Labor, and the sad reality is that interest rates, as a result, will always be higher under Labor. That's because Labor like to spend more. It's worth remembering: the more they spend, the more you pay. That is one of the big areas of concern already that we're seeing from the government and the way they are going about things. That was the first thing that was identified in the Governor-General's reply speech: the rising costs of living. When it comes to interest rates, sadly, we're not heading in the right direction. The other thing that is really impacting on people's cost of living is energy bills. Once again, we're seeing rather poor action from the government, which is actually making the situation worse rather than better. I'm going to go to a proof point. This is a proof point that I raised in the parliament in question time in a question to the Prime Minister himself. I raised the example of a constituent of mine, Alan Dennett. He's 80 years of age, and he lives at home with his wife and their disabled son. They received their latest energy bill in the mail. It said, 'Your gas bill will increase by approximately $1,300 over the next 12 months.' Now, for Mr Dennett, this is an enormous increase in his gas bill for him and his family. The Prime Minister needs to explain to Mr Dennett and to many other people right across the nation why he told him and others that their power bill would go down by $275. Now, he said this before the election. 'Your power bill will go down by $275.' He said it on 97 occasions. One of the things that we have been trying to do is to get the Prime Minister to even mention $275 since the election. He was quite happy to before the election—on 97 occasions, he mentioned $275. After the election, he hasn't mentioned it once. This is not being up-front with the Australian people. This is hiding from the Australian people. If you cannot honour that commitment, Prime Minister, then you should come clean with the Australian people and tell them. You talk about reasons and excuses as to why now you can't deliver that, but why won't you come out and just say, 'On 97 occasions before the last election, I mentioned that your power bill would go down by $275. I was wrong. I can't deliver that. I was shouldn't have said it. I was wrong.' Now, that would be, I think, something that the Australian people would appreciate. They would. They would say, 'Okay, you're being up-front with us.' Instead, he's just playing tricky games and won't come clean, saying, 'Oh, it's this and that and this and that, and that's why,' but he won't actually come out and say: 'We said $275 97 times before the last election. We might have been just gilding the lily a bit. We can't deliver on that. We got it wrong. As a matter of fact, what's happening is the complete opposite.' In Mr Dennett's case, it's not a $275 reduction; for his family it's a nearly $1,400 increase. I can understand why there is growing concern, not only in my communities but right across the nation, about what is happening with energy. One thing was said before the election, and we're seeing something completely opposite after the election. And it's not just when it comes to interest rates. It's not just when it comes to electricity bills. We're also seeing it when families go to the supermarket to shop. The increase in what they're paying at the checkout continues to rise. The sad reality is that most Australians now are just wondering: 'Well, what is the government's plan to deal with inflation? What is the government's plan to deal with these cost increases?' Now, the government said before the election that it was going to address real wages. They said that they were going to make sure that real wages continued to increase. The sad reality is that real wages are going backwards and they have continued to go backwards since the May election. This is another area where, rather than being tricky and saying that wages are increasing, the government needs to come clean and say real wages—that is, wages adjusted for inflation—are going backwards. At least then the Australian people would know the reality of what they're facing. They're facing rising cost-of-living pressures when it comes to interest rates, when it comes to energy bills and when it comes to what they're paying at the supermarket, and the government isn't able to address it. The government doesn't have a plan to address it. If the government came clean on that, I think the Australian people would at least be saying the government's being up-front with them. But we're not seeing that. And it's not just your energy bills. It's not just interest rates. It's not just what you're paying at the supermarket. It's also what's happening with regard to insurance, and it's also what's happening with regard to rents, which are also all going up. So the sad reality is that, right across the board, people are paying more. That's why, sadly, the fact of the matter is that you'll always pay more under Labor. It's worth noting, and I think the Australian people are starting to understand this: Labor spend more, and you pay more. You've got to remember that, when they're out there promising the world and spending more, what they're really doing is making sure that you will pay more. The second thing that was mentioned as a key priority in the Governor-General's opening speech was that there would be fixed low wages growth. As I've mentioned before, what's actually happened when it comes to real wages—your wages adjusted for the CPI, for inflation—is that they're going backwards. So the government hasn't been able to address this, and the facts demonstrate it. That is why Australians are feeling poorer. The sad reality is that when you speak to many people in my communities and right across Australia and ask them, 'Are you feeling better off now than in May last year?' most of them are saying: 'No, I'm not. I'm actually feeling poorer.' The third thing that they said they would be addressing is climate change. We've seen the government building on the track record of the coalition but building on that track record in only one regard. We were able to bring emissions down but keep energy prices low. What we're seeing from the government is that they are following our lead in reducing emissions but, sadly, not doing it by keeping energy prices low. That is the thing that they have to get right, because if they don't then, sure, emissions are going to continue to go down but we're going to see either our major manufacturers moving offshore or actually shutting down. That is in no-one's interest. The real test for the government when it comes to climate change is to reduce emissions while ensuring that all our key industries can remain open and continue to thrive. That is particularly important for those that are energy intensive and exposed to overseas competition, because if you don't get that right then all it will lead to is our productive manufacturers moving overseas or else being forced to shut, because competition from overseas will be so strong. That is in no-one's interest. In dealing with the tensions of our region and the uncertainty in our world, the government has, I must say, done better than it has anywhere else. That's because they've followed, in a bipartisan way, the approach that the previous government took, and that was to understand the uncertainty of the times that we are dealing with and to make sure that we continue to address that. Under our government, we made sure that defence spending increased and continued to increase and that we were going to have the ability to defend ourselves and defend ourselves strongly. The government is building on that approach. When it comes to foreign policy, the government has continued our priority of making sure we continue our engagement with the region and that critical engagement in the Pacific, and also that we continue to build and support our key alliances, in particular with the US and the UK. We're about to see how important AUKUS will be to our future over the coming months, because all the work that was done by the previous government in putting AUKUS together—and former prime minister Scott Morrison deserves huge credit here—is about to bear fruit. We're about to hear all about that over the coming months. The only thing that I would point to where I think the government could have done a better job is actually in the trade portfolio. We're still waiting for the UK free trade agreement to come into force. That has taken far too long and shows that the government hasn't been active enough in making sure that that passes through the UK parliament and goes into force. They've also sat on their heels a bit when it's come to the free trade agreement with India. Obviously we have that in force now. It was an incredibly important bit of work. But why haven't we had a massive trade delegation already in India? Making sure we're building on that I think is one area where the government has left a little bit wanting. The other thing which is mentioned in this reply speech—and I see I'm going to run out of time, which is a great shame, because there's a lot more I could go through—is around the area of infrastructure. The sad reality is that in this speech the government hasn't identified anything when it comes to the regions and, in particular, infrastructure. What we've seen instead is, once again, Labor being true to form and completely ignoring our regions. I had to raise in parliament this week how a constituent who I called told me about his ambulance ride from Portland to Hamilton along the Henty Highway. He had broken ribs and a punctured lung, and along the road he had to be sedated because it was such a rough ambulance ride. The sad thing is that the government, in its October budget, cut $40 million from that road and the Princes Highway in an act of political—I would use the word but I won't, because it's unparliamentary, but it starts with a 'B'—the like of which I haven't seen. They cut $40 million from our roads when I have asked the Prime Minister and the Premier of Victoria to come down and drive on them to see how poor they are, because if they drove on them, they would have no excuse to have done what they've done by cutting that $40 million. I will hold them to account for that, and I know every state MP in my local area will also be making sure that the government is held to account for ripping that $40 million out of our road funding. We also have seen that projects like the Warrnambool Surf Life Saving Club and our Local Roads Package, which was extensive, won't be funded. The Elliminyt Recreation Reserve and the Port Fairy Community Sports Hub won't be upgraded. As a matter of fact, very important things like the Portland community sporting complex won't be upgraded. As a matter of fact, all we've seen is the government taking money from our regional projects—important local community projects—and putting nothing towards them. If I have one message out of this speech today, it is to the Albanese government. That is: please, you always do it, but make this government a little different. Actually get in behind and support regional communities to grow and develop. Don't just look after the inner city. Make sure that you also understand that Australia exists outside of our capital cities, because that is the biggest flaw that we always see from Labor governments. They do not understand how important regional and rural Australia is and how important investing in regional and rural Australia is. In concluding, I thank all my hardworking staff both from when I was previously a minister and now for the wonderful work they do for me. I have one of the most wonderful staff members in here with me today. I thank all those supporters who helped me throughout the last election campaign. We had over 800 volunteers help and support my re-election in Wannon. To all of you—and I said it in the lunch we did afterwards—I say a very, very big thankyou. We have to hold this government to account, and that is what I will be doing. 11:40 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam It's a great honour to be a member of parliament. For each and every one of us, despite the things we show rancour over, the things we disagree on and the policy challenges, the thing we hold in common is that it's an enormous honour to be elected to represent our communities in this place. It's an important institution and it should be treated with care and respect, as our democracy is an important institution—young by international standards and something that needs to be nurtured and respected. At the 2022 election Labor promised a better future for the people of Australia, including those of my electorate of Whitlam, and we're delivering on that promise. My electorate runs from the industrial heartlands of the coast land to the big suburbs of Dapto, Albion Park and Shellharbour—once a village and now a major city—to the coastal strip between Windang in the north and the famous 'Farm', Killalea Beach, in the south, right up to the Hume Highway in the Southern Highlands. In many respects it is two separate electorates—very different. It is a regional electorate—the farming villages of Robertson, service towns like Moss Vale, once-farming villages but now tourist regions, like Berrima, and the very popular tourist destinations of Bowral and Mittagong. It is a great place to represent—a wonderful honour. We promised a better future. It's my great challenge in this place to represent them all. It's a great honour to be a minister in this government and it's a great challenge to fulfil my ministerial responsibilities while ensuring that my first and foremost responsibility—representing the locals of my electorate—is fulfilled as well. We understand the economic challenges. There are many, and we're facing into them. We received a budget in all sorts of mess—a trillion dollars worth of debt and a structural deficit that will take considerable effort to wind back. We received an economy with significant supply-side constraints from living in the shadow of the COVID pandemic and all the significant changes that needed to be made, and inflationary pressures in the economy, many of them because of energy price increases internationally, for gas and coal and petrol, influenced by international factors but, as the Treasurer often says, 'received internationally but felt around household kitchen tables'. There were significant structural problems with the budget. It's not the job of government to complain about the situation we received. It is our job to explain it and to explain to the Australian people what we're going to do about it. We've already taken real action on climate change, legislating out targets, and are now working with the parliament to ensure that our new safeguard mechanisms are able to move through the parliament so that we can do the heavy lifting on meeting our 2030, 2035 and 2050 emissions reduction targets. We've legislated for cheaper child care, knowing that for many households that's a very large and lumpy expense in their weekly budget. We've legislated changes to our workplace relations system which will get wages moving again as well as making a concrete difference in areas that I think all members of this place share—for example, in the area of domestic violence, paid domestic violence leave. Of course, the angels in all of our natures hope that nobody ever has to access that, but we know that in reality domestic violence is a scourge on our society, with people having to take time out of work to attend to moving home, getting care, getting support. Our domestic violence legislation will make a concrete difference in that area. We intend to have a conversation and a referendum on a voice to parliament, to lift up our democracy and our founding document to ensure that it reflects the 65,000 years of First Nations heritage. We have introduced and legislated—and this is a matter I know you are very engaged with, Deputy Speaker Wilkie—a national anticorruption commission. Corruption, and the threat of corruption, doesn't stop at a state border. It was naive of this place to think that we were immune from the threat of corruption in public life and public administration. A national anticorruption commission sends a strong signal to those of us involved in public life and those involved in public administration that there is a watchdog that will be seriously addressing it. The mere fact that we have one hopefully provides a very persuasive influence on the way that elected and public officials conduct themselves. In the area of energy, we know it's a big challenge. I have mentioned that most of the problems in the energy market have come to us from the failed energy policies of our predecessors—their failure to take the shift to renewables seriously—together with the war in Ukraine. Again, complaining about the problem is not the role of government; explaining what's going on and putting in place solutions is. Our wholesale energy price caps in the area of coal and gas are legislated. Regrettably, they were not supported by the other side. The coalition parties voted against capping prices—which, we were advised by Treasury modelling in the last 24 hours, are already having a material impact on the prices that people will pay at the household and business level. That's what a serious government does: gets on with business and tries to put practical solutions in place. Closer to my home in the Illawarra and Southern Highlands, I made a promise to my constituents that I'd continue to advocate for them. With a Labor government in office, they know their voices are going to be heard. We will deliver on promises that we made nationally to every Australian, but also locally. At home, this includes funding for a $25 million trauma recovery centre for families, women and children who unfortunately have had to endure family and domestic violence. This is the first such facility in the country. It will be a pilot and lead the way for other initiatives around the country. Delivering community batteries involves, again, firming up our energy generation and distribution system, but is also a pilot for the way we might provide energy storage solutions for communities. The beauty of community batteries is that they provide the benefits of renewable energy generation to communities. With solar installation, for example, people who may not be homeowners—or maybe live in units or are renters and aren't going to install solar on a house that they don't own—are going to get the benefits of solar through the installation of community batteries. I'm very pleased to be a part of a national pilot on this in Dapto. Nine million dollars has been provided to Wollongong Council to build an accessible sport and play precinct at West Dapto. When I was first elected, West Dapto was mostly dairy farms. There are now burgeoning suburbs, which are underserviced in relation to a lot of community infrastructure. New sporting facilities will make a material difference to this growing community. We've hoping to get work underway over the next couple of years. The $9 million will facilitate that. Over $500,000 is going to the Southern Highlands Botanic Gardens to create a dedicated learning facility. This is a volunteer run organisation. When I was first elected it was a patch of dirt on the outskirts of Bowral. It's now a burgeoning community facility—an entirely community run botanic gardens. They're lifting it up every year. This money will help them put in place an education facility. There is $450,000 going to the Southern Highlands regional art gallery Ngununggula, another magnificent community facility, for the installation of solar systems to help them power the gallery. What does a solar system have to do with art? It will save them thousands and thousands of dollars a year in operation costs, and they can then convert that money into staff, community programs and bringing more exhibitions into the area. It's absolutely fantastic. I want to pay tribute to Ben Quilty and the team who have been driving the establishment of that gallery and ensuring that it's going to bring art to the Southern Highlands and that all can enjoy that fantastic community-run facility. Deputy Speaker, I was first elected in 2010—the same year as you!—and I'm delighted to say that this is my fifth election. I couldn't have been elected at the first, second, third, fourth or even fifth time unless it had been with the amazing support of a team of volunteers. The first lot of volunteers are your family, of course. They're conscripted. I want to thank my partner, Brooke. I want to thank my kids, Jessica and Paddy, and my extended family for the enormous support that they give to me so that I can do my job here. I want to thank the branches and the branch members who are there, year in, year out, during the dark days and the tough times. We were in opposition for nine years. They were really tough times for many of the branches, many of whose members have been members of our great party since before I was born. I want to pay tribute to them: the Albion Park and Oak Flats branch, the Dapto branch, the Port Kembla branch, the Shellharbour and Barrack Heights branch, the Southern Highlands branch and the magnificent Warilla and Mount Warrigal branch. I'm now going to do something very risky: I'm going to name individuals. There are two risks. One is that I don't get them all named before the time runs out. The second risk is that I'm going to miss out somebody. But here I go, and can I say in advance, if I've missed you out, I'm going to get back to you in another opportunity. I want to pay great tribute to Illce and Raja Musarevski who are now life members of our great party. They've been staffing the booths at Warilla for decades now. They're great friends and great champions of Labor, as is Lauren Leonard at Warrilla and Mount Warrigal. Jan Merriman of Oak Flats is a wonderful supporter and a magnificent human being. She's had some family tragedy that she's had to deal with over the last couple of years, but she turns out to support us on election day. Maree Duffy-Moon and Mick Moon, again, are great champions, who are also dealing with family challenges but were out there everyday. Robin Harvey—what a beauty! I describe him as a bloke who has summer thongs and winter thongs and summer shorts and winter shorts. He was out there in the middle of a winter election, campaigning for me. Tom Hawker is a magnificent volunteer as well. Boris Baraldi and his entire family are great friends and great supporters. Thank you so much. Moira Hamilton, who is also a councillor—thank you for your support. Gary Shaw, Jim Pearce and his partner, Adele Flood, are magnificent humans—thank you for your support. I also thank Denise Hadley; Arthur Hurst; Michael Auld; Brian Forbes, who is a very old mate of mine; and Louise Hogan. Jade Joliffe is a single mum who knocked off from work and knocked off from uni and would be out there doing—you know what prepolls are like? There are long hours, it's often raining and you're up to your ankles in mud. She was out there on prepoll helping me. I'm really thankful for her support. I thank Joanna Kubota, Sandra Mitrevski—she just had a child, but she's still out there supporting—Marlene Calleja and Alice Scott. She's not a party member but a real trooper, a battler. Everyone in her community knows Alice, and she's always been out there supporting. I thank also Christine Okoniowski, out at Berkley; Maria Di Carlo, a fantastic supporter over many years; my mate Louis Parnis, a stalwart of the Maltese community and the George Cross Falcon club and a big supporter over in Cringila; Emerson Burke; David Haden; John Najjar; Rebecca Dayal; Wendy and Bob Turford, who are absolute troopers; my old mate Simon Zulian, a former staffer but a long-time stalwart and great supporter; Ailis Quinn; James O'Maley; Kristin Dawson and her partner, Marguerite, who are, again, wonderful champions of the community and great supporters; Adam Byrne; and Don Kelly and his family. Thank you, Carole Faughlin, Aiden Roberts, David Dellapina, roped in by his son who works for me, John Williamson, Nick Haughain, Warren Wiseham, Charlie Habazin—it's been a tough couple of years for Charlie. He lost his wife at the beginning of COVID. Our thoughts go out to you, Charlie. Thanks for turning up and thanks for your support, mate. Thank you to the Wilson clan. Nothing goes on in Port Kembla and whereabouts without the say-so of the Wilson clan. They're absolute troopers. Michael, James, Norma and the whole crew: love you dearly. You're great supporters. Rhonda Jones, Julie Allen, Geoff McAdam—I couldn't have got through without your support, Geoff; thank you so much. There's Lila Best. I forgot to mention Michael in the Wilson clan—geez, I'll be in trouble at the next Port Kembla branch meeting if I don't give him a shout-out. Dana Nelse, a magnificent human being, runs the Oak Flats Neighbourhood Centre but is also the president of our FEC. Thank you, Robbie Petrevski and family. Robbie's a councillor and champion of the Macedonian community. Thanks also to George Dimitrievski, Vasel Kocovski, Goce Angelevski—well known, with his community broadcast, in the Macedonian community—Lauren McKay, Josh Leonard, Matthew Badcock, Roy Caddick, Ray Bernasconi, Hetty and Robert Cummins, Jim David and his partner, Bernafe. David, again, was out there rain, hail and shine during pre-poll. Thank you so much. I'm very grateful. Here's a name many will recognise: Gary Punch, a former member of this place. He got good sense and moved down south to my electorate and now resides over in Warilla, a very nice place. I was grateful for his support. Madeline Baker is an absolute trooper. She coordinated the Southern Highlands branch booth rosters. It's a damned cold place to campaign in a winter election, I can tell you, particularly on a wet evening. Thanks, Madeline. Thank you, Eric Savage, Dean Cowgill, Ross Hannah, Graham and Linda McLaughlin—all of these people are very dear to me—Phil Yeo and Rodney Cavalier. They're absolute stalwarts. Thank you, Terry Hannan, Mark Coles, Judy McLean and Ed Gilchrist. I'll do something really risky here. I'm going to name three people: Angus Braiden, Oskar Durst and Leo Schwarze. They are students of Bowral High School. Before school, they'd come and set up pre-poll. They'd go and do their day's school and then after school they'd come and do pre-poll in the evening, shut up and take the signs and everything home. A big shout-out to you guys; you're wonderful human beings and thank you so much. I thank Kerrie Butson, Jane Miller, Peter Nelson, Christine Goodwin, Jeff Lapidos, Annella Wheatley, Doug and Kathie Blunt, Jim Gasson, Bronwyn Willats, Paul Totman, Denice Welch, Stuart Perry, Stephen Clarke and Mick Jones. They all made fantastic contributions. There's my old mate Glen Vandine—rain, hail and shine—Rowena Perry, Maurie O'Sullivan, I've known since I was a kid, a stalwart of the Southern Highlands branch, and a great asset. If you've got constituents who need to be spoken to in Gaelic, Maurie your man, an absolute trooper and wonderful human being. Dave Kent is fantastic and a great fundraiser up in the highlands as well. He sells a mean raffle ticket. Thanks to Penny Newlove, Hazel Williams, Margaret Higgins, Michael Lucey, David Baker, Barbara Baker, Warren and Dawn Glase—Warren's had his challenges over the last three years but turned up to help the cause—Barry Costin, Dom Martino, Leonie Stone, Christine Miller, Marilyn Raby, Roy and Anne Elbourne—thank you so much—Peter Rowe, Jenny Bailey, Les Dawes—thank you so much for your support—and Marianne, Alec Hall, Ben Hancock, Michael Valceski, Liam Turner, Harvey Shead, Glenn Hayes, Trudie Greer, Sally Stevenson, Sally Horton, Emma Mattison, Rebecca Chapman, Paula Loustos, Barry Purcell, Robin Petrevski, Dance Volcevski, Steve Naumovski, Mick Galligan, Greg Hannah, Wassel Kich, and Alastair and Michele Graham. And a big shout-out, I've got to say, to Eli and Annie Harris. And thanks to my staff: John Ryan, Tom Iggulden, Jarrod Dellapina, Tiana Myers, Linda Campbell, Ela Akyol, Roman Ristovski, Ben Mofardin, Boris Baraldi and Sara Al Arnoos. To all my parliamentary colleagues and counsellors who supported me: thank you so much. I wouldn't be here without your great support. And if there's anyone who I missed, I'll come back to you! The DEPUTY SPEAKE 249710 The debate is adjourned, and it will be made in order of the day for the next sitting. ADJOURNMENT 100 ADJOURNMENT Ash Wednesday Bushfires 100 12:00 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Ash Wednesday bushfires, which struck across my home state of South Australia and, of course, in Victoria, on this day 40 years ago—Ash Wednesday, 16 February 1983. There were 75 lives lost across the nation from various fires. In my home state of South Australia, 28 people, tragically, perished—14 of those in the Adelaide Hills in the member for Mayo's electorate, adjacent to my electorate of Sturt. Three of those fatalities in South Australia were very brave members of the Country Fire Service, who of course put themselves proactively in harm's way to protect our communities. Forty years later, the scars of Ash Wednesday are still very real in South Australia. In my electorate of Sturt, which incorporates the Hills Face Zone of the Adelaide Hills, where very significant blazes burnt that day, you can still see remnants of the destruction that occurred. It's a very emotional day today in South Australia. Many people still have stories of their own experiences of that day, and/or those of loved ones. Across the nation, more than half a million hectares were burnt and 3,700 buildings, with 2,400 of those being people's homes. Nationally, as I said, the death toll was 75 lives. This anniversary is an opportunity, not just to commemorate and remember but also to commit ourselves to the ongoing vigilance we need when it comes to bushfire preparedness across the nation. There's not a corner of continental Australia where the risk of bushfire doesn't exist in some way. We understand it as being a part of life in this country, but we also know that the risk and damage of bushfire can be mitigated if we take sensible precautions as a community and ensure that we're investing in the sorts of resources that the brave people who fight these fires need. I'll take this opportunity on the 40th anniversary to recommit myself, as a leader in my community—particularly for the Hills Face suburbs in my electorate of Sturt—to ensure that awareness is higher than ever of the need for proper bushfire preparedness plans. Everyone in a high-risk suburb needs to have a plan. They need to know what they need to do to put in place fuel-reduction strategies and, obviously, other mitigation efforts which can assist to reduce the risk to their properties and families. They also have to include a plan for evacuation in the worst case. Some of the lessons, not just from Ash Wednesday but from other bushfires, are how vital that is—the difference made for people who have a plan, so that if and when the threat reaches a trigger point they're ready to prioritise their safety and that of their families first and foremost. As we commemorate that day, 40 years ago today—a mere five weeks before I was born—we remember those who, sadly, perished; the destruction of livestock and property; and of course the half a million hectares of land burnt across the nation. We thank the heroes in our communities who fight these fires, many of whom are volunteers. We thank them for their service—not just for what they do when fire strikes, but also for what they do to prepare our communities and to mitigate the risk of fire right throughout each and every year. We commit ourselves to ensuring in this beautiful country, Australia, where the risk of bushfire is ever-present, that we as communities and families are always prepared to protect our property to the best of our capacity, and, most importantly, we have a plan to protect ourselves and our loved ones by making sure we've got a plan for whenever bushfires may strike in our communities. Semra, Mr Mohamed 101 12:05 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser Before I commence my adjournment speech, all of the people on this side of the House join in acknowledging all those who suffered loss during those fires, and we also acknowledge the sacrifices that volunteers made on that day—putting themselves at risk in that fire. And acknowledging that they do so right around the country on many occasions, so we join ourselves with those comments. I note that suicide is the leading cause of death for young Australians aged between 15 and 24. Nine young Australians die by suicide every day, and the number is growing every year. These are truly tragic statistics. The pandemic and lockdowns took a heavy toll, with 42 per cent of people between 18 and 24 reporting serious levels of psychological distress. Young workers were hit hardest. They were more likely to work casually, and they were more likely to be in jobs affected by border closures and lockdowns. As a nation we have much work ahead of us, but there are some successes that I would like to acknowledge today. Since its establishment in 1985, Youth Insearch, which is behind this week's End Youth Suicide Week, has supported 32,000 at-risk youth to overcome trauma and mental health issues and to protect them against suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, and delinquency. A significant proportion of the youth supported are from culturally and linguistically diverse communities like those in my electorate. As a federal MP of one of the most diverse electorates, I am acutely aware of the targeting of people from African backgrounds. Racism has a terrible effect on mental health, particularly for young people. I would like to acknowledge some powerful advocacy work among culturally and linguistically diverse communities by young people in Fraser. Mohamed Semra, a Sudanese-born refugee, is no stranger to racism. He made international headlines when, as a 16-year-old, he and six friends of African heritage were stopped from entering an Apple store at Highpoint because staff were concerned that the group might steal something. They made a video and uploaded it onto the internet. After it went viral, Apple CEO, Tim Cook, apologised personally. He called the incident 'unacceptable' and announced that store leadership teams around the world, starting in Australia, would be refreshing their training on inclusion and customer engagement. What an amazing global impact for a 16-year-old to have! But Mohamed continued with his efforts and is having an ongoing local impact. For Mohamed and his friends, the racism and unconscious bias that they experience are just part of their daily life. At school he and his friends would often be referred to as gang members. When handing in written assignments they were sometimes questioned about whether they had copied each other's work. Mohamed's experience that day in Apple has inspired him to go down the activist path. He became school captain at Maribyrnong College—a first for an African student with a refugee background. And after he graduated from school, he co-founded Endeavour Youth Australia, which works to tackle racism and unconscious bias in schools and to help young people from diverse backgrounds to fulfil their leadership potential. Endeavour Youth Australia works with schools all over Melbourne, but mainly in the west. Mohamed mentors disengaged students and, along with the education department, develops programs to support students and staff on how to have conversations about racism to understand the damage that words can cause. Mohamed says that students from diverse backgrounds want to take part in leadership activities, but it is very hard to be the first in line. He says: When kids don't see themselves or their culture represented or accepted at school, it becomes easy to disassociate. Mentoring plays a key role, with all of the facilitators at Endeavour Youth Australia having lived experiences of racism. He says: We look like them, we have similar experiences, we have persevered and have broken through barriers. We show the kids how to use their experiences to build resilience—whether it is to succeed at school or later in their lives. Last week, Endeavour Youth ran the Multicultural Youth Leadership Conference, which was attended by more than 500 students from 20 schools. Students heard from young leaders in a range of industries and attended workshops on digital leadership, diversity, resilience and tackling racism. Last month, I had the privilege of attending a futsal tournament organised by Endeavour Youth. The women's final, which I presented the trophy for, dramatically went to overtime. Not only was it a great sporting event, with more than 100 young men and women competing, it was a wonderful celebration of multiculturalism. Cost of Living 102 12:10 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Within my electorate of Deakin, and, indeed, throughout Australia, people are suffering are from a cost-of-living crisis that I have not seen in my time in this place. I must say, in looking at the agenda of the government over the first two weeks of this parliament and the activities of the Prime Minister over summer, that what electors in Deakin are seeing—and what I think Australians are seeing—is a fundamental lack of focus from this government on the most pressing issue that Australians are now suffering from. We all know that the millions of Australians with mortgages are seeing, and have seen, interest rate rises. There have been nine consecutive rises, eight of which have happened since this government came to office. For a household with an average mortgage, it's an increase of $16,000 a year. We're seeing record inflation; the most recent figures of 7.8 per cent highlight that the government has lost control of what is one of the most corrosive aspects of any economic situation. We saw the Prime Minister over summer, and all he wanted to do was talk about the Voice or hang out at the tennis. We see no urgency from this government on the most pressing issue that people face every day. They face it every time they go to the supermarket. There are Australians now who make decisions in the supermarket about what they will go without, and there are parents who will themselves go without so they can provide for their children. We're also seeing the consequences of the government's broken promises in relation to reducing power prices. The Prime Minister said, on 97 occasions before the election, that he would deliver a reduction of $275 a year. It wasn't a slip of the tongue once or twice. He said it 97 times. And, at the very least, households are seeing not increases of hundreds of dollars but increases of thousands of dollars. Last week, I had a constituent send me a letter that they'd received from their energy provider, and it read as follows: 'Hello, as you may have heard, energy prices have been going up. On 1 February, your natural gas rates are going up. We understand this isn't news you want to hear.' Then there was a whole lot of other flowery language. And then: 'We estimate that the new rates will cost you $602.74 more, including GST, a year.' That's $600 a year more, and that's just gas; that doesn't also include electricity. So we're seeing inflation out of control, which is leading to higher mortgage interest rates, which, again, for the average house means $16,000 a year more out the door on their mortgages. We're seeing the price of every single good, service and product—including staple products at supermarkets—rising, with inflationary levels higher than they've been for 33 years. We're seeing power prices not only not going down by $275, as the Prime Minister promised on 97 occasions, but going up by thousands of dollars. You would have thought that, in returning to parliament for the first sitting fortnight of the year, there would be an obsession from the government on these issues and an absolute focus on addressing these issues. But, instead, we see a Prime Minister seemingly unconcerned about the economic situation being faced by households in this country; a Prime Minister who's very self-satisfied, very pleased and very happy, and who's enjoying the trappings of office—enjoying nights at the tennis and hanging out with musicians—while Australians are doing it hard. This is a prime minister who said he'd show up. This is a prime minister who said he'd deliver $275 price reductions in power prices. This is a prime minister who said he'd deliver cheaper mortgages. So, on every single measure, we're seeing a Labor Party and a government that not only is not showing the focus that is necessary but is incapable of addressing these challenges. We know, and Australians have seen it before, that you always pay more under Labor. The economy always tanks under Labor. Labor claim it's all a bit of hard luck and bad luck for them and bad timing. Bad luck seems to follow Labor, and Australians pay the price. Cost of Living 102 12:15 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley It is extraordinary to rise to speak after a speech given by a former minister from a party that was in government for the better part of a decade and from a party that came to parliament with an urgent recall in December to put a cap on power prices and voted against it. Yet he's just spent some of his precious speaking time trying to suggest that the Albanese government has done nothing to deal with rising energy prices, having voted against the measure to reduce rising energy prices and having been part of a government—as a minister, no less—where a report that was given to the government before the last election, in May last year, about increasing energy prices was—what was it, again?—hidden from the Australian public. This is a minister who was a minister for housing, and eight months after his tenure we are facing a housing affordability and accessibility crisis. He somehow thinks that the people in his electorate and the people of Australia are going to believe that that just sprang out of nowhere in the last eight months and had nothing to do with the bad policies and lack of policies of the government he was part of. I know it's the last day of two weeks of sitting, and we're all a little bit tired because we've been working so hard—we want to go home—but it's not really an excuse for the member for Deakin to come into this chamber and spend more time personally attacking the Prime Minister than actually talking about the issues that matter and acknowledging what's happened this year. Cheaper medicines came in from 1 January, the biggest cut in the price of the PBS in 75 years, and cheaper child care starts on 1 June or July—anyway, very soon. These will have a huge impact on the cost of living. What happened after we got elected last year? Because we made submissions to the Fair Work Commission and were brave enough to say that workers on the lowest incomes needed to have more money, the minimum wage went up. Returning to the energy price cap, the evidence so far is that the increases in energy prices have been reduced because of the urgent measures that we took in December, which the opposition voted against. So to imply that this government is not dealing with cost-of-living pressures is fanciful Alice in Wonderland garbage, to be completely frank with this chamber. What have we done this week? What are our priorities? They are: the Housing Australia Future Fund and the National Reconstruction Fund. We've got a safeguard mechanism and paid parental leave. Only one of those four got support from the opposition. We are in a crisis of affordable and accessible housing, and we've all been talking about it for a long time. I've told this chamber a number of times about this amazing young man Jack in my electorate, who was homeless and is now a social worker with the council and is part of a campaign for more youth crisis accommodation in my electorate. I talked about it all through the last term of government, which did nothing about it. I was so excited this week to see that the state Labor government has stepped up and is investing in this space. Our excellent state member for Frankston, Paul Edbrooke, announced that the state government is delivering more than $50 million in funding to provide safe and stable accommodation for young people who are at risk of homelessness. Frankston is going to be home to one of 10 new youth housing projects that received funding, and this is huge for my community. We have a state government that is stepping up to break the cycle of homelessness and to talk about and deliver safe, secure housing, particularly for young people, as well as a federal Albanese Labor government, which I'm proud to be a member of, with the Housing Future Fund, which is going to make a massive difference. It is a $10 billion fund. And we have an opposition that is voting against it and a Greens party that apparently doesn't support it, because they want to do other things. It's unbelievably wrong. 12:20 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne There was so much hope at the last election for those of us who want climate action. Finally, the guy who brought a lump of coal into parliament and wanted to lead a gas-led recovery in the middle of a climate crisis was gone, and we saw a record number of people switch their vote to the Greens. Our vote went up, Independents' vote went up and the parties that backed more coal and gas—Labor and Liberal—saw their vote go backwards. We now have a parliament that can take the climate action that this country and the world needs. We got off to a reasonably good start last year when, with the Greens' support, we managed to make a climate change bill better and take a first step on the road to tackling the climate emergency. Again, with the Greens' support, we managed to get legislation through to make electric vehicles cheaper and to stop propping up the fossil fuel industry. So there was real hope from so many people who wanted to see Australia take the action we need—to stop the droughts, the floods and the fires from getting worse and to ensure that our kids and our grandkids have a chance of living in something that is like the safe climate that people of earlier generations have known. So, how utterly disappointing it was to find Labor coming up with legislation that said they want to make the climate crisis worse by opening new coal and gas mines. There are 117 new coal and gas mines in the pipeline, and Labor is bringing legislation to parliament saying they want them to be able to go ahead, under their new so-called safeguard mechanism. Then they released documentation last year to put it in black and white that they want to open up every single one of the big new climate bombs that Scott Morrison backed: Beetaloo, Scarborough, Browse. They want to light the fuse of these climate bombs that contain years worth of the country's pollution. There is a very clear message coming from the world's scientists, from the International Energy Agency, from the UN Secretary-General and from the young people who are marching on the street, and that is: To have any chance of getting the climate crisis under control, we have to stop opening coal and gas mines. You can't fix a problem while you're making the problem worse. You can't put out the fire while you're pouring petrol on it. So the Greens have put to the government a very reasonable offer. We said, there are real problems with your legislation, because you're allowing these big polluters to keep on polluting as long as they offset it by buying some tree-planting permits on other side of the country. You've got weak targets in your legislation that would see the Great Barrier Reef get completely cooked. It's Tony Abbott's old mechanism, which you're trying to reheat, and we're not confident it will do the job. But we've said to the government that we will put those concerns aside and give their scheme a chance if they agree with one thing: Stop opening new coal and gas mines, Labor. Stop making the problem that we're trying to fix worse by adding years—decades—and countries worth of pollution to the problem. I challenge any member in this place on the Labor side to go to one of those areas that was hit by floods, fires or droughts and explain to them why opening a new coal or gas mine in the middle of a climate crisis is a good idea. The member for Sydney has been out saying a few things today. Well, I want the member for Sydney to go to all her constituents in Sydney and tell them why Labor is preparing to die in a ditch over the right to open new coal and gas mines in the middle of a climate crisis. The member for Richmond needs to go to her flood-hit constituents and tell them that Labor is saying they want to open up new coal and gas projects. The member for Macnamara needs to go to his constituents, including those who are facing the threat of rising sea levels, and say, 'No, Labor wants to open new and coal and gas mines,' and that they're prepared to make it an absolute condition. We are in a climate crisis, and people know that coal and gas are the main causes of the climate crisis. It's a very sensible proposition to say, 'Stop opening new projects.' The offer is there for Labor; it's on the table. We can pass this legislation next week; just stop opening new coal and gas projects, please. Blair Electorate 104 12:25 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Last night and this morning I was pleased to vote for the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which will make a big difference in my local community. We're talking about 30,000 new social and affordable houses in the first five years. It will also have 4,000 homes for women and children who are impacted by domestic and family violence. For nearly quarter of a century before I came to this place, I practised in family law and dealt with women and children who were suffering and experiencing family violence. So that particular commitment is near and dear to my heart. There's also the $30 million we're committing to build houses and to fund specialist services for veterans. That came about very much from the work I did as shadow minister for veterans' affairs. One in 10 people sleeping rough or homeless last night was a veteran. We honour them with medals; we should honour them with houses. We need to support them, and I'm very pleased that this particular legislation passed the House of Representatives last night and this morning. Tomorrow morning I will be at the Future of Health conference in Springfield, and I want to thank the Springfield City Group for having the vision to put that particular conference on. The Ipswich and West Moreton region is the fastest-growing health district in Queensland, and has very high rates of mental illness. That's why, as the federal MP, I've been advocating for more services to meet the needs of our local community. I was pleased to announce that the Albanese government would deliver a $14 million Head to Health Adult Mental Health Centre in Ipswich, with the Darling Downs & West Moreton PHM to fund and establish this facility. We're going to do that. Since the election we have committed $1 million to support youth mental health services at Ipswich headspace, which I was proud to open 10 years ago, by the way, with the current minister. I'm looking forward to seeing the federal Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, the Hon. Emma McBride, in Ipswich tomorrow. She will be the keynote speaker at that particular conference. I've been advocating for a better deal for local businesses, farmers and residents in Ipswich and the Somerset region for a very long time, and also in the Karana Downs region, which came into my electorate a couple of elections ago. I'm very pleased to see that during the election campaign Labor committed to fix the NBN and to get rid of the coalition's ageing copper network, which has held our community back with slow and unreliable broadband. We're investing $2.4 billion to expand the NBN with full-fibre upgrades to 1.5 million Australian premises—with over 660,000 in regional communities like my electorate. That's why I'm so pleased this week to see that the latest tranche of one million premises will be eligible for full-fibre upgrades to access gigabyte speeds of 20 by 2025. That will be 3,200 homes and businesses across the Ipswich suburbs of North Ipswich, Pine Mountain, Karalee, Yamanto, Collingwood Park and Springfield, and rural towns like Rosewood and Lowood—and also the Karana Downs region, in the Brisbane area, which is in my electorate as well. So I'm very pleased to see the Albanese Labor government fixing the NBN for our local community. One thing I am supporting in that Karana Downs region is the Queensland government's application under the Disaster Ready Fund for a Karana Downs community hub, as recommended by the former governor Paul de Jersey. The need for community hubs is as a result of natural disasters and floods. That report came about because it was commissioned by the Brisbane City Council. I know that this Karana Downs hub has the support of the local councillor, Greg Adermann, an LNP member, and also of the local LNP state MP, Dr Christian Rowan. I've been working with them in a bipartisan way, and I thank the office of the Deputy Premier of Queensland for the tremendous cooperation I've had from them, and I also thank the local Karana Downs and Mount Crosby community. I look forward to that application, and I urge the Minister for Emergency Management, the Hon. Murray Watt, to support that particular application. It would be located at Mount Crosby State School, which would be upgraded as a result of that application, which I hope will be successful. I also thank Senator Watt for the commitment we made together of $4 million, including $1.5 million under the Disaster Ready Fund, for the Ipswich Show Society. The showgrounds are the main evacuation centre in Ipswich. We've experienced floods and fires in my electorate, so this is particularly important and is a great initiative of the Albanese Labor government. I also support the funding that we are providing for flood research: $50,000 from the federal government, $50,000 from the state government and $20,000 from the Ipswich City Council. We need to work out how our community is impacted by floods and improve flood resilience in Ipswich. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:31