﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-03-06</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Monday, 6 March 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Petitions Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the sixth report of the Petitions Committee for the 47th Parliament.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PETITIONS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">REPORT No. 6</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Petitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ministerial Responses</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 March 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Chair Ms Susan Templeman MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Deputy Chair Mr Ross Vasta MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mr Sam Birrell MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms Alison Byrnes MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms Lisa Chesters MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mr Garth Hamilton MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms Tracy Roberts MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms Meryl Swanson MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Report summarising the petitio ns and Ministerial responses being presented.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee met in private session in the 47th Parliament on 25 January 2023, 8 February 2023 and 15 February 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The committee resolved to present the following 58 petitions in accordance with standin g order 207:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 7 petitioners—requesting a ban on baby walkers with seats (EN4651)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 27 petitioners—requesting funding for Alambi aged care facility in Dimboola (EN4652)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 1109 petitioners—requesting changes to make it easier for cancer patients to access social welfare (EN4653)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 9 petitioners—requesting that Iran's Islamic Republic regime be listed as a terrorist organisation (EN4655)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 2020 petitioners—requesting the recognition of pharmacists as valid healthcare providers and prescribers(EN4656)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 15 petitioners—requesting a review of the ATO in relation to tax on small business (EN4657)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 10 petitioners—requesting abolition of compulsory voting (EN4658)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 11 petitioners—requesting amendment to assessment of veteran's pension (EN4659)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 8 petitioners—requesting asylum for Chinese students currently in Australia (EN4660)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 6 petitioners—requesting an amendment to the Medicare levy surcharge for domestic violence victims (EN4663)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 16 petitioners—requesting a ban on all non-biodegradable soft plastics (EN4664)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 7 petitioners—requesting a change to quarterly reports for self-managed superannuation funds (EN4665)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 5 petitioners—requesting a new law for data retention, protection and privacy (EN4667)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 29356 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into Australia's Covid-19 response (EN4670)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 79 petitioners—requesting regulation of public official's statements about climate change (EN4671)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 48 petitioners—requesting a law to prevent social media restriction promotion of parliamentary petitions (EN4674)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 1077 petitioners—requesting action to prevent the Chalumbin Wind Farm environmental approval (EN4675)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 14 petitioners—requesting an alternative pathway to general registration for international medical graduates (EN4677)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 23 petitioners—requesting the elimination of daylight savings time (EN4678)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 7 petitioners—requesting regulation of childcare centres to waive fees on sick days (EN4680)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 25 petitioners—requesting recognition for the state of Palestine (EN4681)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 12 petitioners—requesting Australian action against Iran (EN4682)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 60 petitioners—requesting that family sponsored refugee visas be fast tracked (EN4685)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 22 petitioners—requesting the use of surplus cruise ships as housing (EN4686)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 89 petitioners—requesting changes to the parliamentary petitions process (EN4687)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 4 petitioners—requesting funding for PCR testing (EN4688)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 5 petitioners—requesting legislation to mandate personal methane sequestering (EN4689)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 450 petitioners—requesting an extension to Homebuilder grant documentation for off-the-plan applicants (EN4691)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 3 petitioners—requesting changes to income tax rules for fundraisers (EN4696)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 20 petitioners—requesting legislation to make cancelling digital subscriptions easier (EN4697)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 1264 petitioners—requesting Automated External Defibrillators be mandatory for businesses with public access (EN4699)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 44 petitioners—requesting changes to allow point-based-skilled-visa-applicants to have a spouse or de-facto partner (EN4700)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 11 petitioners—requesting disaster relief grants for flood stricken Cabonne residents (EN4701)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 73 petitioners—requesting the regulation of drug and alcohol rehabilitation and treatment centres (EN4704)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 197 petitioners—requesting funding for court-ordered psychiatric assessments (EN4705)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 19 petitioners—requesting changes to conditions of visa classes 491 and 494 (EN4709)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 6 petitioners—requesting consideration of whether to support China to join the CPTPP (EN4711)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 5 petitioners—requesting changes to medicinal marijuana use in Australia (EN4713)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 15 petitioners—requesting a change to policy to allow people with ADHD and autism to join the ADF (EN4715)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 4 petitioners—requesting changes to sick leave (EN4716)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 627 petitioners—requesting minimum minutes for healthcare in nursing homes (EN4717)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 1 petitioners—requesting permanent residency for some students(EN4718)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 11 petitioners—requesting that the government bring the remaining Bali nine back to Australia (EN4721)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 6 petitioners—requesting mandatory COVID test for people coming from China (EN4722)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 9 petitioners—requesting changes to control of schedule 8 medications (EN4725)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 4 petitioners—requesting restrictions on travel from China due to recent covid outbreak (EN4726)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 4 petitioners—requesting Covid testing at the border (EN4728)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 119 petitioners—requesting increases to the Medicare rebate (EN4729)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 4 petitioners—requesting health checks upon arrival on travellers from China (EN4731)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 5 petitioners—requesting the removal of testing mandates on travellers from China (EN4732)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 127 petitioners—requesting criminalization of sexual acts with minors (EN4736)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 390 petitioners—requesting funding for the Trove website (EN4737)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 63 petitioners—requesting reversal of the PBS price increase for concessional card holders (EN4744)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 6384 petitioners—requesting funding for Trove and the National Library (EN4745)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 548 petitioners—requesting a ban on products produced by Uyghur forced labour (EN4746)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 22240 petitioners—requesting funding for Trove (EN4747)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 14496 petitioners—requesting a Royal Commission into the national housing crisis (EN4753)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 73 petitioners—requesting the grant of protection visas to certain refugees (PN0554)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The following 10 ministerial responses to petitions were received by the Committee on 15 February 2023:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Communications to a petition regarding increasing numbers of online scams (EN3472)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding a review of the provision of foreign aid (EN3549)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories to a petition requesting the return the NT to Federal control (EN3572)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Veterans Affairs to a petition regarding amending the Veterans Acts (EN4196)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Veterans Affairs to a petition requesting a review of defining "evidence" under the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 (VEA) (EN4205)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Veterans Affairs to a petition requesting a change to Veterans Entitlement 1986 Act (VEA) and procedural apprehended bias (EN4353)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Veterans Affairs to a petition requesting a law amendment to the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986" (EN4381)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Veterans Affairs to a petition regarding the confirmation of the RMA definition of "clinical onset" (EN4382)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting to stop general practitioners (GP) charging fees above Medicare rebates (EN4485)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Communications to a petition requesting to block international scam calls (EN4518)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Correction to previous presentation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In Report 06 presented on 13 February 2023 the incorrect petition number (EN3528) was given to a response from the Minister for the Public Service. The correct information is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for the Public Service to a petition regarding a mandate for all public servants to be vaccinated (EN3548)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms Susan Templeman MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Chair—Petitions Committee</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PETITIONS</title>
        <page.no>3</page.no>
        <type>PETITIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>3</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the following 58 petitions:</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Child Safety</title>
          <page.no>3</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>3</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pensions and Benefits</title>
          <page.no>3</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights: Iran</title>
          <page.no>4</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care: Pharmacists</title>
          <page.no>4</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Taxation Office</title>
          <page.no>4</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Conduct of Elections</title>
          <page.no>4</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans</title>
          <page.no>5</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights: China</title>
          <page.no>5</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Private Health Insurance</title>
          <page.no>5</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Waste Management and Recycling</title>
          <page.no>5</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersecurity</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Response</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Petitions: Digital Platforms</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>General Practitioners: Registration</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Daylight Saving</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Child Care</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights: Iran</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Refugee and Humanitarian Program</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Petitions</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Testing</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>HomeBuilder</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation: Online Fundraising</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Digital Platforms: Standards</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sudden Cardiac Arrest</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Skilled Migration Program</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Floods: New South Wales</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care: Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Family Law</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Skilled Migration Program</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Relations: Australia and China</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicinal Cannabis</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Recruitment</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remuneration and Entitlements</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Permanent Residence Visas</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bali Nine</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Biosecurity</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Biosecurity</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Biosecurity</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Biosecurity</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Biosecurity</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Child Abuse</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Library of Australia: Trove</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Library of Australia: Trove</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights: China</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Library of Australia: Trove</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Refugee and Humanitarian Program</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PETITIONS</title>
        <page.no>16</page.no>
        <type>PETITIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Responses</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the following 10 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented:</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersafety</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Development Assistance</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Territory</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersecurity</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PETITIONS</title>
        <page.no>23</page.no>
        <type>PETITIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Statements</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, before petitions are presented to the House, the Petitions Committee assesses each one to ensure that they comply with the Standing Orders. There are several requirements in the Standing Orders, but today I would like to briefly mention the Committee's approach to the requirement for moderate language in petitions.</para>
<para>Clearly the Committee does not accept petitions that contain derogatory, offensive or abusive language. In line with the requirements of the House, we do not allow insults to Members of Parliament, the judiciary or the Governor-General. Petitions should rely on reasoned argument rather than inflammatory words.</para>
<para>The Committee has also taken the view that language which discloses personal information about a private individual is not 'moderate'. Petitions that are about a person who is not the petitioner or a public figure are usually considered out of order. Petitions are not a forum for arguments or debate between individuals.</para>
<para>Mr Speaker, the Petitions Committee is working to reduce the number of requests for petitions that do not comply with the Standing Orders. We are also committed to explaining why a petition is considered out of order, and the criteria that we apply to assess each petition.</para>
<para>I look forward to updating the House further on the work of the Committee.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>23</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6981" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>23</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>23</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Fed up with wave after wave of rorts, corruption, rampant cronyism, secret ministries and a lack of transparency, Australians sent this parliament a very clear message at the 2022 federal election: clean up your act.</para>
<para>Across the country, including in my electorate of Mackellar, building greater integrity into our political system was a core election issue, and remains so.</para>
<para>Trust in our political system in recent years has been at an all-time low.</para>
<para>The latest OECD trust survey report found just 38 per cent of Australians trust their national government.</para>
<para>And Australia's score in the Corruption Perceptions Index also bottomed out in 2021, when we recorded our lowest ever score.</para>
<para>That score recovered slightly last year following the successful passage of the National Anti-Corruption commission legislation which many of us here on the crossbench fought so hard for—particularly the member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines, who I'm very proud to say is seconding this bill today.</para>
<para>While the National Anti-Corruption Commission is a significant step in the right direction—there is more we must do to rebuild the integrity infrastructure that supports our democracy.</para>
<para>The National Anti-Corruption Commission is a safety net—investigations will be activated in response to corruption allegations.</para>
<para>We now need to take steps to prevent corruption and cronyism from happening in the first place.</para>
<para>To do this we must build integrity, accountability and transparency into every area of our political system.</para>
<para>There are many changes this parliament needs to enact to that end, including addressing lobbying and donation reforms and implementing stronger protections for whistleblowers.</para>
<para>This bill that I'm introducing today addresses the culture of cronyism and party friendly appointments that have distorted and undermined our democracy.</para>
<para>My 'ending jobs for mates' bill will establish a framework to ensure that major public Commonwealth appointments are made independently and transparently—and that appointees are of the highest quality and expertise.</para>
<para>This bill would mean that appointments are no longer left entirely to the discretion of a minister and so would end the 'jobs for mates' culture that has plagued our political system.</para>
<para>Recent history shows us why this is so critical.</para>
<para>In just the last few years, Australians have seen fossil fuel executives appointed to both the chair of the Climate Change Authority and the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission.</para>
<para>Is it any wonder that we ended up with a 'gas-led recovery' to COVID?</para>
<para>And worst of all, under the previous coalition government the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, or AAT, became a byword for party friendly appointments and cronyism.</para>
<para>The AAT is actually a crucial pillar of our democracy, as it plays a central role in holding the government to account by independently reviewing administrative decisions made by federal government ministers, departments and agencies.</para>
<para>But the integrity of the AAT itself was so undermined by cronyism that it is set to be completely abolished and replaced later this year.</para>
<para>Under the Morrison government a staggering 40 per cent of appointments to the AAT had 'direct political connections'—such as party staffers or officials. This is up from six per cent under the Howard government and five per cent under the Rudd and Gillard governments.</para>
<para>Many of these political appointees did not have legal qualifications, which limited their ability to perform their role effectively.</para>
<para>This unchecked politicisation of appointments to the AAT undermined the public's access to justice—so the fact that it was used to provide party allies with highly paid jobs is a national shame. Political appointees have also been found to be less likely to give frank and fearless advice.</para>
<para>To be clear, this 'jobs for mates' culture in Australian politics damages our democracy, wastes taxpayer money, leads to poorer outcomes and decisions and erodes trust in government.</para>
<para>That's why it's so important for the Albanese government to back my Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2023.</para>
<para>Drafted in partnership with the Centre for Public Integrity, this bill would see the creation of a public appointments commissioner and departmental independent selection panels (ISP).</para>
<para>The appointments process would be overseen by a parliamentary joint committee on appointments which would have no more than 50 per cent representatives from the government.</para>
<para>The public appointments commissioner and departmental selection panels would be responsible for implementing a transparent and independent recruitment process for all major Commonwealth public appointments. This would include members of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the AAT and the ACCC, for example, and would also include government business entities such as Australia Post.</para>
<para>If the appointment is deemed to be a 'significant integrity officer' position, a former High Court or Supreme Court judge is also required to be on the selection panel.</para>
<para>The recruitment process would require independent selection panels to publicly advertise the relevant position; run a competitive selection process; and shortlist at least three candidates for the minister to choose from.</para>
<para>The minister will only be able to choose from this list and cannot add to the list.</para>
<para>Selections by the independent panel must be based on expertise, experience and integrity and also have a view to promoting diversity.</para>
<para>In short, this bill would ensure that a candidate with the requisite expertise and knowledge gets the job—not the bloke who the minister went to school with, or their former staffer or party official.</para>
<para>This bill strikes the right balance between independence and ministerial discretion.</para>
<para>Nor will this bill be a major cost burden.</para>
<para>It has been costed by Treasury at $3 million a year to enact.</para>
<para>I believe it is a small price to pay to restore integrity to the public appointments process.</para>
<para>I was also pleased that the government further acknowledged the problem of cronyism with its recent announcement of a review into public sector board appointments. However, the scope of that review is far too limited to have an impact on the 'jobs for mates culture' as board appointments only make up a minor portion of the accountable authority positions that must be captured.</para>
<para>It is a timid step that is unlikely to have concrete benefit unless changes to the appointments process are legislated as outlined in this bill.</para>
<para>The people of Mackellar have told me loud and clear that restoring integrity in politics and tackling corruption are at the top of the list of issues they want their MP to pursue.</para>
<para>And it's not just the people of Mackellar. People all around this country are desperate for a return to decency and integrity in our national politics.</para>
<para>The people of Australia want and deserve a political system they can trust.</para>
<para>This bill aims to do just that by ending for good the cronyism and 'jobs for mates' culture that has undermined our democracy for too long.</para>
<para>I urge all members of this House to do what is necessary and right and to support this bill as another vital step in restoring integrity and decency to our political system.</para>
<para>I would like to cede the remainder of my time to the member for Indi.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HA</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>INES () (): I'm proud to second this important bill, the Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2023, and I commend the member for Mackellar for shining a light on this pernicious problem, which is essentially a political loyalty award scheme rather than a legitimate appointment process for federal government positions. It's time to stop this cronyism—this patronage for pals. Political appointments have grown substantially in the last five years, and many of these appointments are made on election eves. Across all federal government appointees, seven per cent have a direct political connection, and this figure rises to 21 per cent amongst those positions that are well paid, prestigious and powerful. Political stacking was so bad in the AAT, as the member has told us, that the Attorney-General, to his credit, has abolished it and is starting again. But both sides of politics, at state and federal levels, are guilty of slipping a sweet spot to a loyal mate—a former party MP, a staffer, a party member or even a failed candidate. Aside from fundamental morality, this matters because we are potentially missing out on the very best people.</para>
<para>Jobs for mates can constrain public policy. When political party loyalty is being rewarded, appointees are less likely to put forward policy recommendations and reforms that might rock the boat and that don't align with party positions. This is a big problem, but this bill brings a clear fix which would align us with international best practice. No more captain's picks! Let's restore fairness, due process and trust, with quality, non-political public appointments. The people of Mackellar care, the member for Mackellar cares, and all of the crossbench care. Let's get on and do it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>25</page.no>
        <type>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Global Methane Pledge</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (a) Australia has signed the Global Methane Pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere and is over 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20 year period;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (c) the fossil fuel sector accounts for nearly 40 per cent of Australia's methane emissions; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (d) the International Energy Agency highlights that methane emissions from oil and gas are some of the easiest to abate; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (a) enact effective national methane regulations to limit venting and flaring of gas;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) implement best practice regulations from the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (c) use the Safeguard Mechanism and other legislative pathways to drive methane capture.</para></quote>
<para>Last year, Australia signed the Global Methane Pledge to cut 30 per cent of methane emissions by 2030. Most people think methane comes just from agriculture. We always get an outcry from the Nationals members about meat production, but that's only half the contribution of methane in Australia. Fossil fuel mining creates 40 per cent of our methane emissions. Natural gas is methane, and all too often it is left just to leak out into the air. Gas is at record high prices and it's just leaking out, so we're losing resources, risking energy supply and cooking the planet. It makes no sense.</para>
<para>Methane is over 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. The fossil fuel industry in Australia is releasing to the atmosphere large quantities of gas that should be captured and brought to market. The International Energy Agency found that fossil fuel companies in Australia are emitting around twice the methane that the government reports to the UNFCCC. This is now on satellite data. A recent satellite study from SRON, a Dutch space research institute, identified methane plumes across Australian coalmines. They estimated that Glencore's Hail Creek mine in Queensland was emitting 15 per cent more methane than the total methane emissions reported by all open-cut mines in Queensland combined.</para>
<para>In January, the east coast was facing ministerial intervention to keep the lights on, and energy prices were skyrocketing. The coalition and the media were obsessing about us needing new gas fields because there wasn't enough supply. To give you an idea, Mr Speaker, in January, during that perceived period of shortage, AEMO and the ACCC identified that we needed 30 petajoules of gas on top of the current supply. The Environmental Defence Fund has identified that our annual methane emissions from leakage—we're just letting it drift out—is 77 petajoules. So we could have met any shortage without opening up new wells.</para>
<para>If we were in a drought and we had a leaking tap of water drip, drip, dripping away, we would fix it. We would not say: 'She'll be right. Let that tap keep leaking. Let's go and open a new well.' It's time we did the same for methane and gas. The government has to put in some gas leakage restrictions. The amount of gas leaking from Australian oil, gas and coal mines each year is about five per cent of our annual usage. The International Energy Agency's annual methane tracker report, released last Tuesday, shows that methane emissions released through the fossil fuel supply chain are rising, even though technologies are available to cost-effectively capture and sell that gas.</para>
<para>We have an opportunity. The safeguard mechanism reforms are an important opportunity for the government to bring in sensible measures for capturing and using that gas. But the effectiveness of the safeguard mechanism will depend on the accuracy of the data it is based on. The current reporting framework is too lax to ensure accuracy, so I've proposed an amendment to fix this. Currently, most reports on oil and gas activities are based on national averages rather than actuals. This needs to change. They have to be from real data. The safeguard mechanism reform process is an important moment to address energy sector methane emissions.</para>
<para>This is crucial for dealing with global warming. The fossil fuel industry can cut methane cheaply. We need to do this. The Environmental Defence Fund found that, by focusing on the energy sector, Australia could cut methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, below a cost of $33 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent. The European Union will require importers to report methane emissions from supply chains, conduct regular leak detection and repair programs, and cease methane venting and flaring in domestic oil and gas production. Australia's largest gas importer, Japan, has signalled its preference for low-emissions gas, yet currently in Australia there is no national regulation preventing venting and flaring of methane; it is just allowed to leak.</para>
<para>So I call on the Albanese government: get serious about these leaks; enact effective national methane regulations to limit venting and flaring of gas; implement best-practice regulations from the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership; and use the safeguard mechanism and other legislative pathways to drive methane capture and apply global best-practice standards consistently across fossil fuel projects. If we want to deal with global warning, we have to deal with methane.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Chaney</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Warringah for bringing this motion on the Global Methane Pledge to the parliament, and I agree with her on a couple of key points. First of all, methane is an extremely important aspect of our country's effort to tackle climate change. We cannot ignore methane. It is an extremely potent greenhouse gas emission, and we must do more to track and reduce the amount of methane being released into the atmosphere.</para>
<para>I also absolutely agree with the member for Warringah on the aspect of the importance of the safeguard mechanism. This is something that this House, this place, and the other place need to get right. We need to pass that mechanism. It is the single-biggest lever that any government in this country's history has ever tried to pull on emissions reduction. We have to get it right. I appreciate the comments made by the member for Warringah, and I think there will be a lot of debate—there will be a lot of opportunities for members from all sides of the parliament to come together constructively, move amendments and talk through the details, and I am really hopeful that we, as a parliament, can come together in moving this. We have to take this step forward in tackling climate change. The safeguard mechanism is too big to fail. We will get one chance at this, as a parliament, and we need to get it right.</para>
<para>It comes off the back of the Albanese government, upon coming into government, signing up to the international Global Methane Pledge. Australia joined 150 other countries in committing to reduce methane by 30 per cent by 2030. I mention this because it is actually a bit significant from where we started and from where the previous government was. The previous government had some pretty extraordinary things to say when discussing the Global Methane Pledge. The former Deputy Prime Minister did not believe that we could tackle rising methane emissions through sensible efforts to bring down emissions and through policy levers in this place. He had a different suggestion. Despite the fact that Meat & Livestock Australia have a carbon neutral by 2030 target, the former Deputy Prime Minister and member for New England said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The only way you can get your 30 per cent by 2030 … would be to go and grab a rifle, go out and start shooting your cattle.</para></quote>
<para>It's an absolutely absurd response from the member for New England. But you would have thought, 'You know what? Sometimes the member for New England comes out with some ideas from left field in this place, so that's to be expected.'</para>
<para>But you would have thought the Leader of the Nationals would have had a little bit more of a measured response to methane—that he would have come in here and said: 'You know what? We have to think through these issues. It is important for Australia's international efforts to join the international community to tackle methane. It's important for our emissions reduction.' But, no, this is what the Leader of the Nationals said, very calmly and measured:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Now the Aussie BBQ is under threat. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wants to take away the backyard BBQ.</para></quote>
<para>For goodness sake—for goodness steak! Exactly! He also said;</para>
<quote><para class="block">We know Australians love their sausages, steaks, rissoles and lamb meals—</para></quote>
<para>That's true—</para>
<quote><para class="block">all of that will become out of reach for many.</para></quote>
<para>It's absolutely ridiculous from those opposite. Instead—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I can hear from the cheap seats out the back that there's a little bit of chirping going on, but the fact of the matter is that those opposite were completely against any form of climate action, full stop. Coming into this place, they voted against the emissions reduction targets that we took to the last election and they've dealt themselves out of the climate reduction conversation. We now have a large crossbench made up of seats from this guy's former colleagues.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They can keep chatting away across the chamber, but on this side of the House we're going to tackle climate change, reduce emissions and be part of the global efforts to tackle and reduce methane. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Warringah for the opportunity to second this important motion, which you will see is actually about fossil fuels and the role of methane in the fossil fuel industry rather than the agricultural industry. The effort Australia makes to address methane emissions in the next few years will have a substantial impact on how effective we are in meeting our decarbonisation goals, which is why it was such good news from COP27 that the Australian government has signed the Global Methane Pledge to cut methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030. But, since that good news, we've heard almost nothing from the government about how it will actually fulfil this obligation, including no mention of methane emissions in the soon-to-be-debated safeguard mechanism.</para>
<para>Why are methane emissions are such an issue? Methane emissions are 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, and methane is responsible for about 30 per cent of the rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. In Australia, fossil fuel companies emit 40 per cent of the country's methane pollution, and much of that is avoidable. Two weeks ago the head of the International Energy Agency said methane cuts are among the cheapest options to limited near-term global warming. He said there is just no excuse for the continued in action, and there really is no excuse for the government to continue ignoring this problem. The IEA has shown that we could reduce 75 per cent of energy sector methane emissions using commercially competitive existing technology, and that currently wasted methane can be cost-effectively captured and used to generate electricity. Analysis from S&P Global shows that there's huge potential for methane to be captured from existing gas and oil facilities and brought to the market, countering the need for new gas exploration. Its analysis shows that two billion cubic metres of gas can be captured by limiting venting, flaring and leaks of methane at gas and oil sites in Australia. That would provide nearly a five per cent boost to Australia's gas supply annually, with no new fields being opened. This is more than double the ACCC's January forecasted shortfall in the east coast market.</para>
<para>Our trade competitors and partners are already acting on methane. Japan is working with PETRONAS to incorporate methane performance into its purchase of LNG from Malaysia. Italian company Eni is doing the same with Algerian supplier Sonatrach. The US, EU and other partners are working on standards to incorporate methane performance into gas supply agreements, and the same pressure will likely come to bear in Australia. We can be proactive or we can wait to be forced.</para>
<para>The Oil and Gas Methane Partnership framework has become the go-to standard for countries, buyers and investors who want assurance that the gas they're buying and the companies they're investing in and partnering with are serious about methane. To date, no major Australian company has joined, which is positioning the industry as out of step and unwilling to recognise that, as we transition away from fossil fuels, those left standing will be operators who can compete not only on cost but also on climate action.</para>
<para>Australia can seize the opportunity to cut methane by taking action in the safeguard mechanism reforms. Firstly, we need to accurately measure methane. We should update our methane reporting standards to require direct emissions measurement and statistically valid modelling at both the source and site levels. This should be consistent with international best practices such as that prescribed in the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership 2.0. This is essential, given that it's likely that Australian fossil fuel companies are drastically underreporting their current methane emissions. At the same time, the safeguard mechanism's baseline should reflect best practice methane emission intensities, which have been established globally by industry through dies such as the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative.</para>
<para>By not setting a best practice baseline on methane, we will be setting Australian industry up for future failure. We must ensure that methane that's currently wasted from fossil fuel sites is captured and brought to market. We need genuine abatement of this potential greenhouse gas using proven, existing, cost-effective technology rather than the unlimited use of offsets.</para>
<para>As drafted, the safeguard mechanism proposal could completely miss the opportunity for actual methane abatement. The safeguard mechanism reforms are a pivotal opportunity to get us on track to fulfill our global obligations under the methane pledge by requiring companies to measure and report their methane emissions while taking belated but critical action to cut methane pollution. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In May last year this government was elected with a mandate to take strong environmental action. The Australian people understand the implications of what our environment and climate face if we do not commit to implementing long-lasting and considered plans now. We must recognise that climate change is having an extraordinary impact on our country. We are seeing an increase in extreme weather events and just last year we saw flooding across the eastern seaboard. We know that these communities continue to face the consequences of these events. Thousands of people in communities in Lismore, the Central Coast and the Sunshine Coast are still displaced from their homes and facing uncertainty about the future. These extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more intense. Nature has made it very clear to us through these deadly floods, storms and raging fires that we have to stop filling our atmosphere with greenhouse gases and we have to stop doing it fast.</para>
<para>After nine years of climate change denial and inaction by the previous government, we stand at a critical juncture now to make that change. The chance to make incremental change has passed due to the inefficiency and inadequacy of the previous government. Unless we take action now we face an accelerating climate disaster. That is why this government has taken its commitment to action seriously. We have passed the Climate Change Act through both houses; we will implement the changes to the safeguard mechanism; and we have joined over 150 countries to commit to reduce global methane emissions across energy and resources, agriculture and waste sectors.</para>
<para>Methane is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases and is the most harmful to our environment. Over a 20-year period, methane causes 82 times as much heating of the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Since industrialisation, methane concentrations has risen more than 150 per cent. Due to an increase in coal mining, gas drilling and industrialised agriculture, methane levels have continued to rise. In the last two years alone, we have seen record rises of methane in the atmosphere. The United Nations states that methane has caused 0.5 degrees of global heating. That is second only to carbon dioxide.</para>
<para>As signatories to the Global Methane Pledge, Australia now joins 150 countries across the globe in committing to work collectively to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30 per cent by 2030. Through working in partnership with key sectors, we will focus on research and development, investment and collaboration to work together to bring our methane emissions down. This government is making key investments and working closely with industry to support emissions reductions across high-greenhouse-gas sectors.</para>
<para>Through the National Reconstruction Fund, which we know those opposite are opposing, we will invest $3 billion to support investment in low emissions technologies, component manufacturing and agricultural methane reduction. We have committed to investing $8 million to support commercialisation of low-emissions livestock feed through the Powering Australia Plan. We will provide $5 million in funding to develop technologies to develop low-emissions feed supplements. Through changes to the safeguard mechanism by this government we will support emissions reductions throughout the sector. It will cover methane emissions from large industrial facilities and fugitive emissions from coalmines. Under these proposed reforms, each facility will see a baseline fall of 4.9 per cent every year to 2030.</para>
<para>Only this government will ensure that industry will carry its proportionate share of reaching our 2030 target and only this government will ensure we stay on a path to net zero. We know the opposition will take any opportunity to say no. I mean, it is quite extraordinary to see what was being played out over the last week on superannuation. Those opposite will take every opportunity to say no. We know they have said no to emissions reduction. We know they are saying no to the National Reconstruction Fund. They told us electric cars will take away the weekend. They are saying that by signing the pledge it is going to kill the weekend barbecue. They will say no to everything. But let's listen to industry. Those agrarian socialists at the National Farmers' Federation, we know how much they usually support this side of politics, which is pretty rarely, but they have come out and said that farmers are already leading the charge on climate change. Australia now has a seat at the table, and if we look at these key trading relationships that we need to grow with the EU, they need National Farmers' to take action on methane and emissions reduction. We are leading the way in the world. Our safeguard mechanism and signing the international pledge will help us get there. Your barbecue is safe. Your vehicles are safe. We will reduce emissions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The safeguard mechanism reform process offers a unique opportunity to address energy sector methane emissions. Methane is the main ingredient of natural gas. It's also a powerful climate pollutant. Methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere. It traps 80 times more heat in our atmosphere than does carbon dioxide. Over the last two centuries, methane concentrations in our atmosphere have more than doubled. According to the UN Environment Programme, methane has accounted for more than 30 per cent of climate change since preindustrial times.</para>
<para>Quickly and effectively reducing methane pollution is an essential step in preventing the worst impacts of anthropogenic climate change. Huge amounts of methane escape into our atmosphere through the process of gas extraction, through leaks but also from deliberate releases for venting and flaring. Coalmines, for example, vent methane to prevent explosions. That leaked methane is lost energy that could be captured and used to generate electricity and to heat homes. Globally the fossil fuel industry emits enough escaped and unburnt methane every year to meet the gas demands of Europe.</para>
<para>But leaked methane doesn't just pollute our air and represent a wasted energy source; it also affects our health. As methane is leaked, so too are other volatile organic compounds, including benzene, toluene, n-hexane and carbonyl sulphide. These travel from their source into the air that all of us breathe. Volatile organic compounds cause cancer, premature birth and respiratory, neurological and cardiovascular diseases, and they cause sudden death. The climate warming associated with release of these compounds into the air that we all breathe contributes to extreme weather events, to bushfires, to longer allergy seasons and to the spread of infectious diseases.</para>
<para>To see the effect of these changes in Australia we just need to look from this place to the rural communities and the cities affected by fire and by flood: to Cobargo, to Mallacoota, to Kangaroo Island, to Lismore and to Woodburn; to the Kimberley and most recently to the Victoria Daly region of the Northern Territory. The Black Summer of 2019-20 caused us more than $2 billion in smoke related health costs. The extreme mental health impact of the recent New South Wales and Queensland floods has been well documented: emotional instability, stress, anxiety, depression and trauma. We are all paying the cost of unregulated fossil fuel industries.</para>
<para>Australia has already joined the Global Methane Pledge, a commitment to reduce human caused methane emissions by at least 30 per cent from 2020 levels by 2030. But our problem is regulation, or lack thereof. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme allows our fossil fuel operators to choose the level of accuracy they apply to measuring their own emissions. For most gas and oil activities, companies can opt to use generic estimations based on national averages, rather than direct measurement of their actual emissions. The Environmental Defence Fund and other scientific bodies have suggested the industry has understated its oil and gas methane emissions by as much as 70 per cent.</para>
<para>The ineffective regulation of the NGER and safeguard schemes has benefited fossil fuel companies at the expense of other Australian businesses, of households and of our climate—at all of our expense. The technology already exists to measure methane emissions far more accurately, using onsite methane detectors, aerial surveys and satellites with unprecedented ability to measure emission sources and quantities. The International Energy Agency has said that we could use these current technologies to cut our methane emissions by 70 per cent by 2030 and that two-thirds of those costs are achievable at no additional net cost.</para>
<para>Put simply, we have to regulate this sector. We can't leave it to fossil fuel companies to regulate themselves. The safeguard mechanism reform should provide a clear incentive for these companies to take mitigation action. The Albanese government has to mandate gold-standard methane emissions monitoring, reporting and verification, and intensity targets in line with international best practice.</para>
<para>Properly regulating our methane emissions will make no more captured methane available to industries and to households. We will cut Australia's emissions of a potent greenhouse gas. We can do this now or not, but, if we don't, we should all be held to account.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In November 2021, the member for Warringah described Australia—quite rightly at the time—as 'the global laggard in climate change policy'. The former coalition government failed then in Glasgow at the COP26 to sign up to the Global Methane Pledge. It was one of many ways in which the former government failed at that international meeting and in the area of climate change generally. We all remember the embarrassing pictures of former Prime Minister Morrison speaking to an empty room there.</para>
<para>I said before in this place that it's clear that these failures didn't just have the effect of degrading the Australian image in the world as a wealthy nation unwilling to do its part to address global challenges. There were also immediate and practical consequences such as the European Union being much less willing to close a trade deal with a country that was so far apart from them on climate issues. The Albanese government has been hard at work addressing this. One of the steps was joining the Global Methane Pledge in October last year.</para>
<para>Participants joining the pledge agree to take voluntary actions to contribute to a collective effort to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30 per cent from 2020 levels by 2030. The member for New England will not have to shoot his cows, but he might consider feeding them with the useful supplements being developed to reduce methane emissions from them. I know that the member for Lyons is proud that seaweed additives for livestock are currently being developed in his electorate, and there are also products coming to market from Queensland and WA. The evidence from the Senate Environment and Communications Committee earlier this year, however, was that the low-hanging fruit from methane abatement is in the resources sector and particularly coal and gas.</para>
<para>I want to address two issues that arise from the motion by the member for Warringah. The first is the urgency that accompanies this area of policy, including methane emissions reduction, and the second is the issue of good data upon which good policy responses must find their foundation. Climate change is upon us. It is an urgent issue. We aim for a 30 per cent reduction in just a decade, and we have only just managed to change our government and now sign the pledge. The other aspect of urgency here is that methane itself is a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas. It acts for about 12 years in the atmosphere, but its action is many times greater than CO2. With measured changes already taking place in our atmosphere, it is important to avoid as much short-term warming as we can so as to avoid run-on effects. There are a number of initiatives already taken by this government that will support action to support methane emissions. These include, of course, the setting in legislation of our emission targets for 2030 and 2050 and the safeguard mechanism, which underpins much of the emissions reduction we are aiming for, and even the National Reconstruction Fund, which has significant funds earmarked for emissions reductions, including for methane.</para>
<para>Our decision-making and that of all participants, including NGOs and industry, in the effort to reach our shared climate goals must be based on good data. Part of the Global Methane Pledge is, indeed, a commitment to using the best international standards to quantify methane emissions and to report on the same. This may mean that companies need to commit to more on-the-ground measurement and less estimation. It will also involve greater use of satellite derived data. It might seem counterintuitive to talk about putting more satellites up to reduce carbon, but good data is gold in this space. Companies like Shell and the Nordic firm Equinor are using drones to fly over methane-emitting sites to take measurements at source. The International Energy Agency provides useful road maps to guide methane abatement in the coal, oil and gas industries.</para>
<para>The safeguard mechanism is a good example of a market mechanism that relies on good data to underpin its effectiveness. Once incentivised, companies are more likely to take action to reduce emissions. In the methane space, Shell has demonstrated in Europe and North America that that this can include strengthening detection and speedier repair, replacing old equipment, better training and restricting the use of flaring. All of these efforts will make a difference. The methane emissions performance in energy-producing countries like Australia may soon start to be taken into account by our trading partners in the formation of new contracts. We need to get ahead of the curve wherever possible. We need to finalise the safeguard mechanism now so that it can commence this year. There have been 10 years of delay in climate policy and we can simply delay no longer.</para>
<para>The US is already taking action to address methane regulations. We are seeing this in countries around the world. There are fantastic examples to point to. R&D is ahead of the curve. CSIRO is doing terrific work in this space. I thank the member for Warringah for raising this important issue and I seek everyone's support to back in the safeguard mechanisms so we can take action today.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the Government is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) taking responsible and decisive action to take some of the edge off energy price rises; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) responding to the energy price rise the previous Minister for Energy hid from the Australian people during the election; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that recent energy price rise forecasts were lower than previously predicted; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) power prices are lower than they otherwise would be because of the steps the Government is taking.</para></quote>
<para>We all know that events around the world have impacted domestic energy prices. The war in Ukraine disrupted supply chains and increased international demand for gas has meant that Australian households and businesses have to contend with higher power prices. And we know the impact on people in our communities. The cost of this is absolutely clear. That is why last year the government urgently recalled parliament, so we could act, not just talk but act, to take some of the sting out of higher power prices.</para>
<para>This government wants to help families, to support small businesses and to save Australian manufacturers. We know that it will take some time for all of the benefits to fully flow through, but there are encouraging signs that our action is starting to work, and if anyone doubts that let me remind the chamber of the AEMO quarterly report which said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Following these announcements, ASX Cal23 electricity futures prices fell steeply for each of the mainland states through to the end of the Quarter, with prices dropping between 41% in South Australia and 46% in Queensland from the end of Q3 22. The expectation and then announcement of government intervention through the quarter saw reductions in futures prices for later years similar to those for Cal23 across the mainland regions.</para></quote>
<para>There is a Treasury analysis where the comparison of 2023 wholesale electricity prices in November, before the plan was released, with the prices in December, after the plan was released, shows that forecast wholesale prices for 2023 dropped by 44 per cent in Queensland, 38 per cent in New South Wales, 32 per cent in South Australia and 29 per cent in Victoria. And we all know that at the end of January Shell announced an EOI process for eight PJ of gas to be delivered in 2023. We have seen reductions in the price increases that were forecast. This is a key indicator that the steps the government has taken, and is taking, are having an impact.</para>
<para>Every member of this place had a choice when they voted in December on the government's bill to combat climbing energy prices. They had a choice to help Australians with rising energy bills or to make it even harder for them. And if those opposite, the members of the Liberal and National Party, had their way households would be paying $230 more on their power bills than they would otherwise have to—without an extra cent of support.</para>
<para>Our government believes that Australian households and small businesses deserve support. We believe that Australian manufacturing deserves a future and that's what we are delivering for families and pensioners, for small businesses and for large manufacturers.</para>
<para>My state of Victoria has almost two-thirds of homes using gas so there is quite an impact by current prices. My community has been hit. There is no doubt about it. Locals from Frankston, Josh and Emily, told the <inline font-style="italic">Herald Sun</inline> that with their two kids and renovating their house they bought two years ago and the increase in their gas bills it has been hard. And like good Frankstonians they are concerned not just for themselves but others. They said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We both have good jobs. Essentially we're going to be fine, but what about the elderly or single parents working two jobs? We have to be incredibly frugal and the price of gas and the price of fuel adds to the anxiety.</para></quote>
<para>These are real people in my electorate whom the opposition tried to block providing direct energy bill relief to—real people, not just some sort of debating point; real people. After overseeing a decade of energy policy chaos, the opposition voted against action on power prices to help people like Josh and Emily.</para>
<para>It's not an overnight fix—of course it's not—but we've started to do the work, and more needs to be done. We're investing $25 billion in reducing emissions, in clean energy and in market stability; $20 billion in the Rewiring the Nation plan to upgrade Australia's electricity grid; and in 400 community batteries across the country, including one in Carrum Downs in my electorate. We are working to help lower electricity bills, reduce pressure on the grid and lower emissions. This government is going to continue to do everything it can to shield Australian households and businesses from the worst impacts. It's just a shame that the oppositional opposition can't get on with joining us to do so.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Dunkley. Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burnell</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Dunkley, my near neighbour in bayside Melbourne, for moving this motion. I'm particularly pleased to speak today about a project that has been launched in Goldstein that seeks to enable community participation in the energy space at a time when both the cost and the environmental impact of energy consumption makes this an urgent conversation.</para>
<para>Village Zero represents action—climate action, community action, local action, personal action—bringing people together to create and implement a shared vision for a reimagined low-carbon village where human needs coexist with those of the planet. This vision that our community has brought to fruition truly represents the values that we all share. It aims to reduce emissions, make homes more efficient, increase our capacity for renewables and reduce waste, and it does all of this while encouraging creativity, celebrating diversity and fostering the feeling of community—of belonging—that we all associate with 'Sandy Village' and Goldstein.</para>
<para>Village Zero came about as a result of discussions before last year's election. When I spoke to groups around the electorate, they wanted to do something, but there was an evident need to facilitate that doing. That effort involved bringing together the Sandringham Traders Association and local philanthropic groups like Uncommon Folk and Regen Melbourne, which are looking at ways to create systems change to get things done to benefit people and the planet. The early phases of Village Zero have also included discussions with the Bayside and Glen Eira councils, and I want to thank everyone involved in that process for their willingness to collaborate and their motivation to serve not only their residents but their land and sea as well. Together, we've created action, we've created optimism, and together we will create change.</para>
<para>My formative years as a reporter were spent in Lismore, and I covered big floods in the Northern Rivers before heading overseas, where I reported on floods, fires and storms across the world. With our already extreme climate and minimal investment from previous governments, we as a nation face huge risks ahead. But the opportunity is vast, and that opportunity, that optimism, is central to Village Zero. We are all part of the solution: a commitment to broader, forward-focused climate policy to reduce emissions and embrace renewable energy. Village Zero sets an example.</para>
<para>Part of this project revolves around community energy. In December, as previously mentioned, the government announced the $200 million Community Batteries for Household Solar Program in order to deliver secure and affordable energy as we ramp up renewable generation. We need more energy storage distributed into the community to achieve this. The battery network will store locally generated solar power and reuse it within the community, helping out in the evening energy peak. In the longer term, the aim is that this will reduce the pressure on the electricity grid, drive down power prices and help us to help the planet.</para>
<para>In conjunction with Village Zero, my team has begun working with Bayside council, the Australian National University battery storage and grid integration team, Acacia Energy and Renew Melbourne. Together, we're now working on a bid to ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and we'll begin the community consultation in coming weeks so that we can involve and obtain feedback from the community to play a part in the energy market and to create a repeatable battery network that could be implemented in communities around the country. Also coming up is our Home Energy Efficiency Expo, in partnership with Bayside council, in March at Brighton Town Hall. This will provide a concrete opportunity for people to explore ways to electrify their homes.</para>
<para>There is a lot happening in this space and a lot to be inspired by. One key to fighting climate change is community action and I'm thankful that we have so much commitment from within our community to reduce both the cost of energy and the damage energy consumption does to our environment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about the Albanese government's Energy Price Relief Plan. As the member for Gilmore, I'm already hearing about the benefits of the Energy Price Relief Plan when I speak to families and small businesses on the New South Wales South Coast. We all know that power prices have been a major concern for many Australians, particularly those on low incomes or running small businesses. On the South Coast, people will tell you that the rising cost of living is starting to really hurt. It hurts to see people in our community having their hard-earned dollars eroded by the rising cost of living. That's why we had to step in and do something.</para>
<para>We wanted to take some of the sting out of the higher power prices and help support Aussie people, and I am so pleased that we are starting to see the benefits flow through to everyday Australians. The Albanese government took a no-nonsense approach to help those who needed it most, and it's working.</para>
<para>Following the announcement, the Australian Energy Market Operator's quarterly report showed electricity futures prices fell steeply for each of the mainland states. Treasury analysis shows that forecast wholesale prices for 2023 have dropped significantly in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria. In New South Wales the wholesale drop was 44 per cent. That's real money, hard-earned money, that will now stay in the pockets of honest, hardworking Australians. In fact, modelling has shown that without this intervention electricity prices would be on average $230 higher next year.</para>
<para>It's important to state that if the Liberals and Nationals had their way power prices would go even higher and households would be getting no relief. It would have been business as usual. In fact, the Liberals are so out of touch they opposed our Energy Price Relief Plan, our plan to make it cheaper to keep the lights on for everyday Australians. They didn't think local households and businesses should get this support. They'd rather put politics first: opposition for opposition's sake.</para>
<para>I am proud that the Albanese Labor government has taken responsible and reasonable steps to deliver targeted support to those who need it most. It's targeted relief delivered quickly: plain and simple. The benefits of this plan will continue to build. Australians will continue to feel the benefits of the Energy Price Relief Plan in the weeks and months to come.</para>
<para>The Energy Price Relief Plan is a solid economic plan. This is clear in the way global markets are responding. It's positive planning for the future. The Liberals had nine years and 22 attempts to formulate an energy plan, and did it work? No. Maybe it was going to be 23 times a charm, but I doubt it. It took the election of the Albanese Labor government for positive change to start, but it's not just the Energy Price Relief Plan. Already we have invested $25 billion in reducing emissions, clean energy and market stability. This includes $20 billion for Rewiring the Nation and $1.9 billion for the Powering the Regions Fund. We've also invested half a billion dollars in the Driving the Nation Fund and a quarter of a billion dollars in community batteries, which will benefit 100,000 households, including those in places like Maloneys Beach in my electorate. We have also provided over $100 million for community solar banks, which will benefit 25,000 households; over $60 million for small businesses to become more energy efficient; and $67 million to give regulators more power to protect gas supply.</para>
<para>The Albanese government won't just keep the lights on; we'll deliver much-needed price relief to everyday Australians. The Albanese government is focused on supporting local people in every way possible, and the Energy Price Relief Plan is a key part of that support. Our economy is facing significant challenges from around the world, including the energy crisis caused by the ongoing war in Ukraine, supply issues stemming from China's transition out of COVID-zero, the very real prospect of a global downturn and the impact of interest rate rises, both globally and locally. Despite these challenges, the Albanese government remains optimistic about the future, particularly in light of the positive impacts that our initiatives are already having. I'm proud to be part of a government that's committed to supporting regional families and small businesses. The Energy Price Relief Plan is just one of the many initiatives that we have introduced, and I look forward to seeing the ongoing benefits that it will bring to Australians on the South Coast and throughout the country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate the opportunity this motion provides members of the opposition with to talk about the government's record on electricity prices, the promises they took to the last election and the reality of what the implementation of that policy means to suffering families and businesses in this country as electricity costs absolutely spiral out of control on them—as do so many other cost-of-living pressures continue to put burdens on the household budget and on the small businesses that employ so many millions of Australians.</para>
<para>I wouldn't ordinarily give promotion to a policy position of my opponents, but I do feel compelled to commence with a little quote from the policy on electricity prices that they took to the last election. This comes from 'Powering Australia Plan: Labor's plan to create jobs, cut power bills and reduce emissions by boosting renewable energy'. It has the immortal line:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It will cut power bills for families and businesses by $275 a year for homes by 2025, compared to today.</para></quote>
<para>That was in December 2021. Poor old RepuTex—I feel for that company! Reputation-RepuTex: they will rue the day that they shackled themselves to putting their name behind the modelling of that policy. But, of course, they said—and the Labor Party used their credibility—in December 2021, with all the information that everyone had freely available to them then, that when you applied all the policy positions that the Labor Party were going to put in place then the average household would have their power bill reduced by 2025, compared to December 2021, by $275. That was very clear and very straightforward. No doubt a lot of goodhearted Australians believed that the Labor Party would honour that promise, particularly when they had this really high-value modelling behind it, which made it very clear and that a solid commitment was given.</para>
<para>When the first budget of the government was handed down, last October, this was a budget that was very much about putting in place all the policies that the government had taken to the election, including their Powering Australia Plan. With all those policy measures put into the mix, what did the Commonwealth Treasury say about electricity prices once the Powering Australia Plan policy would be fully implemented? That they would be going up by 56 per cent. Prices would be going up by 56 per cent over two years after the Powering Australia Plan that Labor and RepuTex said would cut prices by $275 a year. Instead they'd be going up by 56 per cent. This was such a political problem for the government that they had to have an emergency drastic intervention in the market, which, by their own admission, even if it succeeds, will see power prices still going up but just by less than the disastrous 56 per cent that they put in their budget in October.</para>
<para>The $275 will never be spoken of by anyone opposite. They pretend that it does not exist, that they never said to people, 'Vote for us to be the government of this country and we will cut your power prices by $275.' This was a pretty significant commitment, one where a lot of families might have thought: 'Power prices are a very significant part of the household budget. They stress us. We do worry about when that bill arrives in the mail or on the email each quarter. And it does drive decision-making in our household, because if those bills are going up dramatically, we've got to cut back on other things that are important to us and our family. The Labor Party are saying, 'Under us, you'll save $275 a year.' That might have been quite appealing for those that made the reasonable but regrettable mistake of thinking that was an honest commitment that would actually occur if they voted for the Labor Party.</para>
<para>What has happened since then? Well, apparently, it's all someone else's fault. It's all someone else's fault, and people are meant to be grateful that the initial fear of a 56 per cent increase over two years might not be quite as high. That's the new standard of success for this government—to increase prices by 56 per cent over two years, and perhaps it will be less than that dramatic increase. Gone is the $275 cut. That is never to be spoken of again. Instead we're meant to be grateful for those dramatic increases that will still occur even if those dramatic interventions in the market are successful. We will never let people forget that promise was made and that it has not been honoured by the government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the member for Dunkley's motion about the strong and decisive actions the Albanese Labor government is taking on energy prices. We have a plan. We are taking highly constructive actions to support Australians, rather than simply stonewalling and saying: 'No. No to this. No to that. No, no, no.' That's 'no-alition' at its best.</para>
<para>Remember that it was the Liberal and National parties that left us with $1 trillion in debt and oversaw a decade of chaos in energy policy. They voted against action on power prices. Not only did the 'no-alition' vote against strong and decisive action on power prices; they also tried to block direct energy bill relief, something that families desperately need. The message to Australian families from the 'no-alition' is that they don't deserve support. How out of touch is that?</para>
<para>If the opposition got their way, power prices would keep going up and up and up, and households would get no help—nothing! How out of touch is it for those opposite to think that households and businesses should not get support? That is in stark contrast to the action that the Albanese government has taken on the rising cost of energy as well as other cost-of-living pressures. We have taken action to remove some of the bite from higher power prices because we want to help families, we want to support small businesses and we want to save Australian manufacturing. Yes, what we've done will take some time to fully flow through, but it is a welcome start, and it is reassuring to see that the plan is already starting to work. We have taken responsible and reasonable actions to help families and businesses, unlike the 'no-alition', which has done nothing but say no. We are making timely and targeted decisions. The market's response is encouraging and a sign that it will be effective. Prices have started to drop. Treasury analysis backs that. We are seeing strong progress on easing cost-of-living pressures for households and businesses because of the Albanese government's decisive and timely actions.</para>
<para>The plain facts are that in December, after the energy relief plan was released, forecast wholesale electricity prices for 2023 dropped compared to November before the plan. Forecast wholesale prices for 2023 have dropped from 29 to 44 per cent. Electricity future prices also fell steeply. In contrast, the opposition barely managed electricity policy amid their energy policy madness across nine years and 22 energy policies—yet not one of them worked. And they kept power price rises a secret until after the election—not good. As we already know, they then tried to block direct energy bill relief for households and businesses. If the opposition had their way, households would be paying $230 more for power bills than they would otherwise have to without a cent of extra support.</para>
<para>They had nine years and 22 failed energy policies, yet, in just less than a year in government, we are investing in our nation because we have a plan. We are investing $20 billion in Rewiring the Nation; a quarter of a million dollars for community batteries for 100,000 households; $25 billion in reducing emissions, in clean energy and in market stability; over $60 million for small businesses to become more energy efficient; half a billion dollars in the Driving the Nation Fund; and over $100 million for community solar banks to benefit 25,000 households.</para>
<para>In conclusion, the Albanese Labor government has a plan, and it is a robust and financially responsible plan.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In Labor, we have the government of broken promises. Last week, it was a broken promise about superannuation. This week, a broken promise will probably be confirmed about 24/7 registered nurses in aged-care homes.</para>
<para>This motion doesn't go to those sorts of broken promises; this motion goes to probably the first of the Albanese Labor government's many broken promises. That was when Albanese and his colleagues looked the Australian people in the eye—no less than 97 times before the last federal election—and promised them that household power bills would be reduced by $275. That was their promise. It was not an ad hoc statement made by the then opposition leader, but a well calculated promise that they made on multiple occasions.</para>
<para>Even upon coming to government, at this very table, no matter how many times we in the opposition have asked the Prime Minister to confirm that he cannot deliver on that promise, he does not do so, because he wants to still stand by that broken promise of a cut of $275 to people's power bills. Since the government has come to office, what has happened to the household power bill? Has it gone down by $275, as promised by the Albanese Labor government? No, it has not. Average household power bills have gone up—have gone up!—by over $700. That's right. They promised they would go down by $275, but they have gone up by over $700. That's nearly a $1,000 difference. This government set an expectation by making a promise on household energy bills. They are not even a year in, and the extent of that variation is $1,000 a household. It's nearly $1,000 per Australian household. That is the difference between what Labor promised and what Labor is delivering.</para>
<para>This is because Labor is going back to their natural instinct: the instinct of big government and big taxes. As soon as the energy crisis started to bite, the climate and energy minister refused to meet with industry. He wanted big government to find the solution. They have botched the ADGSM. They have taken our coal and gas from the capacity mechanism. Their policies have seen a run to the exit for baseload power stations, worsening the situation and increasing prices. They have seen an unprecedented intervention by the market operator, because of reliability issues, and the price is again going up. They've come in with a price cap, which is suffocating the supply of gas in the market. You suffocate and you restrict gas at a time when people need more of it. Prices go up, and they wonder why prices keep going up.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Those opposite are asking me not to talk out loud about the $275. I don't blame them. In fact, I feel sorry for the member for Dunkley, whose leadership team probably asked them to come in on this motion today.</para>
<para>So shallow is the government on their own agenda that they have their backbench now bringing forward motions celebrating broken promises. I tell you what, Deputy Speaker—I wonder if those in government had been on the shop floors of businesses who are suffering from high energy prices. I have. I can promise you, in those businesses, as they stand around the management table and as they are on the shop floor with the workers, they're not putting forward motions celebrating this government's broken promise of lower power bills. That's not happening. I can tell you, too, that I have sat out the kitchen table, especially with seniors who are struggling to make ends meet. They look at this government, and they're not putting their hands up and saying, 'Let's celebrate the Labor government—a government that promised us a $275 reduction in our household power bills.' Instead, they're saying, 'We are choosing whether we eat or whether we heat our homes.' That is a disgrace, and that is Labor's legacy. They've only just begun.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Murphy</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Could you repeat that? I didn't hear any of it!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to take the interjection, if you like.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, thank you very much. I call the member for Corangamite.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government understands that cost-of-living pressures are biting. We know that one of the key expenses for household are energy bills. That's why we have taken action to rein in power prices with the energy price relief package. This will help families. It'll support small businesses. It'll help seniors and pensioners and save Aussie manufacturers. We've been able to do this through responsible, timely and targeted measures. The Albanese government has designed the Energy Price Relief Plan. This includes a 12-month price cap on new contract sales of gas by producers. This is already having a positive impact for households—for households in Victoria and for people in my electorate, where gas is used widely for heating and cooking. It matters. People are recognising that these power prices are lower than they otherwise would be because of the steps this government—our government—is taking.</para>
<para>It's reflected in the market's response. The ASX Cal-23 electricity futures prices fell steeply for each of the mainland states through to the end of the last quarter. Treasury analysis shows that forecast wholesale prices have already dropped between 29 and 44 per cent. These reductions have come about because of the Albanese government's policies.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, the opposition voted against action on power prices and tried to block direct energy price relief. If they had their way, households would be paying $230 more on their energy bills without a cent of extra support. But don't just take my word for it. Here's their record: first, they helped create the problem with their decade of energy policy chaos, then they kept power price increases a secret until after the election and then they tried to block direct energy bill relief for households and businesses. Under the opposition, we also saw a three-gigawatt decline in dispatchable power. Snowy 2.0 is running 18 months late, and they promised $1 billion for 12 projects to deliver 3.8-gigawatt capacity. Instead, they delivered zero gigawatts. What a damning record.</para>
<para>In contrast, the Albanese government is reducing power prices and looking to the long term. We're investing $20 billion in Rewiring the Nation so your renewable energy can flow into the grid, making energy more affordable and reliable. We're investing almost $2 billion in the Powering the Regions Fund, half-a-billion dollars in the Driving the Nation Fund and a quarter of a billion dollars in community batteries, including one in my electorate of Corangamite, in Torquay. These batteries will benefit 100,000 households, reducing their energy bills. We have also invested over $100 million for community solar banks and over $60 million for small businesses to become more energy efficient. Under an Albanese government, in its first six months, we have seen the strongest jobs growth of any Australian government, with 234,000 new jobs. The accomplishments of this government are something Australians can be proud of.</para>
<para>However, we acknowledge this issue isn't an overnight fix. In 2023 we should be optimistic about the future but realistic about the challenges we face. We have a lot going for us: low unemployment, the beginning of wage growth, and high prices for our products abroad. Confronting the inflation challenge is a core part of our economic plan, as is investing in infrastructure, supporting small business and creating jobs. That's why our energy price relief package is so vital. It's about saving households and businesses money, it's about creating a more stable energy market that supports the economy as a whole and, importantly, it is about reining in energy prices and putting more money in your pocket.</para>
<para>I know the people in my electorate of Corangamite are telling me every day about their challenges with the cost of living. We are acting, and people are acknowledging that, but there is so much more we need to do. We are up to the challenge. We want to create an environment where you and your family can not only pay the bills but thrive and prosper. So the Albanese government will continue to act on the cost-of-living pressures, taking action on energy prices, investing in infrastructure, supporting households, supporting small businesses and creating secure, rewarding jobs.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I hope the member for Dunkley is not leaving the chamber, because I'm actually going to give her a bit of a shout-out. Like the member for Fairfax, I feel sorry for the member for Dunkley. I can just imagine the Chief Government Whip making phone calls and saying, 'Hey, listen; I need someone to move this motion in PMB,' and getting: 'no', 'no', 'no'. But the member for Dunkley is a good foot soldier for the Labor Party and has put her hand up—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Indeed, she is. You're quite right there.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WA</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Dunkley has stepped up and moved this motion. Sitting here this morning, I've had the opportunity to listen to the members opposite, and you can see virtually all, if not all, those members reading off the government talking points. There is such a stark contrast between those members opposite reading the talking points and members on this side of the House, who have spent the non-parliamentary sitting weeks getting out into their electorates and talking to mums and dads and local businesses. I can tell you now, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the people of Fisher are telling me loudly, clearly and unequivocally that they are hurting under this Labor government. They are having great difficulty in making ends meet.</para>
<para>Why? Well, we all know about the $275 reduction in power prices that this Labor government ran with in the last election, and we know that, since the Labor government have been in the power, prices for electricity have increased by around $700 a year. That's not a $250 decrease; that's a $700 increase. Treasury's own figures estimated that power prices were going to go up 56 per cent within the next two years and that gas prices were going to have a 40 per cent increase over the next two years. That was not Andrew Wallace or any other member of the opposition saying it; that was Treasury estimating the increase in electricity and gas prices. Yet those opposite, including the Prime Minister, stood up on 97 occasions prior to the election and said: 'Vote for Labor. We'll give you a $275 reduction in electricity prices.' That is a broken promise, and it is true to form. We are seeing a pattern of conduct here.</para>
<para>But it's not just power prices. I note the previous speaker, the member for Corangamite, was talking about cost-of-living pressures, and power prices feed directly into those. We are seeing a pincer movement of pressures being brought to bear on Australian businesses and mums' and dads' budgets. Over the next 12 months, somewhere around 88,000 homes—88,000 mortgages—will roll over from fixed-rate mortgages onto variable rates. Now, what that's going to mean for the average mum and dad is somewhere between $16,000 and $18,000 a year that they're going to have to find to make their mortgage payments. For those like me who have been on a variable rates the whole time, it's been a steady increase over the last nine Reserve Bank meetings. Nine out of the last nine Reserve Bank meetings have increased interest rates. But the people who have been on fixed rates are going to go from somewhere around 2½ per cent to in excess of six per cent. That is going to have a dramatic impact on people's cost of living.</para>
<para>But it's not just peoples mortgages. It's landlords who have to make those mortgage payments. They're going to want to increase rents. They're going to have to increase rents. When mums and dads and small businesses have to pay increasing electricity prices— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Blood Stem Cell Donation</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that every 31 minutes someone in Australia is diagnosed with blood cancer, many of whom will require a lifesaving blood stem cell transplant, with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a greater success seen when utilising transplants from the bone marrow of younger donors, particularly men aged 18 to 35 years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) patients more likely to find a donor match with those who share a similar ethnic background;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) 30 per cent of patients finding a match within their family, and 70 per cent needing to find an unrelated donor through the Australian Donor Registry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a shortage of donors, so that 80 per cent of Australian patients will require a donation from an overseas donor;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) blood donations are currently the main avenue for individuals to join the blood stem cell donor registry in Australia, while cheek swab testing, primarily used overseas, makes the process quicker, easier, and far less intrusive;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) dependency on foreign donations has halved in nations that utilise cheek swab testing, whereas Australia's dependency has increased;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) cheek swab testing increases the rate of domestic donations, saving countless lives in the process; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry's program, <inline font-style="italic">Strength to Give</inline>, demonstrated that cheek swab testing was a viable, cost-effective method of increasing Australia's donor pool; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to work with organisations, such as the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry, to remove the legislative and regulatory impediments that are currently preventing a nationwide rollout of cheek swab-based donor enrolment and to deliver awareness campaigns to assist in increasing the rate of blood stem cell donations, particularly from Australian men aged 18 to 35 years.</para></quote>
<para>Deputy Speaker Freelander, as you would well know with your medical background, we are at a critical point when it comes to finding long-term solutions for Australians requiring life-saving stem cell transplants. Sadly, every 31 minutes, someone in Australia is diagnosed with a form of blood cancer. Blood cancers are usually discovered under one of three main types: leukaemia, myeloma and lymphoma, affecting blood, bone marrow and the lymphatic system.</para>
<para>In order to properly treat these conditions and a broad range of other blood disorders, a bone marrow transplant may be required. In essence, these blood disorders prevent the growth of healthy blood cells. Bone marrow, the soft centre of bones, where blood cells are produced, also contains stem cells. When compatible stem cells are donated, they are transplanted into the patient by infusing them into the bloodstream. A successful transplant will see the stem cells from the marrow migrate to the cavities of the larger bones and begin to produce normal blood cells for the patient.</para>
<para>On a global scale, Australia is a leader when it comes to the number of blood stem cell transplants performed in this country every year. Unfortunately, we currently face a significant shortage of donors within Australia. As such, we rely heavily on donations from overseas to meet this demand. Let me put this in perspective. The best form of donation is from a compatible close relative, as there are 10 unique characteristics within the stem cells that are looked at when determining a match. About 30 per cent of Australians are usually able to have a successful transplant in this manner. 70 per cent of Australians need to find an unrelated donor, and 80 per cent of these patients have their transplant are sourced from overseas. This figure is far too high.</para>
<para>We know that younger donors result in better outcomes for patients—in particular for those sharing similar ethnic backgrounds. Sadly, many Australians may either be unaware of or be discouraged from the processes of signing up to the donation registry, which could require a blood test. Males aged 18-35 are of particular concern, making up only four per cent of donors. This cohort is a particular focus for the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry in their Strength to Give campaign. But, with current testing methods, their options are limited. That is why cheek-swab testing can be such a viable alternative. It is a proven model in many countries across the globe, being used as the predominant form of testing. It is quick and easy for many who would be otherwise discouraged by the drawn-out process in taking a blood test and can be done as simply as taking a swab at home and mailing off the sample. Cheek-swab tests have the potential to add many more Australians to the registry, in the process saving countless lives in this country, at a relatively low cost to our health budget.</para>
<para>I would like to point out that the impediments are not even legislative or regulatory, as the motion has outlined, but bureaucratic and contractual. Red tape is the No. 1 issue facing the ABMDR CEO Lisa Smith and her team, and not the funding. The money is there and ready to go. Unfortunately, jurisdictional issues across state and federal governments impede the transition to cheek-swab testing in this country. We have not been able to keep up with the advances made by other nations when it comes to the technology required to roll out cheek-swab testing. This progression has been stifled by bureaucracy, with no one body responsible for determining the method of testing, and instead rules and regulations overlap at various levels of government.</para>
<para>ABMDR is seeking support to ramp up the registry recruitment campaigns through methods such as sending out cheek-swab test kits by post. They are currently seeking to sign up 125,000 Australian donors aged 18 to 35 in order to meet the domestic demand. I note the member for Kennedy also has a keen interest in increasing donor numbers. He and I have both had separate conversations with the health minister, but there is more work to be done. It's time for our technology to be brought up to international standards so this life-saving treatment can be had for so many people.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for Forde. Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOL</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I () (): I rise today to speak on this very important topic of bone marrow donation. Cancer is one of the most horrible things that any individual and their family will ever have to go through. There is not a family in this country who have not in some way been impacted by this horrible disease. Bone marrow is a vital tool to help in the fight against cancer. That's why donations of bone marrow are so important. Bone marrow donations provide the stem cells required for stem cell transplants. This underpins cutting-edge treatments for people fighting leukaemia and a range of other blood cancers, which are challenges being faced by many Australians. But Australia has not moved fast enough to enable more effective matching of bone marrow donors with patients who need them. At the end of last year the national registry had 131,806 donors of bone marrow. But this is too small. There are simply not enough people in this registry to meet the demand.</para>
<para>To make matters worse, our bone marrow donation system is also too slow. It has not kept up with international standards, including on things like cheek swabs and age limits of donors. Cheek swabs are used across the world, and they are an effective and very economical way of bringing additional donors to the registry. These checks will help give people a better chance of life. Instead of using this effective, cheap and up-to-date technology, a person who wishes to join the registry is required to have a blood test. It baffles me that cheek swabs are a system that has not yet been introduced into Australia.</para>
<para>It's clear why Australia has moved so slowly over the past decade, particularly compared to some other countries, but one thing is clear: we have fallen behind the rest of the world. It is people like those in my electorate, in the Hunter, who are paying the price, with it being more difficult for people in rural and remote Australia to get to a collection centre.</para>
<para>No single government, between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, has sole responsibility or sole authority to make sure Australia keeps up with the rest of the world and makes the most of the newest advances in technology. This is an issue, and it means that patients in Australia do not have the best chance to access life-saving technology. Currently our state and territory governments fund hematopoietic progenitor cell collection—let's refer to that mouthful as HPC from here on in. This collection is funded through grants or contracts with organisations and, to make matters worse, these can be separate agreements with each state and territory government.</para>
<para>We all know the limits that those in rural and regional areas face getting access to services and, at times, it can be difficult for people in remote and rural Australia to get to a collection centre. This means there is more dependency on international donors. The registry size and donor demographics are not aligned with Australia's population and HPC transplantation needs. Currently, the registry of HPC donors is managed by the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry under contract by the Commonwealth and cost shared with states and territories. The recruitment of the HPC donors is managed by Lifeblood under contract by state and territory governments. Something needs to be done about this. Australians deserve to have access to the best and most modern technology when it comes to their health. Australians should be confident that when they need medical procedures they are in the best hands in the world with access to the most up-to-date procedures and technologies. In this country we pride ourselves on our health system and we need to live up to it.</para>
<para>This government believes Australians deserve nothing but the best. We are going to get on with the job and work to address the issues in our bone marrow donation system. The Minister for Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, is going to start by discussing with health ministers the best way to cut through some of the red tape and clear the way for donor recruitment, because, at the end of the day, there is nothing more important than the health of Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My attention was drawn to this issue in a number of ways. A person in my electorate, a girl of 13 from the Atherton Tablelands—a lovely kid—died. Another person in the electorate had a match but it came too late. She and her husband were a most attractive couple and it is heartbreaking to look at the photographs of them together. My own nephew, Liam O'Brien, scored a match, so he has gone from a life expectancy of arguably three or four months to a normal life expectancy. That is the magical thing about bone marrow.</para>
<para>We have 100,000 people, I'm informed, on the register. To be in line with other countries, we should have 200,000. I can't see any reason why we can't get to one million. I thank my colleagues Monique and Bert, and my other colleagues that have come forward to form a committee with Kate Thwaites from the ALP that will take this matter forward. We send bone marrow overseas and they send bone marrow over here. Well, $12.8 million has been locked up for a number of years. It needs to be freed up and given to Lisa Smith's authority, which can then proceed to have people go into the university colleges. When I heard about this, my mind went straight back to my university college days. I was president of the university college, and we were approached about blood donations. That is not a very intrusive as a procedure. Putting a swab in your mouth is not an intrusive procedure at all. I couldn't see anyone in the college objecting to it. We put it to the college council, everyone agreed and nobody disagreed. It was that simple to get blood donations from 200 university students. If we approached every university college in Australia—as we approached St Leo's Catholic College, which is my old college and that of Liam O'Brien—I'm sure they'd have said yes. The college executive met with us and said, 'Yes, of course we will give it.' They've taken 200 swabs and are proceeding to do it. But Lisa Smith has got to approach some 300 or 400 university colleges in Australia, and she needs personnel to do this. She also has to pay for the swabs, and they may come in at $50 a swab by the time you get them processed and everything else. She needs money.</para>
<para>I was a platoon commander, a sergeant, when we were at war with Indonesia, and I was rung up and told we were giving blood and to be ready to send my platoon over the next day or the day after. So, whether it was a university college or the armed forces, we said, 'We're doing it,' and no one disagreed. There was not a single person who disagreed, either in my platoon or my university college. So I immediately thought of the armed forces of Australia, and there are about 50,000 people there that are in the right age group—remember, it has to be 18 to 35, though Monique and all of us agree that it has to be extended to 40. I refer to my chair and my secretary over here on that matter. The vast bulk of the armed forces fit within that category. For medical faculty students—nurses or doctors or whatever—all we need to is walk into the lecture room, put it on the desks and say, 'Would you mind doing a swab and leaving it in the bin as you walk out, please?' <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Forde very much for moving this motion and for the other speakers who spoke so eloquently about it. Robert was a lovely little boy. He was four years of age—really cute, a soft, gentle little kid. I was the oncology registrar at the children's hospital when Robert came in to our clinic, and I saw him. Unfortunately, he had acute myeloid leukaemia and had just relapsed. It was pretty obvious he had relapsed—he had a big liver and spleen, and bruising all over him. But he was still so nice and well-behaved, from a lovely family. They came from Campbelltown, which is in my electorate of Macarthur. A bone marrow transplant was experimental in those days—in our oncology unit there had been five previous attempts at bone marrow transplant and they'd all died. With relapsed AML the prognosis was very poor, with virtually 100 per cent mortality, so it was decided to put Robert through this experimental technique of a bone marrow transplant. He survived, and he was the first surviving bone marrow transplant patient in the Camperdown Children's Hospital at that stage. He went back to live in Campbelltown , and I ultimately got to represent him as the representative for Macarthur. That was in 1981—well over 40 years ago—and we have lagged behind ever since with our bone marrow registry.</para>
<para>There are roughly 270 children in Australia who are diagnosed with some form of blood cancer every year—most commonly with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, or ALL, a significant number with AML and other types, and occasionally with lymphoma. The issue is that with our current system of bone marrow donation there are only about 150,000 people on the register. We have a very diverse population now. If we include the adults with bone cancer, eight in 10 people requiring bone marrow transplantation in Australia require a donation from overseas because our registry isn't big enough. We must increase the numbers. It is really long past time for us to have a national register to be able to provide bone marrow transplants from Australian donors for all who need it. Cheek swabs are a very effective and economical way of bringing additional donors to the registry, and we must include them. This is the type of technology that's used, for example, by the police force for DNA mapping of crime scenes et cetera. They've been using it now for many years, and we should have this as part of our registry.</para>
<para>A major obstacle, yet again, in our healthcare system is our federated system. This has created a number of obstructions to—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hear, hear!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased the member for Kennedy agrees with me! There are a number of obstructions to the development of a proper national bone marrow registry with large enough numbers because of our federated system. It is vital that our states and territories get together with our federal government—I know the health minister is very keen to do that, as he is with our organ donation system—to get a proper registry of bone marrow donors. I welcome the announcement by the minister for health that discussions with health ministers from around the country are about to begin to discuss how we can best cut through this jurisdictional and bureaucratic red tape and clear the way for donor recruitment. I congratulate all the members of parliament who were involved in getting this done, and I thank all the members for doing this.</para>
<para>It's been far too long—1981 was a long time ago, and I'm an old bloke now. For years we've been trying to get this together and we haven't done it—really, it's because of judicial and bureaucratic nonsense. That's all it is. We must proceed. We need to reverse the statistics. We need to have the vast majority of our donors coming from Australia to our Australian patients. I look forward to working with the minister for health and all the members of parliament to make sure this happens rapidly, because it's long past time. We should be doing this. Thank you.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry is the peak body for bone marrow and stem cell donations in Australia. These are used for the treatment of life-threatening conditions like leukaemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma and bone marrow failure. Every 31 minutes an Australian is diagnosed with a blood cancer. Many of those individuals will need bone marrow transplantation to cure these desperately severe illnesses.</para>
<para>Australians would benefit from greater access to bone marrow transplants but our registry of potential donors is shrinking, rather than growing. To join the registry, at this point, you have to be healthy and aged between 18 and 35 years, because younger people make the most successful donors for patients in need of a transplant. However, the average age of a donor registered with the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry at the moment is 45 years. The registry is currently losing approximately 7,000 donors a year, as donors are retired from the registry at the age of 60, but only 5,000 new donors are added each year. As we've heard, there are currently only 140,000 contactable donors on the ABMDR. More than 80 per cent of unmatched unrelated donors are currently coming from overseas, at a cost of $50,000 a donor, because we just don't have enough donors registered in Australia. We know that bone marrow transplants are more likely to succeed when the donor has a similar ethnic background to the recipient. Indigenous Australians and persons from ethnic minorities are hugely disadvantaged by our reliance on overseas donors. In many instances a match cannot be made for those individuals, and that failure can be life-threatening.</para>
<para>Australians are generous people who like to help others. Most of us would love to be able to save a life if we could. A bone marrow donor registry could be established very easily. All we need is consent from a donor and, as my colleagues have said, a painless cheek swab, but funding for recruiting and tissue-typing of potential donors is tied up in red tape. In 2019, the ABMDR established a pilot program called Strength to Give. It assessed how effectively it could recruit donors using home-delivered cheek swab tests. Similar kits are used every year to recruit millions of potential donors overseas. In July 2020 our government approved the recruitment of 6,000 donors through this pilot program, which was completed in April 2021. In that first year that recruitment included more than 4,360 ethnically diverse donors and more than 2,000 young men aged 19 to 35 years, but that pilot came to a halt at the end of 2021 because of a halt in the ongoing funding. Recruitment via cheek swabs, in addition to blood banks, has been demonstrated to be potentially rapid and cost effective, but it is not yet available to our population.</para>
<para>The ABMDR has $12.8 million in the bank, but our government will not allow it to access that money for donor recruitment and tissue typing. This beggars belief. The money is in the bank. It could be freed up today by our health minister with the stroke of a pen. It would allow the ABMDR to do its job and to save Australian lives. We could be finding new donors and saving the lives of critically ill patients within weeks. I ask the government to share the sense of urgency felt by those people and by their families. I ask the government to protect the best interests of our ethnically diverse populations and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens by showing leadership and initiative today. I ask the government to show the same degree of generosity as exhibited by the many thousands of Australians who would like to join the Bone Marrow Donor Registry and who would like to have the opportunity to save a life today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to speak today about the critical issue of the bone marrow donation in Australia and the importance of reform to deliver improved outcomes for Australians with blood cancers. As many of my esteemed colleagues have noted, we understand Australia has not moved fast enough to enable more effective matching of bone marrow donors with patients who need it, and I was particularly astounded to hear from my colleague the member for Macarthur that it is indeed the case that eight of 10 recipients still have to get bone marrow from overseas.</para>
<para>Could you imagine if everyone who did an Ancestry DNA test was also able to be matched up to be a blood donor? People are so desperate to find out, 'Where did I come from? What's my heritage? What's my ancestry? Who am I?' We could extend that just a little bit more to say, 'This is who you are, and here's how you could help someone who has blood cancer.' It's actually not that difficult. The technology exists right now, and we pride ourselves here in Australia on setting the standard when it comes to health and innovative treatments against disease. It's unclear really why Australia has moved so slowly over the past 10 years and in particular compared to some of those other countries we've spoken about, and this seems to be in part because no single government has taken sole responsibility or there's no leading authority. Again, as has been pointed out, sometimes our federation does fail us in matters like this, and it seems to me we do need to have some sort of coordination point for this particular registry especially.</para>
<para>The Albanese government wants to ensure Australians have the best chance to access life-saving technology, and I'm pleased the Minister for Health and Aged Care will be holding discussions with health ministers from the states and territories to ensure we cut through the jurisdictional bureaucratic red tape. It really hasn't served people with blood cancers well, and we do need to move forward. I think everyone, whether they're from the opposition, the crossbench or the government in this House today, has recognised that there is an issue. We can't go on not being able to source enough bone marrow to give our own fellow Australians what they need to have the best chance they can at being well.</para>
<para>We understand the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry is still recovering from the impacts of the pandemic, and that was just an additional knock on top. In the three years prior to the pandemic Australian patient searches grew at an average of 4.7 per cent per annum, and Australian patient transplants grew at an average of two per cent per annum over the same period. The pandemic has caused major disruptions, but we do need to move forward. The number of completed transplants involving unrelated hematopoietic stem cell are down 10 per cent in 2021, compared to the year prior. Off the back of the global pandemic, it has never been more critical that we see collaboration from all levels of government to improve health outcomes and restore the progress of the Australian health system, and especially the bone marrow registry. I am pleased that Commonwealth, state and territory governments have committed to reducing Australia's dependency on overseas donors. This will achieve meaningful improvement. We understand that the Australian bone marrow cancer register has identified that our donor pool should contain three per cent of Australia's population of 18- to 35-year-olds. I have also noted that there has been a call to raise that to 40. I think everyone will agree, including my colleague from Macarthur, that 40 is certainly the new 35, especially when it comes to bone marrow!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hill</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Fifty is the new 40!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think 50 is the new 40! Thank you, member for Bruce, for that interjection. Increased recruitment can be delivered by the additional recruitment of non-blood donors with the easy-to-use cheek swab, as has been pointed out. I am pleased that the Albanese Government is delivering a million dollars from the cord blood export revenue account to increase bone marrow donor recruitment, and this will be delivered by the ABMDR. It's really important that we get this right, and I encourage you, please, to be a part of this bone marrow donation program.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>42</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022, Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="s1365" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6968" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r6944" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Assent</title>
            <page.no>42</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>42</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Agriculture Committee, Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>42</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that they have nominated members to be members of certain committees.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Ms Sharkie be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Mr Goodenough be appointed a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workforce Australia Employment Services Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>42</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Select Committee on Workforce Australia Employment Services, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Your future planning: </inline><inline font-style="italic">i</inline><inline font-style="italic">nterim report on ParentsNext</inline> together with the minutes of proceedings.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—This was a tough inquiry. Many times, over months, it felt like we could never find a way forward. ParentsNext is polarising, more so than any other aspect of employment services that the committee has so far grappled with. ParentsNext has been the subject of considerable controversy, including two parliamentary inquiries since 2018. Many Australians don't know about this program, yet there are nearly 100,000 parents forced onto this program right now. Ninety-seven per cent of them are women, and about 70 per cent are single parents.</para>
<para>Many people love ParentsNext. They think it's the best and most flexible program and want to keep it just as it is, and they outlined to the committee how it has helped them. Yet many others think it's something close to evil and that it must be scrapped, describing the compliance process as re-traumatising and akin to coercive control. With such strongly and genuinely held views it has proven uncommon, through the inquiry, for people to see the perspectives of others with different views, or even to engage in the middle. But the people that we met with, that we spoke with, that we sat with and heard from and learned with over many months, right around the country, were consistently inspiring—parents who loved and hated ParentsNext and everything in between, but also the workers who chose their often difficult and usually low paid jobs to support parents. Many of them had lived experience themselves as vulnerable single parents; hence they chose this work. We thank them for their, at times, raw honesty and vulnerability. I acknowledge the Deputy Chair and the member for Monash who is here today as well. Those conversations directly inform our report and will stay with all of us as we continue our work through the year.</para>
<para>The committee's conclusions are nuanced and its recommendations comprehensive. This report is genuine and thoughtfully made, faithful to the evidence and the result of a deep, shared reflection by all members of the committee, whichever side of the House they sit on. The Australian government, we concluded, has a responsibility to support and empower parents to achieve full social and economic participation. This is not merely a moral imperative but an economic priority.</para>
<para>ParentsNext, as it is today, grew out of earlier efforts started under the former Labor government to help young teenage parents and then highly disadvantaged single mums with positive net outcomes. The committee's conclusion is that the continuation of a program, or we say 'pre-vocational service', to support vulnerable parents is essential. ParentsNext, however, is now locked into such a punitive frame and does too much harm for the good it also does, with onerous participation requirements and a harsh compliance regime. So the committee is clear in our view that parents, usually though not always mothers, have a right to choose to actively parent their babies and very young children, and this right should not just be available to wealthy parents. Caring for young children is work which used to be valued more in its own right. A mandatory focus on preparing parents of very young children for future employment is a very patriarchal view of caring. It doesn't take into account the enormous diversity of the needs of children in different families. As everyone who has multiple kids knows, you have the perfect child and then you have the monster child. You may love them equally but they have completely different needs and take inordinately diverse amounts of time.</para>
<para>We therefore make 30 recommendations, including:</para>
<list>ParentsNext be abolished at the end of its current contracts and replaced with a supportive pre-vocational service developed via a co-design process and called Your Future Planning.</list>
<list>To allow sufficient time for a co-design process and not leave vulnerable parents without support, the current contracts be extended for the shortest time necessary.</list>
<list>In the interim, significant changes be made to ParentsNext to address the most serious concerns identified, predominantly in relation to the participation, reporting and compliance regimes and how Services Australia engages with people and providers.</list>
<para>The recommendations and the committee comments set out proposed draft design parameters to inform both a replacement service and more immediate interim changes to the current program that we are requesting, including that—and I'll just highlight a few of them; I'm not going to read all 30 recommendations—where funding is limited the government should prioritise a better quality service to fewer people rather than compromise on the key design principles. There should be much greater use of support and incentives to encourage voluntary participation, including possible cash payments and a new 'Skills Passport' which we proposed—a use it or lose it entitlement to provide extra support to vulnerable parents, usually single parents, to engage in education, training and skills. Onerous reporting rules should be scrapped for all participants. It's really important. Participation requirements should be radically reduced, as it is unreasonable to require parents caring for very young children to engage in a pre-employment program. Currently women with nine-month old babies are forced into this program and if they don't report every fortnight, or whatever is in their plan, they have their payments cut off or suspended. We don't think there is a public policy basis for that.</para>
<para>Compelling evidence was received though that if there are no participation requirements at all then many of the most vulnerable parents would not engage, particularly women suffering coercive control, family violence, many First Nations women, many in my electorate from different cultural backgrounds where leaving the home may not be encouraged. So to see these women not engage brings a very high risk of long-term unemployment and poverty later in life. I know the deputy chair has spoken passionately about his concern for the fast growing number of women over 45 experiencing long-term unemployment and homelessness. We propose, as draft principles, that participation be fully voluntary when a parent's youngest child is under three, with a face-to-face check-in by Services Australia required in the months after the youngest child turns two. It's bit of a safety net for that early screening. In the years between three and six years old, there will only be minimal requirements to attend periodic appointments and to meaningfully participate, which does not mean regular reporting on activities. There should be a more intensive targeted service for vulnerable teenaged and very young parents. There's a stronger public policy basis for an interventionist approach by the government, the states and society for children who, effectively, haven't finished year 12 and are having children.</para>
<para>The targeted compliance framework should be scrapped for all parent participants. Payment penalties, cancellations and full-payment suspension should be removed entirely, as parents should never be left with no money. We consider that a new mechanism is needed to underpin requirements, proposed to be a partial payment withholding, a holdback of a small percentage of the payment, which should not apply to family tax or other payments. Importantly, the holdback would be fully paid back once compliance requirements were achieved. That may be a concept that has application elsewhere in the social security system to remove the harshest full-payment suspensions that leave people with no money in the bank, not able to pay the data on their phone, not able to pay the rent and not able to buy food until they get a compliance issue fixed.</para>
<para>An important matter of principle for the committee—again, it will have not only cost implications but also be a red line, if you like—is that decisions impacting a participant's income support payment should only be made by a government official, not by a staff member of a provider agency, and should not be automated via an IT system. Government, we also believe, should seriously consider reducing the competition between providers in a replacement service and explore having a public sector agency—probably Services Australia, not the department for employment—deliver the service in at least a few employment regions. That doesn't have to be from government officers; it might be from staff outposted to local community and family centres, where some of the really good services seem to operate.</para>
<para>We also believe that skills and competency standards to reprofessionalise the sector should be introduced in the replacement service in a sensible, realistic way—one that values lived experience. Over 20 years, not only the employment services sector but also this part of it has been deprofessionalised. Well under half of consultants have post-school qualifications, and, frankly, they are largely low paid and female dominated. So we think there's a case to reprofessionalise over time.</para>
<para>ParentsNext, in our view, is not as bad as many say it is but not as great as others claim it to be. We set out the draft design principles as a result, as I said, of deep reflection and thought. The committee encourages those who may be involved in the co-design process in designing a replacement service to accept the values and key design principles that we've outlined in this report; to respect the wisdom and the positive intentions of the incredibly diverse range of stakeholders who will be involved with the service; and not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.</para>
<para>The committee also thanks the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia for their constructive engagement with the inquiry. I acknowledge the member for Parramatta, who is here, who was a member of the inquiry and who will continue with us through the rest of the year in looking at the broader employment services system; the member for Mayo; and the other members of the committee. We urge the government to carefully consider the report and to act on the committee's recommendations. These include the release of a transition plan by July 2023 that outlines changes which can be made immediately and in the short term—things which would have to wait for a replacement service; the time line for the co-design process; and the minimum time required and necessary for contract extensions.</para>
<para>In closing, I particularly thank the deputy chair; he and I travelled the country for this inquiry. I can say proudly that there has not been a shred of partisanship in this inquiry or, indeed, in this report—there's not a shred in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>. Partisanship is not how we approached it. I thank all my colleagues on the committee for their engagement and for their collegial approach to the inquiry.</para>
<para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House take note of the report.</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROAD</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
    <electorate>Monash</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>BENT () (): by leave—You've seen both presentations from the member for Bruce on the excellence of this report. It would be remiss of me if I didn't acknowledge the work that the member for Bruce has done. I honour him not only for the way that it has been presented but also for the way he has conducted the inquiry from start to finish. He has been exemplary in his work, and that is outlined here in this report. With all due respect to all of us, the other members of the committee, it is the member for Bruce who has really carried the heavy load on this.</para>
<para>In saying that, it is not only our participation with the broad range of people across this great south land from city to city, country town to country town, but also the amazing people in our Australian community who are not only participants in this program but also the service deliverers. I have to call some of them angels who have made real differences in people's lives. We like to think that in this House we make a difference, but I tell you there are people all over this country making a difference in the broader community, in Indigenous communities and in regional towns all the way from Perth to Parramatta. It's just marvellous to have participated with those people. I send a shout-out to them now. I know there would be a lot interested in what we have to say in this report. We do appreciate you, we know what you do and we thank you for everything that you do.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to the member for Monash for the contribution and those comments. I move: That the House take note of the report.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>44</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>44</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6965" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>44</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Constitutional referenda are governed by section 128 of the Australian Constitution and by the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 will prepare and update the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 ahead of a referendum on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, expected during this term of parliament. However, as it is currently presented, the bill would suspend the provisions of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 that require the production and distribution of a 'yes' and 'no' case against a proposed constitutional change. In its current form, the Liberal-National Party will be opposing the bill for this reason and because of other outstanding issues relating to the conduct of referenda that the government must address. We note that the government continues to discuss the coalition concerns with the bill and thank the minister for this engagement. We would encourage the minister and the government to consider the reasonable changes that the coalition has put forward to ensure a referendum with informed voters and processes is a referendum with integrity and trust.</para>
<para>The process for amending the Constitution is as important as the amendment to the Constitution. We should not diverge from past practice where it would create uncertainty. We should take all measures available to us to ensure that the process is robust and that voters have as much information as possible about the choice they are being asked to make.</para>
<para>We do support the modernisation of the act insofar as it updates regulations of donations and expenditure for referendum campaigns and imposes reporting obligations. It would also ban foreign donations of $100 or more from being used for referendum campaigns and bans foreign campaigners authorising referendum material, which is a good measure introduced by the coalition to govern federal elections and should apply to referenda on changing our Constitution. These updates bring the act into line with the current Commonwealth Electoral Act and are found in schedules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.</para>
<para>The bill makes these changes in preparation for the referendum on an Indigenous voice to parliament, and will apply these proposed changes to the conduct of that referendum. The bill also contains schedules that provide legislative modernisations to the language of the act in schedules 7 and 8. However, the coalition has significant concerns about the questions that remain unanswered by the bill as it is currently drafted. We're concerned that the government presented a bill in its first iteration that included changes that depart from normal practice. Firstly, the bill removes the requirement to provide a pamphlet outlining the 'yes' and 'no' arguments to all households. The government has stated that the purpose of removing this provision relates to the modernisation of the referendum process for a digital age, and that the requirement was more suited to referenda conducted before the internet. Other arguments have included the desire not to publish a significant amount of printed material that will not be read and end up in landfill. However, the AEC has, through the committee process, confirmed that it does and will continue to provide printed material to households at federal elections and as part of the referendum. Since the introduction of the referendum pamphlet in 1912, there have been three occasions where a pamphlet has not been provided, but a pamphlet has been distributed in every referendum since 1928.</para>
<para>There have been three referenda, as I said, without an official pamphlet: 1919, 1926 and 1928. In 1919, there was insufficient time to produce a pamphlet prior to the conduct of the referendum. In 1926, there was no agreement on how to argue or produce the 'yes' argument. And in 1928, there was overwhelming agreement between parties and governments at all levels. In evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the AEC provided evidence that a pamphlet to all households would be expected to cost approximately $10 million, and the AEC has noted that around 40 per cent of Australians rely on the printed material that the commission provides to households in conducting their vote at an election. We welcome the government's announcement that they will be making amendments to the bill to reinstate the provision. However, without amendments presented by the government we will reserve our position to consider how this is to be done.</para>
<para>Secondly, Labor has not made provision for an official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisation to be established. This is of concern in relation to the implementation of modern electoral regulations on donations and foreign interference. The regulatory auditing process to administer these regulatory schemes would be assisted by having official campaigns to provide a starting point for enforcement and education by the AEC. As provided in evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, both the Department of Finance, which is responsible for electoral policy, and the AEC stated that they were unaware of any organisations that have been established to campaign for or against the referendum. This is in contrast to the public coverage of a number of bodies which are promoting themselves as referendum campaign bodies, such as From the Heart or Reconciliation Australia. In the same evidence, the joint standing committee heard that there is a potential for organisations and individuals who are unaware of their current or previous activities relating to the Voice to be captured by the proposed regulatory schemes.</para>
<para>Under the government's model we would see a free-for-all of participants who will be captured by the donations and disclosure regime at the referendum. As the AEC has stated in evidence, donations and disclosure regimes remain one of the most complex areas in the Electoral Act. It's complex enough that even regular participants—political parties that are active at every election—still get it wrong. What is worse, we will see the regulatory regime applied to a one-off electoral event and we will only find out the extent of the success of this regime after the event. As the AEC has said, to educate the number of participants on their responsibilities and obligations will be a significant body of work. An official campaign structure will, at the very least, provide a starting point for the AEC's efforts in coordinating education on the responsibilities of organisations and individuals participating in the referendum campaign—as well as providing a head start on the integrity measures Australians should expect from a properly conducted electoral event.</para>
<para>Finally, the government has stated that it does not intend to provide support to any campaign to adhere to the new regulations and requirements of participants at the referendum—in particular, to official 'yes' or 'no' campaign organisations. This is disappointing. It's clear that, if we're to have a strong process for the referendum, we should be ensuring there is a structure in place for those processes and regulatory bodies to start their work. In doing so, we should fund official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations to ensure that they can adhere to the laws we're about to pass. It remains the position of the coalition that there will be a requirement that, if any funding is provided to either case, an equal amount should be provided to the opposite case.</para>
<para>The bill represents a significant update to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. The parliament should consider the fact that these changes reflect how we go about changing our national document not only today but also in the future. The decisions on this bill will set the precedent for others. It's the view of the opposition that we should remain consistent with past practice, and we'll be opposing the bill until the government addresses these issues.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill advances the government's commitment to hold a referendum to enshrine the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Australian Constitution, the Voice that will advise the parliament and the executive about matters that affect First Nations people. The Prime Minister has said the referendum will be held sometime between October and December, so there is a pressing need for us to modernise the legislation that governs how this referendum will be held.</para>
<para>Referendums are an important part of our democracy. The Constitution is the rulebook that governs our nation, yet there is no recognition in our founding document of this country's first peoples of more than 65,000 years of continuous connection to the land. The Constitution is the people's document. Politicians can't change it. Parliaments can't change it. Only the Australian people can change the Constitution, and it is my deepest wish that later this year Australians will vote 'yes' for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians through the Voice.</para>
<para>Twenty-four years have passed since the last referendum, and since that time the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 has not kept pace with changes in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The bill will make amendments to replicate current electoral machinery provisions into the referendum context and ensure the voting process and experience is similar to that of a federal election. The bill will also ensure that integrity and transparency measures that currently apply to federal elections apply to the Voice referendum.</para>
<para>This bill also seeks to establish a financial disclosure framework for referendums to support transparency and accountability, as I have said. The accountability that I'm referring to is about expenditure. This bill replicates financial disclosure obligations in the Electoral Act, requiring those involved in referendum campaigning, referred to as 'referendum entities', to disclose how much they spend and receive on campaigning.</para>
<para>With respect to the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet, amendments will be moved on this in the Senate, and I make that point very loudly. We are making a significant concession on this issue by agreeing to have both 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets, and we hope the opposition sees this and meets us halfway to support this legislation.</para>
<para>I want to briefly talk about what the Voice is. Put simply, the Voice is an advisory body that will consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people about the matters that affect us. The Voice means delivering better practical outcomes in health, education and housing. The Voice is part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the largest consensus of Indigenous Australians on the way forward for this country. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create lasting change. As the Prime Minister has said, the Voice will be an unflinching source of advice and accountability, a body with the perspective and the power and the platform to tell the government and the parliament the truth about what's working and what is not.</para>
<para>The Referendum Working Group has released design principles for the Voice. Those principles identify the Voice as a body that provides independent advice to the parliament and the government. It is chosen by First Nations people based on the wishes of local communities. It is representatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It is empowering, community led, inclusive, respectful, culturally informed and gender balanced and includes young people. It is accountable and transparent. It works alongside existing organisations and traditional structures. The Voice would not have a program delivery function, and the Voice would not have a veto power.</para>
<para>The next critical question is why the Voice is needed. Despite inhabiting this land for more than 65,000 years we have no place in the Constitution. It's like we never existed. For too long, policies were designed for Indigenous Australians, not with Indigenous Australians. To borrow a line from the Uluru statement, in 1967 we were counted; in 2017 we wish to be heard. We can't accept more of the same poor outcomes and more of the same gaps in life expectancy. That is why a voice to parliament is needed, because the Voice to Parliament will mean governments of all persuasions will need to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on the issues that affect us. Respect works. Recognition works. When a government listens to people with experience and with knowledge of country and culture then the policies and the programs are always more effective.</para>
<para>This brings me to the next question: why does the Voice matter to all Australians? I believe everyone wants to make Australia a better place, whether your descendants came here on the First Fleet or your family arrived here during postwar migration. It doesn't matter if you live in the suburbs or the bush. We all want to make Australia a better place. We all want to see Australia move forward for everyone, and constitutional recognition through a voice will do that. Australians are proud of the unique place Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people hold in our shared history and, importantly, our shared future. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build lasting change. It's on all of us present to commit to work hard. This needs to be done. Let's get this done together.</para>
<para>I want to speak briefly about the <inline font-style="italic">60 Minutes</inline> report last night on Aboriginal deaths in custody: 527 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have died in custody since the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It is a national tragedy. The footage of Veronica Nelson dying alone in pain was harrowing. Veronica made 49 pleas for help, and they were all ignored by the authorities. My heart goes out to Veronica's mother, Donna Nelson, and her family and loved ones.</para>
<para>Too many of our people are being robbed of their futures by a justice system that has failed them. I am working with the Attorney-General and Senator Dodson to implement the government's $99 million First Nations justice initiative. This means working with local communities to prevent First Nations people from entering the justice system. As Senator Dodson said to me this morning, the best way to prevent deaths in custody is to make sure our people aren't ending up in prison in the first place, and that is why justice reinvestment is so important.</para>
<para>Our justice reinvestment policy will enable up to 30 communities to establish locally tailored initiatives that address the underlying causes of incarceration and deaths in custody. Existing community-led justice investment models such as those in Bourke have proven successful in reducing incarceration and reoffending by providing targeted supports and services into their communities. To support these efforts, Labor will also establish an independent National Justice Reinvestment Unit as recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission, and this unit will assist communities to develop and evaluate justice reinvestment initiatives in ensuring valuable lessons can be learned and shared across this country.</para>
<para>I want to conclude by quoting Galarrwuy Yunupingu from North-East Arnhem Land. He said, 'Together we must secure a future for Australia in which we can find harmony and balance for all people of this nation.' Galarrwuy has worked with no fewer than 10 prime ministers of Australia on the struggle for recognition, and has lived through many disappointments and broken promises. 'I am fire,' he said, 'and that fire must burn until there is nothing left.' The 1988 Barunga Statement still hangs upstairs in this place. Galarrwuy has been crystal clear:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We need to obtain balance in a new settlement. Indigenous Australians must be brought in from the cold.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To obtain balance, we must ensure that every Australian has the opportunity to involve themselves in the discussion. All Australians must think about their future.</para></quote>
<para>Galarrwuy has despaired at the big talkers and the noise in the past, and I can only imagine that he must be doing so again now. If Galarrwuy were in this place, he would remind us that the future is our responsibility. All who are here today would be asked for their leadership on reconciliation, recognition and the referendum. Let's take Australia forward for everyone.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 amends the referendum machinery to align with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I'm generally satisfied that the tidying up and modernising aspects of this bill are necessary and appropriate, and I agree with them. There are, however, three aspects of the bill about which I have serious concerns.</para>
<para>Firstly, they relate to the provisions relating to financial disclosure and how these will interact with the current JSCEM inquiry into disclosure thresholds and real-time disclosure of political donations generally, in relation to both federal elections and federal referenda. If we know that system is broken, why repeat it for the referendum? Secondly, I'm concerned about the government's suspension of subsection 11(4) and the lack of detail on its recently reported about face on a pamphlet for a yes and no campaign, when such pamphlets will be distributed and what fact checking will be required in relation to the content of those pamphlets. Thirdly, I wonder why this bill does not address truth in political advertising and referenda advertising—particularly the issues set out in my Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill 2022. So I am surprised that this bill includes matters relating to financial disclosure, which are currently the subject of the JSCEM inquiry into the 2022 election. The JSCEM inquiry is, amongst other things, tasked with considering reforms to political donation laws, particularly the applicability of real-time disclosure and a reduction of the disclosure threshold to a fixed $1,000. I agree with Dr Paul Kildea from the University of New South Wales that the bill's regulation of referendum donations and spending is well overdue but, in replicating the political finance provisions of the Electoral Act, this bill and these amendments are adopting the problems of a high disclosure threshold and not requiring real-time disclosure, so we know there is a problem. In one of the most significant questions we're going to put to the Australian people, we are embedding and replicating the very problems we know mar our election process.</para>
<para>On the subject of the suspension of section 11(4), the minister claims that, instead of issuing pamphlets or funding a 'yes' or 'no' campaign, the government will fund civics education in relation to the upcoming referendum on the voice, including providing voters with a good understanding of Australia's Constitution, the referendum process and factual information about the referendum proposal. There is no detail given as to what this will entail or when it will be implemented. I note that on the 8 February this year the finance minister confirmed that existing laws requiring a pamphlet for both sides would be maintained. Despite this, the explanatory memorandum states that temporary suspension of 11(4) will ensure that there is more than one way to communicate with electors before a referendum, and it allows parliamentarians to choose how and when to engage with their relevant constituency.</para>
<para>The intent of the government was to offload engagement with constituents to individual parliamentarians and the private sector to navigate the maelstrom. This was and is particularly concerning for independent members of parliament in particular, whose resources are already stretched very thin. I call on the minister to give more detail about the timing of the issuing of these 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets, and the extent to which it is now intended that individual parliamentarians would bear the burden of disseminating the government's civics education as well as delivering the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets. It does beg the broader question of how much our education system is failing in civics education when it comes to Australian people understanding the Australian Constitution and the role of a referendum. It just shows that we still have a low level of constitutional literacy and understanding of our systems of government and how they work.</para>
<para>What we do know about is the lack of regulation around misleading and deceptive conduct not only in political elections but also in referenda erodes trust. It means that you have a standard that is below the standard the Australian people expect. In business and commerce, we have regulation. But for these questions of elections and referendums, where we are really debating and where the Australian people are being asked to vote on incredibly important questions, there are no protections; it is a free for all. There is an opportunity before the government to ensure that there that fact checking, and it really should happen.</para>
<para>Prior to Christmas I tabled the bill known as the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill 2022. Various iterations of this have been debated for years. We know this is needed. This is overwhelmingly supported by conservative and progressive voters, left and right alike. They feel cheated by the system and that there is no regulation around political advertising. The bill that I presented had been drafted deliberately to extend to both elections and referenda. The stop the lies bill must be considered in scheduling the order of these bills, so that the very important issue of truth in political advertising is addressed before the consideration of the government's bill.</para>
<para>The terms of reference for the JSCEM inquiry into the 2022 election include the consideration of the potential for truth in political advertising laws to enhance the integrity and transparency of the electoral system. I note that the JSCEM advisory report on this bill, delivered only some weeks ago, declined to recommend establishing a truth in political advertising regime, saying that the forthcoming referendum is not the right time, given that the JSCEM inquiry into the 2022 election has not yet published its report. We know there is a problem. We are about to ask the Australian people to respond to one of the most essential questions, our next step in our reconciliation journey. This will have a mark on Australia for years to come. The government knows it needs to protect truth and is failing to do that. It is nonsensical.</para>
<para>The government is intent on pressing ahead with this bill before the outcome of the JSCEM inquiry into the 2022 election, and it really has not delivered any information on how it is going to ensure that there is no misleading and deceptive content in either the 'yes' or 'no' pamphlets but also at large in the debate. If this isn't the right time on a question of such importance that we're putting to the Australia people, when will be? The proposed referendum is already generating a substantial amount of energetic debate, and divisions are appearing which are not only following political party lines but also occurring within and outside political parties. It's important that we have open public discussion. That is an incredibly important thing as part of a democracy. But there is clearly potential out there for passion to override moderation and for false and misleading statements to be made. We know there has really been that in relation to the referendum. Legislation like the stop the lies bill is needed more than ever, and it's needed now. We really need to address this.</para>
<para>Australians know they face an incredibly important question this year, one that is long overdue. We can't undo the past, but we certainly can all take responsibility for the future we want to create for Australia. What do we stand for as a nation? For my part and for many in Warringah, I know we have a deep-seated desire to ensure that there is constitutional recognition for First Nations people, that we must do better in closing the gap, that what we have done for so many years has failed to close the gap. We must address the simple question of better listening to communities and ensuring that, when policies are going to directly impact First Nations people, their advice is sought and they are listened to, with an understanding of the impact those policies will have.</para>
<para>So I welcome this bill to amend the referendum provisions. There's no doubt that the bill as it is currently drafted is for another century, another era, and it needs to be updated. But there are some key areas that really haven't been addressed by the government. For me, that's sloppy. At the end of the day, we don't want to be looking back, after the debate on the referendum, and saying: 'This debate has been marred by so much misleading and deceptive content. If only we had done something about fact checking, stopping false claims being made as to the effect of the amendment that's proposed to the Constitution. If only we had done that.' I call on the government to really do that at this point. It's important that we protect this process. We mustn't have an erosion of trust in the referendum. It really is so important that we get this right. It means you have to tick all the boxes, not just some or the easier one or the more obvious ones.</para>
<para>The process has started in Warringah. I have already distributed information about how referendums work, information about the draft motion and the draft proposed amendments to the Constitution. And people are incredibly keen to understand and engage with this debate. They want to listen to experts. They want to listen to First Nations people. That's why it's so exciting that there's going to be a forum in Warringah, coming up in April, with Dean Parkin—so we can really talk about the importance of this decision for all Australians. This is not just a responsibility for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. This is a responsibility for all Australians. We all have a responsibility for what kind of nation we want to be. Do we want to take that next step of reconciliation?</para>
<para>So I urge the government to go all the way, to make sure we have a fair and respectful debate and to make sure that we stamp out misleading and deceptive facts so that we can be proud of this referendum's process and proud of its outcome.</para>
<para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1)in relation to any referendum, communicate timelines for the distribution of any yes and no pamphlets; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2)ensure that there is an independent process of verifying the accuracy of the facts contained within said pamphlets".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Daniel</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is important that I start today by acknowledging the traditional owners and original custodians of the First Nations land upon which we meet. I pay my respects to our elders who have come before, our elders with us today and our elders who are emerging to become the leaders of tomorrow. Further, I believe it is important to recognise that the land upon which we all work—the land upon which we all love, learn and live—always was and always will be the land of our First Nations brothers and sisters. As a proud Wiradjuri man, the son of a caring and compassionate Wiradjuri father and a strong, independent Wiradjuri grandmother, living on the lands of the original custodians on the New South Wales Central Coast, and speaking today in the home of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri, I acknowledge this land.</para>
<para>That's because for 65,000 years, our culture has been one of love, openness and respect. For 65,000 years, our communities have had, and still have, a strong, deep, continuous connection to land and to culture. For 65,000 years, we have been a part of this land. And now it is time that our people have their voice. An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament will achieve practical outcomes for First Nations communities. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to recognise our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters in our Constitution and to ensure the Australian community is truly a place of equity, a place of equality and a place for all. As a Wiradjuri man living on Darkinjung country, I think that a Voice to Parliament is essential. It will ensure that we, as a united country, address the injustices of the past and create meaningful, structural change to deliver a better future. This is our best chance to come together as one, and to rise as one and to move into the future as one. As a nation, we need practical measures that will address the issues affecting First Nations communities, and this is what the Voice will do. It will give local people and local communities a say in the areas that directly affect them. Importantly, this is an opportunity to recognise our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters in our nation's birth certificate: in our Constitution. Comprised of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the Voice will be an advisory body that will have the capacity to make representations to government on issues and legislation that will affect First Nations communities.</para>
<para>The idea is that we have policy tailored to meet the needs of First Nations people. While there have been several First Nations MPs and First Nations senators elected to the Australian parliament at the recent election, this may change in the future. The Voice will ensure there is a First Nations voice into that future. Furthermore, every person in the country has different circumstances and life experiences, and this is also true within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Thus it is important to have input from different parts of First Nations communities about the laws that will affect them. It will be in fact not just one voice; it will be the voice of many and the voice of many coming together as one. Moreover, this is not another chamber of government. It does not have the power to veto; it will be a body providing advice to those creating legislation.</para>
<para>Some of the issues affecting First Nations people are not improving; the gap is widening. If we continue down the same path we will continue to get more of the same. We need to come together as one community to improve and strengthen quality of life, health and education outcomes for our First Nations communities. The opposition have a chance to show leadership. They have a chance to give in-principle support to the Voice. And it would appear that the opposition is saying no just for the sake of saying no. In this significant, nation-defining opportunity, will the opposition listen to the voices of First Nations people—of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—who are, at the end of the day, only asking for a say in the matters that affect their communities? Or will the opposition stoke the fires of disunity and division, and advocate for poor outcomes, unfulfilled potential and widening gaps in health and education?</para>
<para>The Voice to Parliament is not merely a symbolic gesture. It is constitutional recognition. It is an advisory body made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who will give advice to government on issues that affect their communities—that will affect their lives. This is an opportunity and a time for unity.</para>
<para>In 2022, the government introduced the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, and that bill will make amendments to replicate current electoral machinery provisions in the referendum context to ensure consistency between the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. This will ensure the voting process and experience of the referendum remains similar to that of a federal election, as well as implementing similar disclosure, transparency and integrity measures. The bill does not provide for any public funding of a 'yes' or of a 'no' campaign. The government does not intend to provide funding for these campaigns. The referendum act has not been used since 1999 and has not kept pace with the efficiency, transparency and integrity reforms in our electoral processes. This bill amends the referendum act to replicate current electoral machinery provisions in the referendum context. This will ensure a voter experience that is consistent with the 2022 federal election. When passed, this bill will modernise and streamline the referendum act to support voter familiarity and voter confidence in the process, as well as enabling the successful delivery of the referendum by the Australian Electoral Commission.</para>
<para>This bill establishes a simplified donations and disclosure regime for referendums aligned with the existing disclosure thresholds in the Electoral Act. This ensures transparency, and this will ensure accountability regarding those actors who seek to influence the outcome of the referendum. The bill will achieve the transparency that Australians expect in voting campaigns while minimising the regulatory burden on referendum campaigners. This does not prevent any Australian individual or entity from making donations or participating in the referendum campaign itself.</para>
<para>Many Australians have never voted in a referendum. I am one of those people; I myself have never voted in a referendum. Some may not know much about the Constitution and they may not know how we go about changing it. It's critical that the government provide factual and authoritative information about the referendum to combat misinformation and disinformation. The bill will temporarily suspend subsection 11(4) in the referendum act, which would otherwise prohibit the government from conducting campaigns that promote public awareness of a referendum proposal. This suspension creates no obligation for government to fund any 'yes' or 'no' campaigns, and the bill does not provide for any such funding. The suspension will last until the end of polling day at the next general election, which means the future parliaments may consider this issue as appropriate for future referendums.</para>
<para>Key measures within this bill have been developed in consultation with First Nations leaders via a Referendum Working Group. The Referendum Working Group includes a broad cross-section of representatives from First Nations communities across Australia and is chaired by the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the Special Envoy for Reconciliation and Implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.</para>
<para>I say again to this chamber, to all those in the gallery today and to all those listening at home: the Voice to Parliament is not simply and merely a symbolic gesture. It is constitutional recognition. It is an advisory body made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who will give advice to government on the issues that affect their communities—on the issues that affect their very lives. This is an opportunity, and this is a time for unity.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If not us, who? If not now, when? That was the simple challenge I put to the Goldstein community during the election campaign. It applied to revamping climate policy, it applied to revaluing women and girls, it applied to restoring trust in leadership, and it applies to the once-in-a-generation opportunity that is now before us. That's because the Voice is a simple proposition—a simple and generous invitation—but, if we do not accept it now, then when? As Abraham Lincoln so eloquently put it at a time when the United States faced one of its greatest challenges: we must now be touched by 'the better angels of our nature'.</para>
<para>The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 sounds pretty darn dull, but actually it's superexciting. It's about the truth—acknowledging the truth that First Nations people were the original custodians of this continent. It begins a process that will allow us to recognise First Nations people in our Constitution and then give First Nations people a say in the formulation of the policies and laws that affect them. It's as simple as that.</para>
<para>As the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister said in the second reading speech on the bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Referendums are an integral part of our democracy; however, the last referendum was held over 22 years ago.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Since that time, the … referendum act … has not kept pace with changes to the … Electoral Act …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill makes amendments to replicate current electoral machinery provisions into the referendum context to ensure the voting process and experience is similar to that of a federal election.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill also ensures that integrity and transparency measures that currently apply to federal elections will apply to referendums.</para></quote>
<para>These changes are important, but in my view they should be coupled with truth in political advertising laws under the member for Warringah's 'Stop the Lies' bill. Already in the initial stages of this debate we've seen information manipulated and deliberate omission of information during the political discourse. If disinformation is translated into political advertising and set loose via social media algorithms that favour false and negative information, it will spread like wildfire. Democratic processes should be free, fair and trusted, and that means stopping the lies that we see repeatedly during electoral periods. This is even more important in the context of a once-in-a-generation referendum that rests on the framework of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and its three pillars: Voice. Treaty. Truth.</para>
<para>In short, from where I stand, the referendum is about three principles: respect, recognition, results—practicable, tangible results to close the gap for First Nations communities. This is a gap that, by listening to and hearing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, I do believe we can begin to bridge through firsthand advice to parliament from First Nations people through the Voice. And I would say here that the Voice, when it's passed at the referendum, must make sure that those First Nations people who've had little connection with the process to date do indeed have a voice, a seat at the table. It should be built from the ground up, rather than from the top down, as the most prominent advocates have noted. That has been one of the biggest problems in the policies and programs for First Nations peoples to date.</para>
<para>I would make this point here, as we work to modernise this legislation to make it fit for purpose: the Voice is not flippant or kneejerk. This referendum is the culmination of 20 years of patient effort by our First Nations citizens—20 years. Indeed I was struck when reading an article about various efforts to give Indigenous Australians representation that the first Indigenous advisory body, the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee, was announced by the Whitlam government in the year of my birth, 1972. Much as I hate to admit it, that's more than 50 years ago. Then there was the Fraser government's National Aboriginal Conference from 1977 and Hawke's ATSIC from 1990.</para>
<para>A key aim of this referendum is to enshrine the Voice in the Constitution so it's not subject to the ebbs and flows of party politics. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was first read out in 2017. That's six years ago that an invitation was issued. Our First Nations people have been patient in their advocacy, telling us that all the above models designed to improve their situation failed in part because they were designed from the top down, rather than the bottom up. That's why their direct Voice to parliamentarians like us is so important. The government says the referendum is a matter of principle—true, but it's about more than that. It's about practical results: how best to close the gap and spend time, money and effort in a practical way by listening and then taking practical actions. As a parliamentarian I say this firsthand advice will be invaluable.</para>
<para>It was a Liberal Prime Minister, Harold Holt, who initiated the landmark 1967 referendum of which we're all so proud. In principle the Holt Liberal-Country party government was asking voters whether to give the Commonwealth the power to make special laws for Indigenous Australians in states and whether to include all Indigenous Australians when counting the nation's population. The referendum question actually read:</para>
<quote><para class="block">DO YOU APPROVE the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">'An Act to alter the Constitution so as to omit certain words relating to the People of the Aboriginal Race in any State and so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the Population'—</para></quote>
<para>not about what might follow the success of the referendum, not what laws might be enacted, not what policies might be adopted; simply the principle. Harold Holt didn't have to put up with the misinformation and disinformation that are already emerging around this referendum, and that's one of the reasons it was carried with a record majority of over 90 per cent, even though a second proposition in that referendum was defeated. Voters were able to make a distinction between what they wanted and what they did not, because decision makers and opinion leaders were united on the initial proposition but not the second. One little-mentioned and likely unintended effect of that referendum is that it took all reference to Indigenous Australians out of the Constitution—60,000 years of history and custodianship of this land, and not even mentioned. Here we have a once-in-a-generation chance for a next step.</para>
<para>Referendums are about principles. Parliaments are about laws. I have had discussions with some who oppose the Voice. I hear the concern about entrenching failed structures and about the need for female leaders to be a key part the Voice and indeed for a diversity of opinions and positions from Indigenous people who may not always be heard. We must be very careful when we reach the time for legislating to ensure these issues are considered and properly incorporated. The voices of those who are articulating valid concerns should be listened to as the process moves forward, but the principle stands.</para>
<para>In the marriage equality survey of 2017 the Goldstein community voted in favour with 76.3 per cent, well above the national average of 61.6 per cent. Based on the feedback I've received so far I believe the Goldstein community likely has a similar view on the Voice and this referendum. I campaigned on equality during the election campaign, and I know this resonated deeply with women in the Goldstein community and young people. The marriage equality ballot of 2017 saw an upsurge in enrolments from young people. They saw in that result that democracy works and their participation matters. It is one of the reasons, I believe, that young people flocked to the polls in record numbers last year. We need their confidence to ensure the enduring quality of our democracy, and for young people this referendum is another watershed.</para>
<para>For them, for the kids I talked to in and around Goldstein, what this referendum is seeking is a given. It not a contested space. As my 16-year-old son puts it: 'Mum, the voice is a huge opportunity for Australia to come together and begin a more formal road to reconciliation. It'll bring the nation closer than it ever has been before, improving the lives of Australia's First Nations people.' The kids are alright. He doesn't want to go down the wormhole of mis- and disinformation, distraction and distortion.</para>
<para>Infinite regress is a typical tactic of those who don't want to address the substance of an issue. It is simply to distort and confuse. It's one of the reasons why it's urgent that this parliament debate the member for Warringah's bill to stop the lies in political advertising, as she puts it in her proposed private member's bill. Also, now that the government has agreed to publish 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets, how will they be fact-checked? What measures are in place to prevent the material in the pamphlets being skewed and manipulated, especially online? It is critical that we see a fair process for what I honestly hope and believe will be a fair result. In the words of the legendary Archie Roach: it's time to write a new story, to accept an invitation from Indigenous Australians for respect, recognition, and results. If not us, who? If not now, when?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to start by thanking the Attorney-General for his diligent work on this legislation. It is a brilliant piece of reform that will bring our referendum machinery into the modern era. The last time the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act was updated was in 1984. In 1984, Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister, Western Australia abolished capital punishment, the first untethered spacewalk occurred and 'Original Sin', by INXS, was the No. 1 Australian single.</para>
<para>The world was a very different place 39 years ago. Social media didn't exist, computers could barely fit on a desk and modern forms of communication were but a dream. The notion that we run a 21st-century referendum based on archaic laws is absurd, and so I rise today to speak strongly support of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill 2022. Whether or not you support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, this legislation is crucial. At the end of the day, the job the Australian people send us here to do is to make laws. If you're a Labor government, you make good laws. And so this is exactly what we're doing. Elections, referenda and the machinery that governs them are the beating heart of our democracy. A referendum is the voice of the Australian people, speaking and directing their government down a path. Whether an election runs well is a difference between legitimacy and illegitimacy. We have seen the division a contested election can cause in communities in the United States. Australia must never head down that path, which is why the machinery that governs our upcoming referendum is so vital.</para>
<para>Labor has a proud history of electoral reform. It was Hawke who introduced disclosure thresholds for political donations. Our Special Minister of State has also flagged truth in political advertising is a particular area focus. One of the key measures of this bill is an education campaign for all Australians. Any Australian under the age of 40 will never have voted in a referendum campaign before. Now must be the moment in which we educate people on the importance of our Constitution. We must also educate people on what it means to amend our Constitution. If we want people to make an informed decision on what it is they're voting on, we must invest in their knowledge and their capability to do so. This is a monumental moment for our country, a chance to reshape our interactions with First Nations people. Yet, if we do not also grasp the opportunity to inform the Australian public on what it means to recognise our First Nations people in the Constitution, we will have missed a great opportunity.</para>
<para>The previous government, through their advertising efforts in their COVID-19 messaging, undertook an ambitious public education campaign. To do this, the government used mechanisms that people regularly use and can easily understand—TV, social media, radio and the internet. This is not a foreign concept or one without precedent. I sincerely hope that the opposition agrees with us here. We know that the way people interact with information is different in the modern era. Most people get their news and information online or on their devices. We all know that here we spend half of our lives staring at our phones. It is critical that we meet people where they are and that, as a government, we modernise the way we interact with people. That is at the heart of this legislation.</para>
<para>What is also essential in this legislation is how it aims to bring referenda voting closer to resembling a federal election. This means including provisions for postal voting, something we know is really important for people who may not be able to attend in person, for people with mobility issues and for the elderly. Our federal elections run well. We definitely have issues in my electorate of Lingiari around the vast logistical challenges of remote polling. In Lingiari, as you can imagine, there are about 195 remote polling booths in that electorate alone, which is something the AEC will need to be conscious of for this referendum.</para>
<para>All in all, our elections run to a high standard. Why should we not aim to emulate this in the upcoming referendum? This is particularly important for postal and prepoll voting, which we all know enhances participation in our democracy. Nowhere is this more important than in Lingiari, with a vast electorate, complex logistical efforts for remote polling and a deeply invested community. This referendum needs to run well. For regional Australia and, indeed, all of Australia, this legislation is vital.</para>
<para>I've made no secret that I am a major supporter of the Voice. If you look at the Uluru Statement from the Heart, you will see my signature. For 65,000 years our people have occupied this land. Surely it is time. We deserve a voice to this parliament; surely we deserve recognition in our country's Constitution. How else can this country move forward? Until we look back on our history, how can we ever look with hope to our future?</para>
<para>I was there when the largest gathering of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership was at Uluru. Now some people seek to undermine that meeting. I think that is cheap and disrespectful. This parliament consists of around 227 members. There were 250 First Nations leaders present at Uluru. Does that not validate the importance of that meeting? This parliament speaks with the authority of the Australian people, and at Uluru the leaders of our First Nations communities also spoke with authority. The Voice may be a new term for many people out bush and, certainly, a lot of people across the bush electorates that I have consulted. I'll be making sure that we work hard to ensure that people in remote communities, particularly in Lingiari, understand what we are embarking on. But what is well understood is that Aboriginal people need to have input into policies that affect them. If you ask people, like I have, from Warlpiri to Tiwi to Anmatjere to Yolngu, 'Should your communities be consulted on policies that affect you?' The answer I am hearing overwhelmingly is yes. Our people want better outcomes on health, on education, on housing—right across the board. How are we to get these outcomes if our mob are not included or keep being excluded in the discussion?</para>
<para>As it stands, our Constitution, our nation's founding document, is incomplete. It does not tell the story of our First Peoples. And, indeed, for a long time, it actively discriminated against them. We need to correct this. Australians are known as the people of a fair go. Australians believe in justice. We know what is right and we stand up for people around us. It is time for Australia to extend this to our First Nations people and to join them on a journey forward, an exciting journey and one that seeks to bring our country closer together. But more than that, if we are ever to make significant inroads between our First Nations people and others in this nation we need these practical reforms, reforms that put the views, interest and voice of our First Peoples at the heart of government decision-making. As the Minister for Indigenous Australians said, 'In 1967 we sought to be counted. In 2017 we seek to be heard.' It is the unfinished business of this country. First Nations people seek to be heard.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>STEVENS () (): I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. Obviously, previous speakers from the coalition have indicated some of the issues we have with this bill. And, of course, there have been some suggestions from the government about discussions as this bill progresses through the parliament, so there is some ambiguity as to what and if we will be supporting this, depending on how that goes.</para>
<para>I want to commence by saying I respect that a lot of speakers have made their comments regarding a potential referendum that might be held regarding a Voice to Parliament, and I don't in any way criticise that, but this bill is much beyond just any one particular referendum that might occur. I have very much said on the public record that I don't support amending our Constitution to enshrine a Voice to Parliament within it. There will no doubt be other opportunities for debates on that in this chamber. I think that yes, of course, we view these changes through the prism of an imminent potential referendum, but all referenda, theoretically, that may be held into the future could be subject to this legislation until the parliament changes this bill.</para>
<para>I think there are some very important principles with regard to how the Australian people are asked to change our Constitution in any way that we need to make sure that we defend and adhere to, particularly on this side of the chamber. I am also a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, so I have had the benefit of being part of the inquiry that we conducted into this bill. Our lead speaker indicated that the government is reconsidering the bill's removal of the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet provision. I am guessing that that is going to progress as an amendment and that the issue will be removed, so I won't make further comments regarding that. I'm very pleased that that's going to be in place. But I've got an extremely significant concern regarding how we give equal weighting and equal resourcing to campaigns for and against changing our Constitution, no matter what that campaign might relate to. Just before I reached voting age we held a referendum in this country regarding a republic and, of course, that's the most recent reference point to look to, after an unsuccessful attempt to consider adjusting our Constitution regarding the recognition of local government.</para>
<para>It's vitally important that we articulate the need for, and defend the fundamental principle of, ensuring that the Australian people are as well informed as possible as to the merit or lack thereof of changing our Constitution. I really do worry and have concerns about the principle we'd be establishing. There's a very long-held tradition of making sure that there is proper resourcing of the arguments for and against changing our Constitution; the pamphlet is one that I've addressed. The concept of not having formality and resourcing of those campaigns is very concerning and unfair. We in the coalition maintain those concerns.</para>
<para>If we do look to the imminent proposal of changing our Constitution regarding the Voice, it's probably a great example of a situation where one side of that campaign has been in existence in one way, shape or form for a very, very long time, going back to campaigns around recognition even before the Uluru statement and the imminent proposal around an enshrinement of a voice. It is a very mature campaign structure. I don't know, but I'm guessing that campaign has been able to amass a degree of financial resource as well in the many years of its existence. And good luck to that campaign; that's the great democracy that we live in.</para>
<para>That proposition does not really have a properly formed, formal counterbalance to it that I'm aware of. Certainly, we've had debates in here around the tax-deductible status of a campaign for that proposition, and I've not seen, at this stage, the existence of a counter to that. And that's not the fault of people that may well become that structured opposition to a change. It is foreseeable that there could be all kinds of proposals to change our Constitution in the future where there is a mature, established argument for that and a yet-to-be-formed counterforce defending the status quo, or whatever the proposition might be.</para>
<para>We've really got to remember how important it is to ensure that people are fully informed when we're changing our Constitution. It's a significant enough issue when we go to general elections every three years or so in this country and we think about how our democratic structures have developed to contest elections. They're very important, and we're all very grateful, generally speaking, for their results; we're certainly proud of the robustness of our democracy. There are always ways that we can improve, but, by and large, we consider ourselves to be at least the equal greatest and most robust democracy on the planet. That is also underpinned by the existing institutions and political structures that are in place, particularly our political parties, our party system and the like.</para>
<para>We have, of course, public funding for federal elections, so there's a formula, based on the number of votes that you receive, that essentially operates under the principle that we do want to ensure that there is some form of funding support to people that contest elections. The fact that we do that in general elections and would not consider changing our Constitution to be at least as significant as—frankly, possibly much more significant than—any particular general election that we have, given the consequences of changing the Constitution or not—it baffles me as to why anyone would now hold the view that we don't want to ensure that there is proper resourcing for a case for and against changing our Constitution. It has been tradition and practice, and there's certainly been opportunity for members in this parliament that don't support a proposition to change the Constitution to have an appropriate amount of support for them to take their argument to the voters of this country in a way that means those voters will hear both sides of an argument. I think that is a fundamental principle that we need to make sure we keep in place. It should not necessarily be purely viewed regarding an upcoming referendum that may occur on one particular proposal. It's about the principle of always ensuring that the merits of both arguments to change the Constitution of this nation are always resourced enough so that people vote on those changes in an informed way.</para>
<para>I might also just reflect on the fact that the government are foreshadowing some changes to the way in which we undertake the fundraising and funding of elections in time for the next general election. This is something that they ventilated publicly, and at the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters there will be a reflection on some of those concepts and proposals. It does interest me that the government are not interested in having any of those mooted changes in place in time for a referendum. Frankly, the member for Goldstein made this point regarding changes that could occur in time for this referendum that are being proposed for the next election. Why does the government not want to undertake any reform around funding of campaigns in time for the most imminent potential campaign, being a referendum that, we are told, may be proposed to be held later this year? Why is it that there is apparently such an urgent need to change the way in which people donate to political causes in this country and the way in which campaigns acquit the funds that they raise on political campaigns? Why is it so important to change the way in which we undertake funding and disclosure in this country, but not in time for the first opportunity to put any of that in place, which would be a referendum? I'm very suspicious about that, and I very much wonder what the motivation is for those that claim we need reform but have no intention of putting it in place before a referendum possibly to be held later this year.</para>
<para>That plays into the debate on this bill, because, in essence, what this bill is doing with the various measures that I've been discussing is essentially rig the system in favour of one side of the argument against another. There's a mature, developed campaign to change our Constitution that is far advanced from the campaign and argument to not change our Constitution. A variety of the measures proposed in this bill are essentially trying to rig the system and lock in place an advantage for one argument over the other. And that, perhaps, is why we're not seeing any change to funding and disclosure laws in time for this referendum. Maybe the current system advantages one argument over the other. But maybe those same changes might advantage a particular side of politics over the other in a different way in time for the next general election in this country.</para>
<para>That's where we're at with these apparently pure-as-the-driven-snow arguments around what is and isn't appropriate in our democratic system, as far as how our people financially support campaigns in this country. There's one rule for the upcoming referendum and potentially a very different rule at the next general election. We could put in place changes in time for this imminent referendum. That's what you'd do in this bill right now, but, of course, nothing of the sort is being proposed. I just reflect on the fact that that says a lot about people that could do that and are choosing not to in this bill when we come up for this debate in the next six to 12 months, or whenever it might be. It is apparently vitally important to change the funding and disclosure laws in time for the next general election in this country, but it's not important enough to do in time for this referendum. These are the same people who claim it is so totemic, monumental and vitally important, but we wouldn't want to make changes that they might claim in another context are so vitally important for the strength of our democracy before an imminent referendum, which would happen in this bill if you were seeking to do it.</para>
<para>I do have ambiguity about my position on this bill, as the coalition does, depending on potential changes and amendments. We think this is important. There are some very significant principles regarding the integrity of our Constitution and how it is changed into the future, and that will guide the way in which we determine our position on the various questions on this bill later in the debate. Given the appointed hour, I conclude my remarks with that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and, given that your speech was interrupted, you'll be given permission to resume it then.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>55</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Auger, Mr David</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VASTA</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate>Bonner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sad to inform the House of the passing of a veritable giant of the shooting industry, Mr David Auger. David was a larger-than-life character. A person to always speak his mind, David was brutally honest. We often joked that he was a great salesman but would make a terrible politician.</para>
<para>Born in the UK, David emigrated to Australia when he was 19. He brought his spirit and energy with him, as well as his lovely wife, Julie. When David was 24 and Julie was 20, they bought their first business together: Gladstone Guns. Due to their hard work, dedication and David's incredible knack for selling, they grew their business and moved to Brisbane, opening a business in Fortitude Valley. When David acquired the rights to sell Rigby rifles in Australia, the previous distributor said to him, 'You won't sell one in this country.' Unfazed and—knowing David—taking the statement as a challenge, he went on to sell more Rigby rifles than the rest of the distributors worldwide combined, outside of the UK.</para>
<para>However, David's greatest pride and joy were his children and grandchildren. I know he was very proud of his son, Tom, for all that he'd achieved in his life, including taking over the business that David and his wife had created.</para>
<para>Thank you, David, for your friendship over many years. May you rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Werriwa Electorate: Soccer Facilities</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's been great to meet with local sporting clubs over the last two weeks to see the upgrades to their facilities. Southern Districts play out of Cirillo Reserve, which is a unique facility to support women and girls to reach their full potential. It was wonderful to meet with former Matildas player Catherine Cannuli, who is the coach and manager of the Southern Districts competition, to discuss the Albanese government's election commitment for upgrades to this ground.</para>
<para>I also caught up with Kemps Creek United Soccer Club's Ross and Michael, who showed me the difference the Stronger Communities grant had made. They've put in special synthetic turf, which this season will make the goal mouth more playable.</para>
<para>I'd also like to thank Darcy Lound, president of the Macarthur Rams Football Club, for the invitation to attend this year's competition launch. On the night, it was a delight to hear the clubs' positive stories from last year and their goals for the 2023 season. The competition has over 10,000 players aged from five to over 55, with girls, boys, women and men playing this year. Most clubs report significant increases in players, especially in the women's competition.</para>
<para>It's lovely to see all of our communities come together to support our local teams, and I hope that this year they'll see an even greater turnout. I look forward to following the success of all our soccer teams this year.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation: Taxation</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before the election, this government made a rush of promises, only to see so many of them broken. Remember the promise to cut your power bill by $275, a promise made over 90 times? Broken! Remember the promise of cheaper mortgages? Broken! Remember the promise of lower inflation? Broken! Now, in the chaos of the last two weeks, we've heard from the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer and our favourite incompetent minister, the Assistant Treasurer, about the promise of no changes to super: broken, broken and broken! This government simply can't be trusted.</para>
<para>Frankly, Labor are making it up as they go—as in the Assistant Treasurer making out it's all about 'the hive' and about honey for everyone in the hive. Within the last two weeks, the Prime Minister has not ruled out further cuts to superannuation. The Treasurer refuses to rule out changes to negative gearing. The Treasurer, staggeringly, also refused to rule out changes to the capital gains tax exemption on the family home—only for the Prime Minister to run out on Patricia Karvelas's show and say, 'No, no; we're not going to do anything,' and for the Treasurer to then say: 'Oh, okay. I guess you're right, Prime Minister.' Labor can't be trusted when it comes to money. When they run out of money, they come after everyone's.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jagajaga Electorate: Youth</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to acknowledge the voices of young people in Jagajaga and to reassure them that their voices are being heard in this parliament and by our government. I'm very conscious that for many young people, federal parliament can feel like it's a long, long way away from their concerns. That's why I thought it was important to host a youth forum in my community last week to bridge some of that divide. It was so good to have our youth minister, Anne Aly, attend the forum and explain how our government is making sure the views of our young people are part of our policy making. It was important for the minister and I to hear about what is important to young people in Jagajaga at the moment and that includes cost of living, rising rents, access to and affordability of higher education, access to mental health care and the Voice to Parliament.</para>
<para>Separately, I want to acknowledge the advocacy of young people from the Somali community in Jagajaga, who previously told me there was a huge need for mental health support but it wasn't being met. Thank you to Assistant Minister for Mental Health, Emma McBride, for coming to meet directly with these young people and hear their suggestions for culturally appropriate, locally accessible mental health services. The young people of Jagajaga are wonderful advocates for their futures and for the future of our community. I want them to know that I am listening, our government is listening, our ministers are listening and that we will continue to work with them to deliver a better future for them and for our entire community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Turkiye And Syria: Earthquake</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I want to share my deepest sympathies to everyone impacted by the horrific earthquake that took place in Turkiye and Syria in the early hours of 6 February. I can't even imagine the absolute terror endured by the men, women and children trapped in the middle of this catastrophe. My heart goes out to the first responders and aid workers who had the insurmountable task of digging through the mounds of rubble. No doubt, the communities impacted are grateful for their presence, and I can only hope that they find the light at the end of this very dark tunnel soon.</para>
<para>This tragedy has impacted people from all over the world, and, in my area of Fowler, our Turkish and Syrian community are feeling the pain and loss. Mrs Melissa Michael of Edensor Park recently told me about her family who live in Adana, Turkiye, and the fear she experienced in the moments of the quake. It's hard to imagine the trauma of not knowing if your loved one survived. This is a difficult and tragic time for families in Fowler who have lost loved ones. To the families and everyone affected by the Turkiye and Syria earthquake, I offer my sincere sympathies, and we pray for your resilience through this very difficult time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lalor Electorate: Victorian Mosque Open Day</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday, I was pleased to attend two of the local mosques in the electorate of Lalor for open mosque day. I attended in the company of Dylan Wight, member for Tarneit; Sarah Connolly, member for Laverton; deputy mayor, Councillor Jennie Barrera; and Vivienne Nguyen from the Victorian Multicultural Commission. I attended the Virgin Mary Mosque, where the Imam Sheikh Abdullah Hawari welcomed us to the mosque and took us through some interesting information about Islam and the value of the mosque in the community. I'd like to thank President Sheikh Hanif and the team there. I also saw representatives of Victoria Police and the Wyndham Interfaith Network represented by our good friend Lawrence.</para>
<para>I then attended the Melbourne Grand Mosque in Tarneit, where Sheikh Nawas gave us a presentation on, again, growing understanding around the mosque and how it is a cultural place as well as a religious place. I want to thank President Rifai Abdul Raheem and the other directors. There was also the President of the Islamic Council of Victoria, Adel Salman.</para>
<para>It is my pleasure to represent the growing Islamic community in my electorate of Lalor. It brings home to us just how important that connectivity is between our communities, and I am so proud to represent a multilingual, multifaith community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Curtin Electorate: Medical Research</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In Curtin, hospitals and higher education are two of our largest employers, creating a hotbed of health and medical research, innovation and commercialisation in the suburb of Nedlands. We have so much potential to lead the world in creating and commercialising lifesaving medical solutions. Nedlands has three current and two proposed hospitals, six medical research institutes, a centre for early phase clinical trials and is the home of the University of Western Australia.</para>
<para>In recent weeks I've had the opportunity to meet some of the incredible organisations in Nedlands doing this work. For example, the Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research is building a comprehensive atlas of the cell types that make up cancer tumours, and the Parent Institute is undertaking cutting-edge research on a broad range of neurological conditions. And it's not just research: UWA has partnered with the Harry Perkins institute to support pathways into burgeoning local med-tech start-ups. Last week, the Minister for Industry and Science, Ed Husic, and I visited OncoRes Medical to hear how they're manufacturing equipment to help surgeons remove all of the cancer the first time.</para>
<para>But WA is seriously under-represented in NHMRC funding, with applicants three times as likely to be successful in Victoria as in WA. The innovation happening in the suburbs of Perth deserves national recognition. This is also the perfect opportunity for support under the medical science priority area of the National Reconstruction Fund to build on this strength and support this innovation ecosystem.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Endometriosis Awareness Month</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's March into Yellow—Endometriosis Awareness Month. It's a chance for all of us to don yellow to raise awareness of this debilitating and chronic disease. One in nine women and girls in Australia are affected by endometriosis, and quite often have been told throughout their lives to just put up with it and get over it—it's just something that women go through! We now know a lot more about endometriosis, and March is the chance to raise awareness.</para>
<para>This government is acting. There is $80 million in funding towards the National Action Plan for Endometriosis. It involves, apart from education and awareness-raising, funding that is going towards pelvic pain clinics and key organisations. I congratulate and thank the many organisations and partners that are involved in Endometriosis Australia, endometriosis patients and their families for their continued advocacy and campaigning on this issue.</para>
<para>Standing here today, I don't feel that I've done former colleague of mine Gai Brodtmann justice. She was a true endo warrior, and would get all of us in yellow and up on our feet not just in March but every month to remind us that we have a role to play in this place to keep endometriosis on the agenda so fewer women and girls suffer into the future. This month: wear yellow, and let's raise awareness around endometriosis.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lyne Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I congratulate Taree's Kody Garland for his career best and first ever podium finish at AWC Race Tasmania's opening season race at Symmons Plains Raceway. He was driving a Peugeot 308. Kody kicked off the weekend with a strong seventh in the qualifying round, got fifth place on the poll to start and ended up on the podium.</para>
<para>Also doing great stuff in the Lyne electorate is OzFish Unlimited's Manning chapter, who held a Clean Up Australia Day event at John Oxley Reserve in Harrington. It was a great opportunity for the community to get involved and raise awareness about marine litter and how to manage everyday plastics issues, something that our recreation fishing community is absolutely passionate about. Well done to OzFish's Manning team and the community volunteers, including MidCoast Council workers, Manning Landcare and Manning Valley Kayaking.</para>
<para>Another great event in my electorate of Lyne was Bush Poetry at the Saleyards, organised by Brian Beesley and Gloucester Rotary Club. This event serves as a fundraiser for a range of community projects. Congratulations to Brian and Gloucester Rotary for their outstanding efforts on behalf of our community.</para>
<para>I'll also give a shoutout to Ron Green and the Hawks Nest Tea Gardens Probus Club members, who recently celebrated 35 years of friendship, fellowship and fun with a luncheon to mark the occasion—a great achievement for past and present Probus members.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Trove</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Trove is our nation's finest resource for national history, records and events, and as a result is envied around the world for its unparalleled access and unparalleled capabilities. Among journalists, historians, researchers and keen members of the public, Trove is considered much more than a national treasure that must be protected—it's a core element in their ability to do their jobs. I recently spoke with renowned local historian Jeff McGill about this matter, and he told me how Trove has greatly aided him in his historical research of the Macarthur region. His most recent book, <inline font-style="italic">Rachel</inline>, which is about his forebear Rachel Kennedy, was completed through extensive and much-appreciated research through Trove. I know too that the Campbelltown and Airds Historical Society also relies on Trove to assist them in compiling information about our region and is greatly appreciated by their members and the wider community.</para>
<para>On a personal note, I've found Trove to be incredibly useful, as has my wife, Sharon, who's a librarian. On a light-hearted note, I found through Trove that my grandfather was arrested for speeding in one of his tourist buses for the third time in one day in the 1920s! I believe Trove should be preserved at all costs, and that requires ongoing funding to ensure it remains free of charge and available to all Australians. I implore the Leader of the House and the minister for the arts to make sure the government funds Trove so that it remains available to everyone who needs it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moore Electorate: Vocational Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOODENOUGH</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the House of two recent electorate visits by shadow ministers and thank them for meeting with my constituents. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Farrer, visited Moore in her capacity as the shadow minister for small and family business and the shadow minister for industry, skills and training. She addressed the Joondalup Business Association and participated in a Q&A forum on local issues. From there, we visited Carpet Choices, where we heard from proprietor Steve Blackwood about the challenges in training apprentices required to install floor coverings. The next stop was the College of Electrical Training in Joondalup for a briefing on the development of an innovation centre to deliver courses of study relevant to apprentices of the future, including in advanced battery technology, hydrogen fuel cells, robotics and innovation.</para>
<para>Last week, the member for Moncrieff, the shadow minister for early childhood education and shadow minister for youth, visited the Joondalup campus of Alta-1 college, where she witnessed firsthand the great work being done to support youth with unique learning needs to complete their secondary education, enabling them to progress onto vocational education and the workforce. This was followed by a forum in my office where leading early childhood educators raised their concerns about the challenge of recruiting qualified staff to work in their centres and the need to address this issue. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bennelong Electorate: Eastwood Post Office</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In late January, the community of Eastwood was advised that their local post office would close on 3 March. Their landlord, the City of Ryde council, was set to demolish the building the post office sits in. This became the catalyst for the closure. Whilst the council offered an extension on their current site, they did not offer any alternative premises for lease, and, ultimately, Australia Post made the regrettable decision to close.</para>
<para>Eastwood is a thriving multicultural CBD. It's the home of countless small businesses, and many residents have relied on access to a post office. This closure will hit our community hard. Many members of the community reached out to me to express their concerns about how this closure would impact on them. Through a consultation process my office set up, we figured out the areas of highest use by businesses and locals. Through close work alongside Australia Post, we've been able to start the process to implement permanent solutions to ensure our area continues to receive the essential postal services it relies upon.</para>
<para>We've been able to get a commitment to install 24/7 parcel lockers—we're just waiting on the council to secure a site—and to ensure more accessibility to passport applications and services across our region. Importantly, we've also been able to implement a permanent solution for all those small businesses and residents who have a PO box. I'd encourage all Eastwood PO box customers to contact Grace and her magnificent team at the Denistone East LPO. And I'd like to thank all those who responded to our Have Your Say.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Duff, Mr Michael</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sure every member of parliament will be only too keen to attest to the value of a great staff member. It's not the service they provide to us but, rather, the service they provide to our communities that fills us with gratitude and respect. In this vein, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank former staff member and very good friend Mr Michael Duff for having set up my office in the midst of a pandemic and who's now returned to his work with the Toowoomba Regional Council.</para>
<para>Michael is very well known in our community. His service to our community deserves recognition, be it for setting up kids' sports clubs, Tough Guy book clubs, or, most importantly, for being chief cattle steward at the Proston Show. Communities are built upon the actions of people who put service to others above themselves. I'm very grateful to have had Michael's spirit of service in my office.</para>
<para>Michael always forced me to ask two questions of myself before taking any decision as the member for Groom: firstly, 'Do I believe it?' and, secondly, 'Is it good for the people of Groom?' It's a very good basis for any decision to be made. I've endeavoured ever since to keep this framework about me. I think it speaks to Michael's character that it was on these solid foundations that he sought to make Groom a better place.</para>
<para>I give my personal thanks to Michael. I remember during the world camp quarantine fiasco I often found myself feeling a little bit like Horatio on the bridge, wondering who would come out and stand beside me as I fought against this folly. I'm forever grateful and proud that you, Michael, were always there, right by my side. I thank you for your service and I thank you for your friendship.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lymphedema Awareness Day</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is Lymphedema Awareness Day. Last week, I met with lymphedema advocate Monique Bareham, who has been leading the charge for better recognition and better care for this condition. Lymphedema is an accumulation of fluid, lymph, in the tissues of the body, usually concentrated in a specific area. It is fundamentally a failure of the lymphatic system to collect fluid and eliminate it. Many people develop lymphedema as a result of cancer treatment or through major trauma such as surgery or injury, but this is not the only cause. One in 6,000 people are born with conditions that result in primary lymphedema.</para>
<para>Excessive swelling caused by fluid accumulation is painful and disfiguring. Untreated, it can lead to skin oozing liquid, splitting, and infection. This leads to hospitalisations, expensive, time consuming and disruptive to people's lives. Often people suffer for years with no idea what is happening to them and no idea that there actually is treatment, and it's underrecognised in general practice. While lymphedema is not curable, it can be managed through exercise, massage and specially-made compression garments. These garments need to be fitted, however, so they're quite expensive. Monique's vision is to have a standard model of care across Australia and standard levels of financial support for the garments.</para>
<para>On Lymphedema Awareness Day, I'd like to bring this condition to the attention of my colleagues in this place, and thank Monique for her tireless advocacy.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Winwood, Mr Alex</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
    <electorate>Canning</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've got a lot of young sporting talent in Canning. One of our best took centre stage at the weekend, and that was local Indigenous man Alex Winwood, who took out the WBC international boxing title, earning his first international belt in Perth. Winwood was up against a former IBO champion in just his second main event and knocked him out in just four rounds. Alex has been building to this moment for some time, taking up the sport of boxing 10 years ago while still in high school. Since then, Alex has been hard at work training under his coach, Brian Sartori, at Mandurah's Eureka Boxing Club.</para>
<para>His success hasn't come easily. A good boxer must be able to take a punch, and he's had his setbacks. In 2016, Alex narrowly missed out on qualifying for the Rio Olympic Games. But he didn't let that stop him. Alex spent the next four years in training, eventually qualifying for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games and, later, the 2022 Commonwealth Games. He made headlines as the first Indigenous Australian announced to represent our country at the Tokyo Olympics and became a fan favourite when he performed a traditional Indigenous dance during the opening ceremony.</para>
<para>His win at the weekend is yet another impressive achievement. On behalf of all of my electorate, we look forward to seeing him become the world champion.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jawanda, Ms Sandy</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to highlight a fabulous woman called Sandy from <inline font-style="italic">Married </inline><inline font-style="italic">a</inline><inline font-style="italic">t First Sight</inline>. There are thousands of women across Australia who have wanted to give love a chance but who have been too scared to try. Sandy has been courageous to allow us to walk with her. In fact, Sandy has inspired a whole generation.</para>
<para>Australia is made up of many third-culture kids. We take our parents' culture and we blend it with Australian culture to create a cool hybrid culture. When I watched Sandy's wedding, I saw the way she skilfully did this. Sandy used her wicked sense of humour to disarm people to help them see the real her: smart, fierce, sassy and funny.</para>
<para>It sucks, but, for women, it's often hard for the first, whether it be the first female Prime Minister or the first woman in a migrant family to have a mixed-race relationship. It was tough when my Aunty Julie wanted to marry Uncle Jason in the 1960s. My dad smashed a fish tank when he first heard. By the time I got married, my dad embraced my husband. In my home of Swan, there are many mixed-race couples of different generations, and it's easier when the person you're dating has multicultural friends and a genuine curiosity to explore cultures.</para>
<para>I sense that Sandy will go through a period of healing, but know that we are so proud. I am certain that Sandy will find someone as fabulous as she is, because she doesn't deserve anything less.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Endometriosis</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>March is EndoMarch, and I'm a really proud ambassador for Endometriosis Australia. Last week I held an endometriosis morning tea and invited people to come along and help raise some money for Endometriosis Australia.</para>
<para>Of course, it is a condition that affects between nine and 10 per cent of Australia women. It's very painful, it's seriously debilitating, and at this time there is no cure, which is why I was really proud to be part of putting together the first-ever National Action Plan for Endometriosis in 2018. In our last budget, we committed a further $58 million to this, particularly around pelvic pain clinics, pelvic pain education and research, and management and care for those people suffering from endometriosis.</para>
<para>So I'm encouraging others to do the same by holding an EndoMarch event to shine the spotlight on this very, very challenging condition, one that threatens the lives and livelihoods of so many women around Australia. Yes, we do want to see a great improvement in their quality of life. We want to get to the point where there is a cure, which is what the research is all about, and we want to see a great improvement in the absolute day-to-day lives of these women and girls who are living with what is a terribly debilitating condition and disease: endometriosis. Please join the cause.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Health Services</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to commend Erina Fair Medical Care on its exemplary medical service for the Central Coast community. In the Central Coast region and across many regional and rural communities in Australia, medical centres are an integral part of towns or villages, providing outstanding care and medical assistance to those who are sick or in need of expert health advice. Erina Fair Medical Care is no exception. They are open seven days a week, from 8 am until 6 pm, and are always welcoming of any returning or new patients to the centre.</para>
<para>I had the privilege of meeting with practice owner, Peter Carr, and centre nurse, Megan Yu, to discuss a range of issues impacting upon the services provided by Erina Fair Medical Care. Mr Carr and Ms Yu raised the critical need for primary health care in Australia to be supported. I understand that this matter requires the federal government's urgent attention, and that's why I am pleased to notify the chamber that, under an Albanese Labor government, we will strengthen Medicare now, and we will strengthen Medicare into the future, starting with the $750 million Strengthening Medicare Fund. There will be two urgent care centres on the Central Coast. If you're too sick for the GP but not sick enough for the emergency department, you will finally have somewhere to go.</para>
<para>Without strong and accessible primary healthcare centres in regional and rural communities, our healthcare system would collapse. I thank all of the hardworking regional and rural primary healthcare centres across this nation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>HOGAN (—) (): The then opposition, now the government, when in opposition, were very much running on the theme of having transparency and trust in government. Nearly 12 months in, haven't we seen how deceived the Australian public have been by this new Labor government? They're starting to wake up to the fact that they were deceived by the Labor opposition, now the government, after seeing what they were saying before the election and what they're now doing after the election.</para>
<para>Mr Speaker, I'll run you through a couple of examples. Let's start with the IR laws. The IR laws that they passed in the first few months of being in government were never mentioned during the campaign. I'll quote the now Treasurer, Mr Chalmers. Before the election, Mr Chalmers said that Labor's industrial relations policies had been announced and multi-employer agreements were 'not part of our policy'. Well, that changed after the election. Again, they were deceived.</para>
<para>Now, last week, what did we see? Last week, again, we saw the deception of what was said before the election and then what happened after the election. The now Prime Minister Albanese said on 2 May 2022: 'We've said we have no intention to make any super changes.' Again, this is deception from the government. We've seen a promise of lower electricity bills broken. We've seen a promise of cheaper mortgages broken. So, again, there was one thing before the election and another after. The public is starting to work this mob out. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Arboretum</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This year, the National Arboretum celebrates 10 years since it opened. It's a national ecological gem, with the best views in Canberra, and it's located in my electorate of Bean. The National Arboretum came about due to dramatic circumstance. In 2003, Canberra was subject to disastrous bushfires. Communities were left devastated and almost 250 hectares of plantation pines in the Molonglo Valley were razed. But from those ashes the National Arboretum arose. When it first opened in 2013, initial predictions had visitor numbers at more than one million in the first five years. It would actually be six million.</para>
<para>The arboretum benefits from the hard work of over 900 staff and volunteers, and I thank them for their extraordinary commitment. The arboretum remains a symbol of Canberra's post-2003 bushfire recovery, and this upcoming long weekend will see many families from my electorate of Bean and around Canberra come to enjoy the arboretum for picnics, walks, tours and even hot air ballooning.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for member statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Member for Aston</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Issue of Writ</title>
            <page.no>61</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the House that on Friday 17 February I received a letter from the Hon. Alan Edward Tudge, resigning his seat as the member for the electoral division of Aston. On Monday 27 February, I issued a writ for the election of a member to serve in the electoral division of Aston in the state of Victoria to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Hon. Alan Edward Tudge. The dates in connection with the by-election will be fixed as follows: close of rolls—today, 6 March; close of nominations—Thursday 9 March; declaration of nominations—Friday 10 March; date of polling—Saturday 1 April; return of the writ—on or before Wednesday 7 June.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation: Taxation</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that during the election campaign he solemnly declared, 'We have no intention to make any super changes.' Given that Labor is now increasing taxes on superannuation, will the Prime Minister apologise for this statement? Why has the Prime Minister misled the Australian people? Isn't this yet another broken promise from this tricky Prime Minister?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. We have made our priority clear, and so has the Leader of the Opposition. Our priority is dealing with the trillion dollars of Liberal debt that we inherited from those opposite. We are making a very modest change that will impact one half of one per cent—one half of one per cent! Seventeen of those people have over $100 million in their accounts; one has over $400 million. I do note that a majority of Australians, including a majority of Liberal voters, say that they agree with this change.</para>
<para>But I'll tell you what we won't do. We see an issue of a trillion dollars of Liberal debt, and we got advice from Treasury saying that there were these 17 people who have over $100 million in their accounts. We said, 'Well, we should do something about that.' Those opposite saw the most vulnerable people in our community and introduced the robodebt scheme. This is what they had to say: 'We'll find you; we'll track you down. You will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison.' That said it all about those opposite and their attitude towards this. We're a government for all Australians; they've been reduced to a government of one half of one per cent.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. What steps has the government taken to ease the pressures on Australian families, and is there any opposition to these measures?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Fairfax! Order! I know that the week is starting. The way that this is going to work is that people, when they're asking questions, will not be interjected on—from both sides. And when people are approaching the dispatch box, they will not be interjected on either. I hope everyone has got that clear today. That's how this week is going to roll. I give the call to the Prime Minister.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Cunningham for her question. It was good to be with the member for Cunningham in Wollongong, at the university there, just a week ago, and to be with the state Labor candidates there in Wollongong as well—as well as in Kiama and on the South Coast. It's just like it was good to be with Chris Minns yesterday at the Labor launch. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition's contribution at the Liberal Party launch next Sunday. I look forward to the red carpet being rolled out there this Sunday.</para>
<para>Our biggest priority this year is making sure that Australians have economic security and stability. That's why we're putting in place measures to take pressure off families, so they can plan ahead. We've already acted, but there's more to come. Cheaper medicines came in on 1 January. Cheaper child care starts on 1 July. Today, through the Senate this morning, I can inform the House that we passed changes to paid parental leave to allow for more flexibility and easier access for families, particularly for single parents. We're getting wages moving again. We've got more affordable housing. We are implementing our Energy Price Relief Plan, which was opposed by those opposite. They opposed that $1.5 billion. And right around Australia there are young people and older workers being retrained through our Fee-Free TAFE plan—some 180,000 of them. And, this week in parliament, we'll be progressing our National Reconstruction Fund. It's very important to address the supply chain issues, which the Reserve Bank have identified as being responsible for half or up to two thirds of the inflationary pressures in the economy.</para>
<para>That's our plan. We have a positive plan going forward. Those opposite just have one answer to everything: no. They say no to manufacturing jobs through the National Reconstruction Fund. They say no to the Housing Australia Future Fund and additional housing for women and children escaping domestic violence. They say no to power price relief for households. They say no to making super stronger for the future. They say no to ending the climate wars and to adopting their own mechanism—their own mechanism that they put in place. There are no improvements, no alternatives, no ideas—just no.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to his promise to deliver cheaper mortgages. Interest rates have risen eight times under his watch, and more Australians are turning to Foodbank so they can put their grocery money towards their mortgage payments. Why has this Prime Minister misled the Australian people? Isn't this yet another broken promise by this tricky Prime Minister?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Perhaps, if the deputy leader attends the New South Wales Liberal Party launch on Sunday, she might get to speak. Then she would get to speak about the shared equity scheme, which I announced during our election campaign—the shared equity scheme that is being promoted by the Liberal-National government in New South Wales. What does a shared equity scheme mean? It means that instead of having 100 per cent of the mortgage yourself a share of the mortgage is held by the government. That's the scheme. That's the scheme that the New South Wales Liberal government has announced. It's based upon the WA Liberal Party scheme. It's based upon the Victorian scheme. The WA scheme has been in place for many, many decades, and has been a huge success. I thank the member for her question.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. What are the pressures on the Australian economy, and what is the Albanese Labor government's economic plan to address the inflation challenge in our economy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I say to the member for Dunkley that her dedication and her determination is an inspiration to all of us, and can I say, on a personal level, thank you for all of the help and advice that you give me when it comes to our economic plans and policies as well. I appreciate that a great deal.</para>
<para>The national accounts last week showed growth in the Australian economy moderating as expected, the inevitable consequence of the combination of global challenges, high inflation and rising interest rates. Our economy, in the December quarter, grew by 2.7 per cent throughout 2022—faster than all of the major advanced economies and more than twice the growth of the OECD average. But it's a sign of the times that, even in one of the world's best economies, the inflationary pressures coming at us from around the world are still being felt very acutely around the kitchen tables of this country. We know that the tightening in interest rates, which began before the election, is adding to the pressure on many people and on many small businesses as well. Australians are under the pump, and, when interest rates go up, it does make life that bit harder.</para>
<para>Tomorrow, as honourable members are aware, the Reserve Bank will make its decision on interest rates. We don't pre-empt those decisions, but, clearly, the market is anticipating a further increase. The bank takes its decisions independently, and that independence is an important feature of our economic system. The government's job, the job that this government has taken responsibility for and embraced, is to focus on what we can do in government to get on top of this inflation challenge. There are welcome signs that the inflation challenge in our economy has peaked. There are encouraging signs that we are getting on top of it. But inflation will be higher than we'd like for longer than we'd like, and we need to acknowledge that.</para>
<para>Our three-point plan is all about relief for people doing it tough, repair of our broken supply chains and restraint in the budget as well. A meaningful part of that budget restraint was our decision on superannuation last week. This was a modest change and a sensible choice for a budget which is absolutely heaving with a trillion dollars in Liberal Party debt.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Deakin will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When Australians are doing it tough, Labor's highest priority is targeted cost-of-living relief in a more responsible budget. The Liberals' highest priority is bigger tax breaks for people who already have tens of millions of dollars in superannuation.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Treasurer will pause.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my right! I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, a point of order: the question went to pressures on the economy and the Albanese Labor government's plan to address pressures on the economy. The Treasurer is now wandering into an attack on this side of the House. He's a serial offender and he should be brought back to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I could not hear what the Premier—what the—</para>
<para>An honourable member: He'd make a good premier!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Don't tell the Premier that!</para>
<para>An honourable member: Have you got retirement ideas?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I couldn't hear what the Treasurer was saying, but I draw him back to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I won't tell her if you won't, Mr Speaker! Our plan is to make a modest change to tax concessions for people with millions of dollars in their super, to make the system more sustainable and more affordable. It's all about making the budget more responsible in the context of these cost-of-living pressures, which are impacting people right around the country. Those opposite have got a different plan. They go after people with robodebt and they come after Medicare.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Delegation from Indonesia</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is the Canberra Fellowship's parliamentary delegation from Indonesia, led by Mr Charlise Jorase. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you all.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Standards</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Attorney-General. This morning I introduced a bill to end the jobs for mates culture in federal politics. Having abolished the AAT because of rampant cronyism and having announced a review into public board appointments, it appears the government agrees this is a major integrity problem. Without a legislated and independent process, like I have proposed in my bill, how can the government guarantee that any future appointments to public institutions will not end up as more jobs for mates?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member very much for her question. As she knows, we have met to discuss her private member's bill, and, as I have explained to her and would explain to the House, we as a government are committed to merit based, transparent appointment processes. You will see those merit based, transparent appointment processes in all respects in the appointments of this government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Manufacturing</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the minister for industry. What's the Albanese Labor government doing to revitalise Australian manufacturing, why is this important for manufacturing jobs and what are the threats to creating these new jobs?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Paterson. This is a member who gets it. The member for Paterson understands manufacturing matters. There are thousands of people employed across the Hunter who owe their livelihoods to manufacturing and some really great firms like Energy Renaissance in the member's electorate, who are looking to have Aussie-made batteries right here available for us—great work. Revitalising manufacturing is a critical priority for the country. Some of the world's biggest economies owe their success to having very healthy manufacturing within them. These countries also get they need to become more self-sufficient, and the Albanese government gets this too. It's one of the reasons why we don't want our country to be reliant on concentrated or broken supply chains, and dealing with this is a big part of our plan to take up the fight on inflation and also put downward pressure on interest rates.</para>
<para>It's why we're, for example, calling on the parliament to join with us in setting up the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, one of the greatest investments in national manufacturing capability in living memory, and the growth capital unlocked by the National Reconstruction Fund will be crucial, good for the economy, good for industry and unbelievably good for jobs. Nearly 900,000 Australians are employed as a result of manufacturing in over 90,000 firms, one-third of which are outside of our capital cities. Our national ambition should be to see that number grow in our outer suburbs, in our regions and in remote Australia.</para>
<para>Our other ambition should be to keep Australian companies onshore and good ideas and jobs here. Made in Australia; made overseas—that's the big difference. I've met Australian businesses here and overseas who want a future made in Australia. Those firms, some of which have moved overseas, will sometimes say how hard it is to get the growth capital they need on home soil, which is precisely the issue the National Reconstruction Fund wants to deal with. This government knows how much Australians can't stand it when Australian firms have to leave our shores for a lack of support.</para>
<para>Most Australians get it, except it seems the Liberal and National parties—the same parties who pushed auto manufacturing offshore, presided over a decade of neglect and voted against energy price relief to help manufacturers. Now they want to oppose manufacturers getting access to growth by the NRF: no to manufacturing, no to jobs, no to growth and no to Australian know-how. When it comes to supporting the NRF and Australian manufacturing, those opposite say, 'No way, know-how.' I would ask manufacturers from our outer suburbs and regions who might represented by a Liberal or National party MP just to ask those MPs why they only ever support manufacturing when there's a TV camera around.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Power Prices</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Ross and Cynthia are age pensioners who live in South West Rocks in my electorate. This week they were told by their provider their new power bill is about to skyrocket by more than 40 per cent to $474 per quarter. The Prime Minister promised Australians like Ross and Cynthia that he would cut their power bills by $275. Why has the Prime Minister misled the Australian people, and isn't this yet another broken promise by this tricky Prime Minister?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question, and I do hope the member told Ross and Cynthia that he voted against $1½ billion of energy price relief. I hope he did.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Groom will stop yelling. The member for Groom will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That was the plan that went through every state and territory leader, Labor and Liberal. It's true there are no Nats there, so we don't know where the Nats would've stood. But every state Liberal leader, including the Premier of New South Wales, voted for this plan, and indeed responsible oppositions, such as the New South Wales opposition, voted for the plan as well. And you know what has happened as a result of our announcing the plan? Wholesale prices have halved as a result. This is what Philip Lowe, the RBA Governor, had to say just last week:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This episode of high inflation has its origins mainly in developments on the supply side—</para></quote>
<para>something that the minister for industry was just talking about—</para>
<quote><para class="block">but, over time, demand-side factors have become more prominent. It emerged in the wake of the COVID supply chain disruptions and Russia's invasion of Ukraine …</para></quote>
<para>That is what the Reserve Bank Governor said last Friday. Now, we are dealing with that in a practical way. We brought forward legislation and, indeed, brought the parliament back here last December for extraordinary action due to the extraordinary circumstances which were there.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You didn't. You voted against $1½ billion of assistance, and I hope you've told your constituents that.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! There is far too much noise on my left.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Reconstruction Fund</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How will the National Reconstruction Fund deliver jobs and investment to communities across regional Australia? And why would any regional Australians be opposed to this investment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Hunter, who's making an enormous contribution to this place. It's so fantastic to have another regional member who understands just how important manufacturing is to our regions—unlike those opposite. It's why we are so determined to make sure that one of the key positive changes that Australians voted for at the last election is actually introduced, and that is the National Reconstruction Fund.</para>
<para>It's a $15 billion fund that will provide finance to projects that will diversify and transform Australia's industry and our economy, securing our supply chains and increasing our national sovereignty when it comes to manufactured goods. It will make Australia more productive, it will give Australians more jobs and it means that we will make more things here in this country. The fund will be the biggest investment in manufacturing capability in living memory.</para>
<para>So why would anyone be opposed to it? When you look at the priority areas for investment, you can clearly see that the vast benefits will flow to regional Australians, value-adding in critical minerals, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, defence and transport, renewables, and low-emissions technologies. All of these industries are focused in regional Australia. Just last week I held a roundtable to guide the establishment of the Jet Zero Council here in Australia. The meeting included representatives of airlines, airports, investors, feedstock producers, scientists and fuel producers, all unified by a desire to grow a sustainable aviation fuel industry here in this country to help a sector where it is really hard to abate. It is exactly the kind of industry that the National Reconstruction Fund, alongside the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, can be supporting, and that is good news for regional Australia because it is exactly where the jobs will be. Sugarcane, sugar milling in North Queensland, canola in Western Australia, and tallow all across the country—it can all be used to create sustainable aviation fuel, and can be the engine room for a new generation of clean jobs, clean energy and clean manufacturing here in this country. This is just one example of one industry, but there are jobs and opportunities that should be unleashed right the way across Australia, and the National Reconstruction Fund will do just that.</para>
<para>With all of those benefits, why would anyone be opposed to the National Reconstruction Fund? Who wouldn't want to see more jobs and investment in regional Australia? Who wouldn't want to see more regional manufacturing? We wouldn't want to see regional Australia benefit from manufacturing jobs? Those opposite, that's who.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dividend Imputation</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. On 30 of March 2021 the Prime Minister said, 'We won't have any changes to the franking credits regime.' Why has the Prime Minister misled the Australian people? Isn't this yet another broken promise from a tricky prime minister?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer's been waiting patiently there since last November to get a single question. It's now March. It was his birthday last week—on the same day! Give him a question. That's all he asks!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will return to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would have thought that the shadow Treasurer might have asked a question about super. He's had a lot to say about super.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will return to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But apparently not. He's just picked another argument with himself, but he picked an argument with himself accidentally last week, as well, for the entire week. At last, a fair fight: a fight between the shadow Treasurer and the shadow Treasurer! I think they've only got one now. Angus versus Angus: a true battle of the lightweights!</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Procurement: Submarines</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring the—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Spence will resume his seat. There's far too much noise. If people interject whilst people are asking questions, they will be removed from the chamber immediately. I can't be any clearer than that. I will hear from the member for Spence again.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring the responsible delivery of AUKUS, and are there threats to this responsible approach?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question. Bipartisanship in national security is critical. That's not a leave pass for governments; criticism from opposition matters.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for O'Connor is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Indeed, there was profoundly important criticism from the Curtin opposition to the Menzies government in the first years of the Second World War, but even then it was understood that, on critical matters, bipartisanship mattered.</para>
<para>When the Morrison government made its AUKUS announcement last year that Australia would acquire nuclear-powered submarines, the Albanese Labor opposition provided unconditional, unqualified support immediately, and that continued right through until the election. But, over the last week, the attitude of the opposition to AUKUS has become quite unclear, as we have been hearing the Leader of the Opposition describe his preferences about a future submarine capability. This has raised eyebrows abroad about whether or not the coalition is on board.</para>
<para>Now, the last time the Leader of the Opposition received a confidential briefing about AUKUS was in the very early days of a process which has gone a long way since then.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Groom will stop yelling.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition's information is very out of date, and he knows it. This government inherited an AUKUS announcement without much delivery. The capability gap which loomed as a result of the lost decade from those opposite as they were in and out of a subs deal with Japan and in and out of a deal with France had absolutely no answer to it, and there was the real prospect of there being a contest between two of our closest friends and allies as to who would provide us with a submarine. I can inform the House that the announcement that we will soon make will deal with the capability gap and is a genuine collaboration between all three countries.</para>
<para>The difference between the coalition's announcement on AUKUS and every other announcement that they made on defence in the last 10 years is that this time Labor is going to do the delivery, so it's actually going to happen. Over the last week, we've watched the Leader of the Opposition lay down markers, hedge his bets and try to have it both ways. The question for the opposition is very simple: when the government makes its announcement with the United States and with the United Kingdom about the future submarine capability that Australia has, will the opposition provide unconditional and unqualified support so as to provide bipartisan support in the national interest, or will they continue their subterranean commentary so as to position themselves for their own political interest? That choice is all theirs.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I give the call to the Prime Minister—oh, to the Leader of the Opposition.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>67</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You're on fire today, Mr Speaker! Well done, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move the following motion:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) before the election the Prime Minister promised on 97 occasions to reduce Australians' power bills by $275, but instead power bills have increased since he became Prime Minister;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) before the election the Prime Minister promised Australians cheaper mortgages, but instead there have been eight successive increases in mortgage interest rates since he became Prime Minister; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) before the election the Prime Minister promised Australians that he would not raise taxes on superannuation, and last week the Prime Minister announced a new tax on superannuation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) further notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) this Prime Minister is showing himself on issue after issue to be untrustworthy and deceptive, having told Australians one thing before the election and doing the opposite of what he promised now he is in government; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) as a result of the Prime Ministers' conduct, Australians are now unable to trust any of the promised he made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) therefore calls on this Prime Minister to keep the promises he has made including in relation to reduced power bills, cheaper mortgages and not introducing new taxes on superannuation.</para></quote>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) before the election the Prime Minister promised on 97 occasions to reduce Australians' power bills by $275, but instead power bills have increased since he became Prime Minister;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) before the election the Prime Minister promised Australians cheaper mortgages, but instead there have been eight successive increases in mortgage interest rates since he became Prime Minister; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) before the election the Prime Minister promised Australians that he would not raise taxes on superannuation, and last week the Prime Minister announced a new tax on superannuation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) further notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) this Prime Minister is showing himself on issue after issue to be untrustworthy and deceptive, having told Australians one thing before the election and doing the opposite of what he promised now he is in government; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) as a result of the Prime Ministers' conduct, Australians are now unable to trust any of the promised he made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) therefore calls on this Prime Minister to keep the promises he has made including in relation to reduced power bills, cheaper mortgages and not introducing new taxes on superannuation.</para></quote>
<para>The reality—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just pause for a moment. The Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Under standing order 47(e), I require that this debate be continued at the conclusion of question time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>67</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Australia Future Fund</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Homelessness. Why is the Albanese government's $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund so important, and how does it fit into the government's larger housing reform agenda after a decade of so little action?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Newcastle for her important question. I know that she, like many members in this place, is concerned that far too many Australians are paying the price of little action from those opposite when it comes to social and affordable housing. Indeed, our government was elected with a real plan to help tackle the country's housing challenges, a plan to establish the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. I want to thank all of those that supported the Housing Australia Future Fund in this place. We know it's going to make a real difference. As National Shelter has said, 'The package of legislation being considered by the Senate is the most critical housing legislation to be brought forward in the past 10 years.' We're talking here about the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade. We know how critical it is because it's going to make a real difference to those who need it most.</para>
<para>But the 30,000 homes that the fund will deliver in its first five years is just one part of our broader housing agenda. We've already unlocked up to $575 million from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility. And we've already made announcements right around the country of more social houses because of that unlocking. In the last budget we announced the Housing Accord—10,000 additional affordable homes, and that will be matched by the states and territories with another 10,000 affordable homes. And, of course, we are working with the states and territories on the future of the $1.6 billion per annum in the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. The Interim National Housing Supply and Affordability Council has already had its first meeting. It will be providing independent advice to tiers of government about how to make housing more affordable and how to get more homes on the ground more quickly. The council will also provide critical advice into the new National Housing and Homelessness Plan that will fit with National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. And, of course, because of our Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee that we brought forward 2,000 Australians are already in their first home sooner. The help to buy scheme will soon be introduced to support eligible Australians to purchase their own homes sooner.</para>
<para>It's astounding to me that we've still got people on the other side who are saying no to our agenda, particularly the Housing Australia Future Fund. They're saying no to more homes for women and children fleeing family violence. They're saying no to more homes for women and children at risk of homelessness. They're saying no to building more homes for veterans who are at risk of homelessness. They're saying no to more Australians, particularly those Australians who are doing it tough, who are relying on this social and affordable housing.</para>
<para>Every single day we delay in this place means no homes on the ground for people who need it critically. Those opposite need to say yes in the Senate when the legislation gets there next week.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the environment minister. Recently you quietly issued, late on a Friday afternoon, your decision to approve Labor Party donor Santos a license to frack 116 new gas wells in Queensland until 2077. The International Energy Agency recently showed that Australia's methane emissions from coal and gas could be 60 per cent higher than now accounted for. Why are you approving new gas wells that will make the climate crisis worse?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the first thing to say is that imputation is unworthy and insulting. The second thing I would like to point out to the honourable member is that the project she is talking about is a 1.3 per cent expansion of a project that has been going for eight years. To listen to the member opposite you'd think it was something quite different. But I will say to the Greens, as they're sitting there feeling self-righteous, that the very best thing the Greens political party could do if they were really interested in climate change in this country is back the government's safeguard mechanism.</para>
<para>Those sitting up there in that corner should not make the same mistake they made in 2009 when they voted with Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce to block action on climate change, because what they delivered last time was more omissions for longer and a Liberal government. That's what they delivered last time.</para>
<para>I am proud of what we're doing on this side of the parliament. It's the Albanese Labor government that is delivering real action on climate change with a legislated path to net zero emissions, with a pledge on methane, with real action to protect the ozone layer, with $20 billion to rewire the nation so we can put more renewable energy into our electricity market, with $3 billion in the National Reconstruction Fund to support low emissions technologies. Are you going to vote for that? Are you going to vote for the $3 billion for low-emissions technologies? Why don't you answer that question?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SP</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Leader of the Australian Greens will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The best thing that those opposite can do if they sincerely want to see real action on climate change is support the government's safeguard mechanism. Don't make the same mistake as in 2009; back the National Reconstruction Fund and get on board our measures for addressing climate change.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs What support is the Albanese Labor government providing to veterans and their families who are at risk of homelessness?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bendigo for this important question and for her ongoing advocacy for the veterans and families in her electorate. Of course, we understand that rising cost-of-living pressures and higher interest rates are hitting a lot of Australians hard, including our veteran community. The Albanese Labor government has an ambitious reform for housing to make sure that more Australians can have a safe and affordable place to call home. Indeed, nearly 6,000 contemporary veterans can experience homelessness in any one year, so the Department of Veterans' Affairs is working with the community housing sector, including through a partnership with the Community Housing Industry Association and ex-service organisations, to develop veteran-specific resources to assist community housing providers in supporting veterans who are experiencing homelessness. These resources also introduce an industry standard for providing housing services to veterans.</para>
<para>If you are a veteran that is experiencing homelessness, please do get in touch with the Department of Veterans' Affairs on 1800838372 or Open Arms on 1800011046. But, to be frank, we don't actually want to find ourselves in the position where veterans are homeless. Things shouldn't have to get that far. The Australian government strives to ensure that all former serving members of our Australian Defence Force who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness have access to the services and the support that they and their families require. That's why we're investing $3.6 million to build the Scott Palmer Services Centre, a crisis and transitional housing and support service to help veterans find permanent accommodation and employment in Darwin. It's why our $30 million commitment to build more housing and fund specialist services for veterans and families who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness is so very important.</para>
<para>And that's just one part of our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. This is the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing by a federal government in more than a decade. And there are some excellent organisations around Australia who are standing by to provide housing relief to our veterans and who want to provide that support. These organisations have proposals—proposals just like the Scott Palmer Services Centre in Darwin or the existing Andrew Russell Veteran Living program in South Australia—but they're hamstrung without the passage of the Housing Australia Future Fund legislation. Indeed, even the member for Jagajaga approached me the other day with another program that could support veterans experiencing homelessness.</para>
<para>People have examples of these around the country, but for some unfathomable reason the opposition wants to stand in the way of more coordinated support for veterans who are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of homelessness. Every day that we have to wait is another day that veterans have to wait to get access to the support they need for homelessness, because of this opposition.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Income Tax</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election the Prime Minister said he would stand by the legislated stage 3 tax cuts. Will the Prime Minister rule out any changes to the stage 3 tax cuts, or will this be the next broken promise from this tricky Prime Minister?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Flinders for her question. We've made our priority very clear, and so have the Liberals. We now have the first commitment from the Leader of the Opposition, which is on tax issues.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bowman is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If successful at the next election—with the support, I assume of the member for Flinders if she's successful—he will introduce better tax concessions for those people who have $100 million in their super account.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Having gone through almost an entire year as opposition leader, having had his first budget reply without having a single policy to put forward, we now have one. And we're expecting some questions about it today.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Groom is on a warning and is on thin ice. Order! If the member for Hume doesn't want me to hear the Manager of Opposition Business, keep going. I call the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's on relevance. The question is very tightly defined. Will the Prime Minister rule out changes to the stage 3 tax cuts? He's avoiding doing that. He's equivocating.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I will hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the point of order, it's always been the case that when there's a tag of that nature it opens the question wide up.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister is in order. I'm struggling to hear his answer and I'm asking the House to show some respect. I give the call to the Prime Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Of course, we haven't changed our position on that issue, but we've finally found—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for O'Connor will leave the chamber under standing order 94A.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for O'Connor then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>a group of people who the opposition will fight for. He won't fight for those veterans at risk of homelessness, which we just discussed. He won't fight for those women and children escaping domestic violence who'll benefit from the Housing Australia Future Fund. He won't fight for those people in regional Australia who want manufacturing jobs in the National Reconstruction Fund. He won't fight for those businesses who are calling for certainties with the safeguard mechanism. He won't fight for those families who want cheaper child care. He wouldn't fight for those families who will benefit from energy price relief. No to all of them. We've found a group that he'll fight for: the 17 Australians who have over $100 million in their superannuation accounts and the one Australian—he probably knows who it is—who has over $400 million in his super account.</para>
<para>They have consistently opposed absolutely everything, but finally they've found something that they're in favour of. They come in here having got on every interview with a friendly journalist they could find over the last week, and it's almost radio silence on super. What a— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Honourable member s interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for Deakin and the Prime Minister will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government working to ensure Australia is on track to meet our emissions reduction targets? Why is policy certainty so critical in this area?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for her question. I know, because she and I have discussed it, how important it was for her, in one of her first acts in this parliament, to vote with the government and the crossbench to pass our Climate Change Act, which enshrines our targets in the law of the land. And now the task is to implement those targets and get on with the job. An important part of doing that is the government's safeguard reforms, which cover around one-third of our emissions: our 200 biggest emitters across Australia. Our reforms will reduce emissions by 2030 by 205 million tonnes, which is very important to achieving those targets. Importantly, the House and the Senate will get a chance to vote on an element of those reforms, which is below-the-baseline crediting, the incentive for businesses to reduce their emissions even further than they are required to by the law by the government, and this is very important. The honourable member asked me about the need for certainty, and the need for certainty is very clear in regard to this—certainty on behalf of all members of the House.</para>
<para>In relation to the one matter on which the House will get a chance to vote in relation to the legislation, we've always been very clear that we give credit where credit it's due. This was a policy of the previous government as well, to reduce these baselines. In fact not only was it a policy they announced in government; it was a policy they announced during the election campaign—not just the Liberal Party; the official LNP coalition policy said, 'We will legislate the safeguard crediting mechanism.' That was the policy released on 24 April 2022. That was their policy, and there have been even more developments, we heard not so long ago from our old friend the member for Hume—always a crowd favourite on this side of the House. We look forward to his interviews with eager anticipation. It might not be unanimous across the House, but on this side of the House we look forward to them. He went further. He not only said it was their policy; he claimed they'd already legislated it when they were in government. On 7 February this year he said, 'We had a crediting mechanism that was very effective, and it worked.' He claimed they'd already legislated it when in fact they had not. Those opposite have gone from saying they would legislate it to saying they had legislated it to now say they're against legislating it.</para>
<para>This is the policy consistency we've got from those opposite. We know they had 22 energy policies in nine years. They've had three policies on safeguards in three weeks. If you're going to be the alternative government of Australia, you have to have some consistency. You have to have a little bit of logic. Under this Leader of the Opposition they have none of the above.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the minister for health.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Riverina will cease interjecting when members are asking questions.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll be there before you are.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When the House comes to order, the member for Kooyong will be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the minister for health. Minister, Australians are suffering with cost-of-living pressures. In 2018 the PBAC recommended allowing the prescribing of two months at a time's supply for 143 medications. This would save dispensing fees of up to $180 a year per prescription medicine and take pressure off GPs. Will you commit to decreasing healthcare costs by making this change to the PBAC?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You'd think they would've learned about interjecting on the member for Kooyong, but this is an opposition that doesn't appear to learn. I thank the member for Kooyong for her question, and I appreciate the contribution that members on the crossbench, particularly those with such long experience as health professionals, are making to a really difficult debate about health care right now.</para>
<para>It has never been harder to see a doctor. It has never been more expensive to see a doctor, and at a time of severe cost-of-living pressures just those basic questions about whether you can take a script to your pharmacist and have it filled or whether that will place too much of a burden on your household budget are real pressures on hundreds of thousands of Australians. We've heard from the ABS that almost a million Australians every year either defer or go without a script that their doctor has given them as important for their health because of household budget pressures. On 1 January, for the first time in 75 years, there was a substantial cut to the price of general patient scripts, down from $42.50 to $30, and already that has saved tens of millions dollars for many Australians. It's made a real difference not only to their household budget but, importantly, to their health care as well.</para>
<para>The member for Kooyong is right: the PBAC has made other suggestions about ways in which that cost-of-living pressure and also the convenience of patients can be improved—in which pressures can be alleviated, including the number of times they need to go to GPs, get scripts or go to the pharmacist to have their medicines topped up. Obviously, we're looking at all of those options. There's a budget process underway. We're looking at all of the options available to government to make access to health care better and easier for patients, and to make the cost of health care, including the cost of medicines, even cheaper.</para>
<para>I'm not in a position to make any particular announcements this afternoon, but I thank the member for Kooyong for her question. These are all matters that we take very seriously. We know, in spite of the fact we only introduced the change on 1 January, it has already had an enormously beneficial impact on patients. It's a change that was supported very strongly by the community pharmacy sector. There is much more that we can do, and we're examining all of those options very closely.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What has the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme uncovered about what was said in public by former ministers in charge of the unlawful scheme versus what they actually believed? And how many robodebts were raised between the 29 May 2019 and 19 November 2019?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bean for his question. In the most recent block of hearings at the royal commission into robodebt, we've heard from Professor Renee Leon, the former secretary of the Department of Human Services; Timothy French, DHS legal counsel; and the member for Fadden, the then Minister for Human Services.</para>
<para>Specifically, Mr French testified that, in a meeting in early July 2019, the member for Fadden was verbally briefed that the Australian Government Solicitor's opinion was that robodebt was on very shaky grounds—testimony which Professor Leon corroborated in her own evidence. Further evidence was given that on 31 July the member for Fadden appeared on the ABC's <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline> program, where he defended robodebt and stated, amongst other things, that 'in 99.2 per cent of the cases, the debt was correct'—99.2 per cent, he said.</para>
<para>However, last week, under questioning by the royal commissioner, the member for Fadden admitted that he knew that what he was saying was false. The royal commissioner said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">MR SCOTT: Well, your evidence was that you could not raise a debt based solely on averaging.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON STUART ROBERT: That was my belief, yes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MR SCOTT: And in 90 per cent of cases, that's exactly what was happening under the program to your knowledge at the time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON STUART ROBERT: Yes, that is correct.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MR SCOTT: So what you said there, to your knowledge at the time, was false, wasn't it?</para></quote>
<para>And this answer is very interesting.</para>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON STUART ROBERT: To my personal view, yes. But I'm still a Government Minister, and it's still a government program. And this was the approach that Cabinet has signed off on …</para></quote>
<para>The basic position of the evidence of the member for Fadden was that cabinet solidarity allowed him as a minister to give statistics on robodebt that he did not believe to the Australian—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will resume his seat immediately. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, you've given a ruling on several occasions on this matter. You've said that what you are less comfortable with is putting a construction on the evidence or the drawing of conclusions about the conduct of individuals who are party to the proceedings. I've listened carefully to what the minister has had to say, and he has now crossed that line. He should be reminded of your ruling and he should comply with it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to ask the minister to either state from the transcript or give a page number or something to do with the order so that, if he does cross the line in giving a statement about a concluded view, he will be brought to order.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I say this in all collegiality, but I thank the Manager for Opposition Business for giving me the chance to go to the precise quote. The member for Fadden, at page 4,220, says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">They were the numbers from the department based on the working approach to how the program was being run. They were the accepted figures by government to use. And as a dutiful cabinet minister, ma'am, that is what you do.</para></quote>
<para>And the commissioner replies, 'Misrepresent things to the Australian people?'</para>
<para>The evidence was very idiosyncratic for the member for Fadden. The story that was being put in the royal commission last week was that there was a doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility that allowed the previous government to mislead the people.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. For more than 20 years, Ian Mortlock has operated a tomato-growing business in my electorate. Under this government, Ian's company endured a 400 per cent rise in gas prices for his last contract. He has been quoted a new price, but, despite the government's much-hyped gap price caps, it's still so high it will damage his business. The Prime Minister promised Australians like Ian that he would cut their power bills by $275. Why has the Prime Minister misled the Australian people? Isn't this yet another broken promise by this tricky Prime Minister?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would just remind the member she was well out of time with that question. There was a question at the end. Order. For the purpose of clarity, I'm going to ask the member to state the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why has the Prime Minister misled the Australian people? Isn't this yet another broken promise by this tricky Prime Minister?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a very broad question. I give the call to the Prime Minister.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We brought the parliament back last December to put a cap on gas prices. We put it back—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and the member opposite voted against it. The member opposite also voted against the $1.5 billion of energy price relief. The member opposite voted against that. I hope that the member tells that company that she voted against the cap on gas prices and that she voted against the $1½ billion dollars of energy price relief.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ministerial Standards</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Attorney-General. How important is it for ministers to act in accordance with the law?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the member for Calwell for her question. When we set up the robodebt royal commission shortly after coming to government, the degree of dishonesty, shocking lack of probity and lack of integrity of the former Liberal government was already very well known. But the painstaking work of this royal commission has uncovered an even greater degree of wrongdoing than many of us had anticipated. Last week, the member for Fadden revealed to the commission that, while he was the minister responsible in 2019, he had serious doubts about the legality of the robodebt scheme. Despite those doubts, this is what he also revealed: the member for Fadden continued to publicly defend the scheme and use fake statistics that he knew to be false. When asked about this at the royal commission, the member for Fadden said 'cabinet made me do it'. I can reassure this House that there is nothing—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Attorney-General will take a break, and I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, on a point of order, again, the principle is that a minister should not be putting a construction on the evidence or the drawing of conclusions. I will give the member for Maribyrnong credit that he was quoting from precise verbatim pieces of evidence. You would have thought the first law officer of the nation would also adopt that same principle.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind all ministers not to give a concluded view while the royal commission is underway. I ask the minister to refer directly to evidence in his answer. I give the minister the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would refer to commission transcript pages 4219 to 4220. The damage done by behaviour that we have seen at the royal commission weakens the bond of trust between voters and elected representatives. Voters are entitled to the most basic expectations that those in power abide by the law.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Attorney-General will resume his seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister for skills will cease interjecting. I will hear from the manager.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, it is extraordinary that this point needs to be made about the conduct of the first law officer of the land, but the royal commission is specifically tasked with finding facts and drawing conclusions. For this reason you have rightly ruled, as have previous Speakers, that there is a distinction to be drawn between reporting facts and putting a construction on the evidence or the drawing of conclusions. That is precisely what the Attorney-General has repeatedly done in his answer.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The comment from the Attorney General to that point of order that was just raised against us was, and I think I'm quoting precisely, 'those in power need to abide by the law'. It is extraordinary that that is controversial, and that it does not need to be seen through the lens of interpreting specific pieces of evidence. It can't be the case that the standing orders don't allow the Attorney-General to make clear that members of the government need to obey the law.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will just remind the Attorney-General not to make any conclusions or give his opinion about what happened at the royal commission and, if he has an answer relating to evidence, I ask him to provide that to the chamber; otherwise I will sit him down. He can, in conclusion, continue his answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. Let's move away from the royal commission. When Labor came to government, it was very clear that there was an urgent need to restore integrity and transparency, which had been so badly eroded by the former Liberal government. The former Liberal government reneged on that promise to establish a national anticorruption commission. They ignored calls for a robo-debt royal commission, and now we know why. The Albanese Labor government have been left with a very big clean-up job to do but we have already made important progress, including by legislating for a national anticorruption commission that will be up and running in coming months.</para>
<para>The robo-debt debacle is just one shocking example of what can happen when governments throw accountability aside, when they act as if they are above the law. It must never happen again.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Kieran, who runs Hutch and Co cafe in Lilydale, a small business in my electorate of Casey, is bracing for the cafe's power bill to increase by $2,438 this year. The Prime Minister promised Australians like Kieran that he would cut their power bills by $275. Why has the Prime Minister misled the Australian people? Isn't this yet another broken promise by this tricky Prime Minister?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Casey for his question about Kieran, a constituent in his electorate, and I hope he can tell Kieran that the parliament sat last December and passed a significant plan. We passed a plan for a cap on gas prices. The New South Wales parliament and the Queensland administration also put in place price caps on coal. The RBA, the IMF, AEMO and AGL have all confirmed that our plan is working and has made a difference. The energy price relief plan is something the member for Casey came in here and voted against. As of 3 February, wholesale electricity forward prices were nearly of half that in November, and that is in spite of the opposition of those opposite. I hope he tells Kieran he's sorry that he voted against energy price relief, because they vote against everything over there, don't have any constructive ideas and are apparently unaware that there has been this international spike because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Apparently that hasn't happened and hasn't had an impact. Well, it has had an impact right around the world, and we're dealing with practical measures, unlike those opposite—who, unlike their Liberal and National counterparts in New South Wales and indeed in Queensland, chose to just say no.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Natural Disasters</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>PHILLIPS () (): My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories: how is the Albanese Labor government supporting regional communities to rebuild following natural disasters, what approach has the government adopted and what approaches has it rejected?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for the question and acknowledge the work she continues to do in the recovery effort in her electorate. We know many Australians have been impacted by natural disasters. Only last week we saw remote communities in the Northern Territory evacuated, and the Albanese Labor government stand ready to assist where we can. Floods, fires, cyclones and extreme weather events continue to devastate much of our vast country. Natural disasters and the communities they impact should never be politicised, and we unfortunately have seen this time and time again from those opposite. Now the New South Wales Audit Office has found the New South Wales Liberal-National government chose the same path in bushfire funding. Politics absolutely needs to take a back seat in times of community need. The most important thing people and communities need to know is that support is available during a disaster. Competitive grant funding after a disaster doesn't work.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order, questions are to be asked to ministers about their portfolio responsibilities, not the responsibilities of another government, the New South Wales government.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question was about what approaches have been adopted and rejected.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to avoid even commenting on that ridiculous interruption.</para>
<para>Competitive grant funding really needs to take a back seat, because communities should not be pitted against each other in times of disaster. In times of disaster, people need to come together for recovery. I don't know if those opposite know that in my electorate a thousand homes were burnt during the Black Summer bushfire, and 2,000 sheds and outbuildings and tens of thousands of kilometres of fence line lost, and not once in those 10 years prior did I see anyone over there saying, 'Where's the black spot funding for Eden-Monaro? They're going to need it, because there's a disaster coming'—not once. You guys had three years under former prime minister Morrison where you had a disaster recovery fund where you collected $800 million of interest and didn't spend a single dollar on a mitigation project—not a single dollar on recovery. It's absolute hypocrisy coming from those opposite.</para>
<para>And we won't repeat those mistakes, which is why we are committed to the Disaster Ready Fund—a billion dollars over five years so that we can help communities to prepare for the next natural disaster with flood levies, evacuation centres and cyclone shelters. We know it's important, and we know regional communities do best when they work together. When they're not politicised, we get outcomes. Grant funding doesn't need to go to the North Sydney pool. Those opposite should have thought about that when they sent regional dollars there. People in communities spend time and money applying for grant funds, and this side of the House will work with communities to deliver grant funds on an integrity and transparency basis. Our government is committed to working with communities, especially in our regions. Our Powering the Regions Fund and the National Reconstruction Fund will bring investment into our regional communities on a transparent basis— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pensions and Benefits</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Two weeks ago, with the Leader of the Opposition and the member for O'Connor, I travelled to Laverton and Leonora in Western Australia. We heard from local leaders that since this government abolished the cashless debit card there has been an increase in alcohol-related violence and children in those communities not being fed. When will the Prime Minister start listening to the local voices of community calling for the reinstatement of the cashless debit card?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to thank the member for his question. Of course, there's a lot of emotion around the cashless debit card, and some of those on the other side are using it for political purposes. They're using it as a way to divide communities and spread misinformation.</para>
<para>Alcohol misuse in remote and rural Australia is due to a complex range of issues, and the Goldfields is no different. Of course, having a look at—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Rubbish!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, of course, reports from the Goldfields have been from local police who have reported, as I have stated in this place, that there has been an increase of movement from the NG lands to Kalgoorlie, Leonora and Laverton this summer. I will remind the House that the NG lands were never subject to the cashless debit card, so making this connection is misleading.</para>
<para>It has also been publicly reported—which I am assuming the Leader of the Opposition has listened to—that there have been recent royalty payments which have attracted larger groups into town to access these funds.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How many different excuses are you going to come up with?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Deakin is warned!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind everyone that royalty payments have never been restricted by the cashless debit card. So, once again, these connections do not actually add up and, once again, are an example of misinformation. But I would also like to quote some comments from Aboriginal elder Marty Seelander, who said that people with serious drinking problems are among those from the NG lands who receive infrequent but substantial mining royalties and travel to the Goldfields region to spend their payments on alcohol. That is what the Leader of the Opposition heard. Why he would come into this place and try and mislead and conflate is beyond me.</para>
<para>But I will say that we, as a government, are investing in the things that work. We will invest in the support and services that work. My department continues to consult with those regions, because we promised and committed money to the existing services that were to end under those opposite—from 1 July this year there was no more money for these sites. Of course, we have not only committed that funding but have committed extra funding to the services that work. I will, and this government will, continue to work with those communities affected by these complex issues to deliver real and lasting solutions. We are not going to play politics, even if those on the other side will.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How is the Albanese-Labor government delivering on its election commitment to make early childhood education more affordable for Australian families?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. It was really fantastic to visit the West Ryde Neighbourhood Children's Centre with the member for Bennelong last week. The centre is led by the wonderful director, Susie, and we got to meet such beautiful children like Lily, and a huge thank you to Lily for the painting of rainbows and love hearts. I particularly enjoyed watching the member for Bennelong pretending to be a human basketball hoop while the children threw their hats at him. It certainly was a sight to be seen.</para>
<para>The Albanese government believes that good quality and affordable early childhood education is critical for every Australian child. We know that it can change the trajectory of a child's life, but the benefits, of course, go beyond just children. A well-functioning early learning system pays a triple dividend. It sets children up for a great start in life, it helps families get ahead and it builds our economic prosperity by supporting workforce participation. Our reforms that were introduced last year will make early learning more affordable for over 1.2 million families right across Australia in electorates like Bennelong, starting from 1 July.</para>
<para>It's just one of the ways that the Albanese government is providing responsible relief to families that will make a huge difference to their household budgets. The reforms will enable more primary carers, who are predominantly women, to return to work, to take on extra work if they so wish to contribute to the household income, or to go back to university or study if they so wish.</para>
<para>I visited early centres right across Australia, from Bennelong to Reid, Swan, Boothby, Wills and Aston. Everywhere I go, families tell me how relieved they are that the Labor government is living up to its promise and making it more affordable for early childhood education. I also get to see firsthand the fantastic work of early childhood educators. In the words of Georgie Dent from the Parenthood, who is a wonderful advocate for the value of early learning:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Investment in early childhood education and care is an investment in building the nation's social capital. It is an investment in the future prosperity of the country and just as important as physical infrastructure.</para></quote>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is making investments in Australian children and families, investments that make a real difference to their lives. We're delivering on our commitments to the Australian people, and we're giving children the best start in life and making a real difference to the household budgets of Australian families.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation: Taxation</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen advice from Treasury that the so-called half a percent of people affected by their super changes will rise to 10 per cent of Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It took until 3.24 to break the pea-hearted silence of the shadow Treasurer. We had to sit here for an hour and a half to wait for a question from the shadow Treasurer. He hasn't asked me one since November, and, after all that waiting, that's the best that he can come up with—what a joke!</para>
<para>The answer to his question is this—and I know that it comes from questioning in the Senate, where they did have the courage to ask some questions about superannuation today, not like the pea-hearted approach of the one opposite here, the shadow Treasurer. The answer that the shadow Treasurer is referring to is that right now, in 2025, less than half of one per cent of people will be impacted.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Let me finish. Wait for it. By the beginning of the next decade, it will be around one per cent. And the answer that Minister Gallagher, the great finance minister in the other place, gave a moment ago is: in 30 years, one in 10 people will be impacted by it. This is the number that the shadow Treasurer thinks is some kind of stunning insight. These are lengths that they will go to, to hide what should be their shamefaced embarrassment. We can't get a question from the shadow Treasurer about energy bills. We can't get one about housing affordability. We can't get one about manufacturing and the National Reconstruction Fund. But this bloke will go to the wall for half a per cent of people getting big tax breaks in the superannuation system.</para>
<para>We are proposing a modest change, but it is a simple choice. On this side of the House, when we inherit a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt and deficits as far as the eye can see, unfunded ongoing commitments and intensifying pressures in the budget, we say that the generous concessions in superannuation for half a per cent of people can be a little bit less generous. We know what those opposite do when the budget is under pressure. They victimise and demonise the most vulnerable people in this country—with robodebt. They come after Medicare, like the member for Dickson did the last time the Liberals were in office.</para>
<para>As those opposite splash and thrash around in the shallowest and muddiest puddles of political opportunism, on this side of the House the adults will continue to make serious decisions about serious pressures on the budget that we inherited from those opposite. We will continue to make the right calls for the right reasons to clean up the mess that they left us.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Hume and the Treasurer will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Procurement</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. What steps is the Albanese government taking to deliver defence capability and support Australian defence industry? Why are these policies important, and how do the policies of the Albanese Labor government compare to a decade of coalition neglect?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer and the member for Hume are warned. That sort of yelling across the chamber is completely unacceptable. You are both on warnings.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Makin, from the great city of Adelaide, for his question. The truth is we face the greatest strategic uncertainty since World War II, and it's critical we have a defence procurement system that works efficiently to deliver the equipment the ADF needs. We also need a sovereign Australian defence industry to support that, but the truth is that we inherited a mess. There were 28 major defence projects running 97 years late. There were battlefield airlift planes that couldn't find a battlefield; helicopters running more than 10 years late and available less than 50 per cent of the time; and patrol boats built with imported, substandard aluminium that—get this—rusts in salt water. This was a mess driven by the incompetence of those opposite. There were nine years of defence and defence industry ministers asleep at the wheel.</para>
<para>By contrast, the Deputy Prime Minister and I took immediate action and announced six significant reforms to defence procurement. This included driving greater ministerial focus and energy through regular ministerial summits to fix projects of concern. I will be conducting the second ministerial summit this month—the second summit in four months. That second summit in four months compares to six summits in a long nine years by those opposite. I can also inform the House that today the Independent Project Management Office has been established within Defence to help drive reforms to the defence procurement system, delivering to the ADF the equipment they need.</para>
<para>Complementing a procurement system is a sovereign Australian defence industry. This is something the Albanese government is deeply committed to. Whether it's through the National Reconstruction Fund or our commitment to building nuclear-propelled submarines in Adelaide, we want our defence industry to prosper. It's good for Aussie jobs and it's great for our national security.</para>
<para>I've recently returned from the Munich security conference, where I met with the German defence minister and the global head of Rheinmetall. We had great conversations about Rheinmetall building Boxer vehicles in Queensland to export to Germany. This will be the biggest export deal in our defence history. The Albanese government is working hard on this, and that's the difference between the government and the opposition. We want to grow jobs through defence exports; they want to export defence jobs. We saw that when they tried to send the submarine contract to Japan, and only last week the Leader of the Opposition surrendered on Aussie jobs and advocated building our nuclear submarines overseas. He cut Adelaide loose. Only the Albanese government can be trusted to fight for an Australian defence industry, because we know it's vital to our national security. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare: Mental Health</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the minister for health. Last week I met with a young woman from Western Sydney about her petition to make Medicare funded access to 20 psychology sessions permanent, which has received over 41,000 signatures. She said, 'It's extremely infuriating to hear the health minister say that consumers of mental health are not asking for this decision to be overturned, when I know my supporters have sent countless emails to his office.' Why isn't the minister listening to people with lived experience, and when will the minister return the psychology sessions he cut?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. I'm not sure—she may want to indicate—whether she lobbied the former minister to make those additional 10 sessions permanent, because, as she would know, the former government made the decision that they would terminate on 31 December 2022. That decision was not changed in the March budget last year, the last budget that was delivered by the former government. Perhaps the member for Lindsay lobbied the former minister for that. I've not heard that. I've seen no correspondence to that effect. As far as I know, every single member across the now opposition backbenches was quite happy with the decision that the former minister, Greg Hunt, had made.</para>
<para>The decision we took to essentially support the position of the former government was informed by the evaluation of Better Access program, which I have outlined to this parliament a number of times before. The essential conclusion of that was that the additional 10 sessions, far from making access better, which is the name of this program, made access worse: tens and tens of thousands of potential patients could not get into the system at all. The evaluation also found that the additional 10 sessions did not go to people with any more complex needs than those who were not getting the additional 10 sessions.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear an interjection from the member for Lindsay that it's not true. I can't remember the exact words, but the evaluation found that the baseline mental health of those who received the additional sessions was almost identical to the baseline mental health of those who did not receive the additional sessions.</para>
<para>I, along with the Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, am consulting with the sector very broadly about ways in which we can make Better Access more equitable, ways in which we can make Better Access more accessible for those communities who are missing out and who, frankly, have been missing out for the almost two decades of this program, which has seen these services disproportionately delivered to wealthier suburbs and inner city suburbs instead of those in the outer suburbs and in regional communities. We're committed to making this a sustainable, equitable program.</para>
<para>The member for Lindsay also asked why we are not listening to those with lived experience. Well, in the 2012 budget, when I was Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, we set aside funding to set up lived experience organisations to give consumers a voice in the delivery and deliberations around mental health policy. And who cut that? The now Leader of the Opposition, who was the health minister, the worst health minister in the modern history of health, cut the funding we had set aside to give consumers a voice in the development of mental health policy. I'm really proud that the assistant minister for mental health, 10 years too late because of those opposite, has finally reintroduced funding to give consumers a structured voice in the delivery of mental health policy in this country. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Member for Lindsay will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Refugees</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting the economic participation and inclusion of refugees in our community?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Wills for his question. I know these are issues that he is deeply committed to and that matter a lot to his constituents. I'm very proud to be part of a government that's committed to changing the tenor of our national debate on refugees, as we also ensure that our policies make a practical difference to the lives of refugees and to the communities that we welcome them into.</para>
<para>This government understands that a successful humanitarian program must consider the entire settlement journey of a refugee. From the point when someone steps off a plane in Australia for the first time to gaining secure employment, we're dedicated to making sure that our newest Australians are able to rebuild their lives not just in safety but with stability and security so that they can fulfil their potential and make the contribution to communities that is so desperately needed and that is so important to each one of those entrants.</para>
<para>We also believe in the power of a strong community sponsorship model, and I acknowledge that that's something that's shared across this chamber. I believe that's something we all support. Critically, we are committed to making this additional to the government refugee intake. We know that, through harnessing the enthusiasm and the generosity of the Australian community, we are able to match UNHCR referred refugees with local community groups who provide extraordinary wraparound support, practical and in-kind support and settlement integration support, including through lots of help with finding housing, navigating the journey towards schooling for children, work and learning English.</para>
<para>From Gosford to Wonthaggi, we've seen families welcomed with open arms by their sponsors and wider communities, who are helping them navigate the journey into Australian society and helping them to participate more quickly and fully in their communities and the economy. I'm so pleased that many of these entrants are already participating in the labour market. I'm also pleased that we have programs that support this journey in becoming more complete, recognising that, whilst entrants who come through humanitarian pathways are highly motivated to work, they face unique barriers.</para>
<para>That's why this week I was pleased to make a number of announcements supporting social enterprises, including with my friend the member for Sydney and also the member for Macnamara at Parliament on King, an extraordinary venue, where I announced $7.5 million in funding to Victorian social enterprises, ensuring that people who come here through humanitarian pathways get every opportunity to make their contribution at wonderful places like Space2b in St Kilda, which has provided a pathway to secure employment for 95 per cent of the refugees who come through there, including through its onsite cafe. This cafe is run by Nayran, a person currently on a TPV but who will soon be able to become a permanent resident and develop her business. Her cafe is more than just financial stability; it's a way in which she can give back to this country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation: Taxation</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Was the Prime Minister aware, when he made public commentary on this matter last week, of the Treasury advice that one in 10 Australians will be affected by the proposed super changes? If so, Prime Minister, what is your advice to a 37-year-old making investment decisions today about their superannuation who would be affected by these changes?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. My advice to a 37-year-old would be to listen to old Angus, not new Angus, because in June 2016—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister will refer to members by their title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The shadow Treasurer, in June 2016—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance, it was a straight question. It didn't require a slippery answer.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Mr Speaker—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can you answer the question or not? Does he know about the advice or not?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The question was about advice to the Prime Minster. He is answering the question. I give him the call, and he'll be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He is very angry. He can save the yelling for the New South Wales Liberals' campaign launch on Sunday. Save it for that. This is what the shadow Treasurer had to say: 'The situation we had was some people were contributing millions of dollars into super and it is totally inappropriate that someone who has contributed millions and millions of dollars continues to get those 15 per cent concessions.' That is what they had to say—well done, Angus! It was after the Treasurer's budget speech that year that the then Treasurer, the member for Cook, had this to say: 'We will be reducing access to generous superannuation tax concessions for the most wealthy.' Today they have come in here today, and we have let question time go for over an hour and a half. They have finally asked a question about super, and what they talk about is something that happens in 30 years, even though, when they made the changes in section 293 and section 293, they didn't index it. They didn't index income tax rates. I make this bold prediction: in 30 years' time, some people will be earning more than they are today in dollar terms, some people will be paying different income tax rates in 30 years than they are now and different people will be contributing under section 293 in superannuation—the changes that those opposite delivered in 2016-17. But the difference is this: our tax changes affect one-half of one per cent.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will pause.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The House will come to order. The member will resume his seat. I didn't hear what the Treasurer said. I'm asking if he would withdraw to assist the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Chalmers</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> The difference is this: our changes affect half of one per cent. The changes of those opposite affected four per cent. They weren't indexed. They had an impact of $5 billion. Our modest changes— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. This weekend marked the anniversary of the tabling of the shocking final report from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality, and Safety. What actions is the Albanese Labor government taking to address the aged-care crisis and deliver the care that older Australians deserve?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Fremantle for his question. I know that he has been very engaged with aged-care facilities in his electorate like the Italian Village, a facility that provides which provides culturally and linguistically diverse care to older Australians. March 1 marked two years since the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety's shocking final report was tabled in the parliament. It was damning in its assessment of the aged-care system. It showed us stomach-turning evidence of how our most vulnerable people were being treated—maggots in the wounds of older Australians, and two-thirds of people in residential care malnourished or at risk of malnourishment. People who were supposed to be being cared for were literally not getting enough food to eat.</para>
<para>The royal commission told us all that we must do better, be better, and this government is not wasting a single day. These are not new problems, but we are giving new energy to fixing them and we have already directly addressed 37 royal commission recommendations—that is, four times more than what those opposite did in 17 months. We are putting nurses back into nursing homes 24/7 to improve clinical care and to reduce trips to hospital. We are putting in mandatory minimum care minutes from 1 October this year and a deserved pay rise for our workforce, to recognise their work properly—a rise supported by this government. There's the star-rating system, to increase choice, accountability and transparency; the inaugural code of conduct to protect older people; capping homecare charges and exit fees to stop the rorting; and enhancing safeguards for restrictive practices. And this only scratches the surface of the critical reforms that we have and have yet to tackle in the coming years and months as we are working hard to set up this sector for long-term success.</para>
<para>Aged care has had a very difficult decade, but I see a bright, positive and ambitious future for this sector. Those opposite do not share this optimism. They continue to talk down the sector and continue to talk down the recommendations of the royal commission. They even talk down the need for round-the-clock nursing and for the right for older people to access round-the-clock nursing.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. I call the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, it goes to relevance. The question was on the actions this government has taken to address the aged-care crisis. It was not an invitation to go into the record of the previous government.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask the minister to return to the question. She has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm talking about the urgent need for reform in aged care asked of us by the royal commission due to the actions and neglect of those opposite. They might accuse us of rushing reform in aged care; we certainly could not accuse them of rushing anything in aged care, because it is very hard to rush neglect—you really have to let it wither on the vine.</para>
<para>They could not commit to 24/7 nurses, they could not commit to basic standards of care minutes for our older Australians and they could not commit to a pay rise for aged-care workers. But they remain steadfastly committed to neglecting the duty of care and the standard required in aged care. This government will not apologise for being ambitious for aged care. We will keep working and we will keep fighting, even though the reform required is complex and difficult. We remain committed to the task and we remain committed to older Australians.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I call the Prime Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCormack</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Riverina will resume his seat. Immediately.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I give the call to the Prime Minister. I look forward to 2pm tomorrow, member for Riverina!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCormack</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll be No. 1!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</title>
        <page.no>80</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hawke, Hon. Robert James Lee (Bob), AC</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday I had the great honour of attending the Prime Ministers' Memorial Garden at Melbourne General Cemetery for the internment of some of the ashes of the late Bob Hawke. It was chosen to be with the 40th anniversary of the election of the Hawke Labor government on 5 March 1983. The Hawke government, of course, left such an extraordinary legacy in economic, social and environmental policy reform.</para>
<para>It was my great honour to attend with Blanche D'Alpuget, along with some of Bob Hawke's very loyal staff—people who witnessed history—like Jill Saunders, who actually knows everything that happened in the old House from the days of Gough Whitlam. It was wonderful to see her, along with Geoff Walsh, Craig Emerson and others. It was a private occasion there—that was what Bob and Blanche had discussed and wanted—but it was a great honour for me, as Prime Minister, and I thank Blanche and all those involved in what was a very significant commemoration of a great historical figure in Australian history.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to join in acknowledging the sentiment of the Prime Minister's words there. Bob Hawke, of course, was a giant of this parliament, a giant of the Labor Party and a very distinguished prime minister of our country. We should do more in our country to celebrate the contributions of our past leaders on both sides of the chamber. We live in the best country in the world and we should acknowledge what our former leaders contributed. We can exchange to and fro on different issues of the day, but, in the end, the continuity of both the Liberal and Labor parties in this country has served us well into this very time. We acknowledge this very significant occasion and that it carries significance for the Prime Minister, as well as being a true stalwart of the Australian Labor Party.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</title>
        <page.no>80</page.no>
        <type>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Report No. 14 of 2022-23</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the Auditor-General's Audit performance audit report No. 14, 2022-23, entitled <inline font-style="italic">Department of Home Affairs' management of its public communications and media activities: Department of Home Affairs.</inline></para>
<para>Document made a parliamentary paper.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>81</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Explanation</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do, once more.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You may proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In the House today the Attorney-General and Minister for Government Services said that I knew that robodebt was unlawful and continued to defend it. That is not the evidence of the royal commission and not the evidence I gave to the royal commission. In the royal commission, I made the point that, after a few weeks of being sworn in, on 4 July 2019, with misgivings about the scheme, I asked for legal advice. No legal advice had been provided to the government or to me before or at that time. Four months later, when that legal advice was provided by the Solicitor-General, within two hours I walked into the Prime Minister's office and stopped robodebt. That is the evidence I gave. Whilst I held substantial misgivings about the scheme, I am not a lawyer, and the idea that a non-legal trained minister who thought there was a problem would stop something that had been running for four years and that had been through cabinet and an election is naive at best. They are the facts, and they are not in dispute.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>81</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leave of Absence</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That leave of absence from the determination of this sitting until 30 March 2023 be given to Mr Wood for personal reasons.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>81</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a debate that we wanted to have during the course of question time so that the Australian public could see this tricky Prime Minister on full display. They pulled a stunt, as you saw, Mr Speaker, and they sought to delay it until we got passed the broadcasting hour. It's a very tricky move by a tricky government. We get that. But the trickiest move is that the Prime Minister has left the chamber and has refused to take part in this debate.</para>
<para>When this Prime Minister went into the last election he said to the Australian people that he wanted greater transparency, that he wanted a brighter parliament and that he would let the sunlight in. None of that has happened. This Prime Minister said to the Australian public, before the election, many things, and the Australian public put faith in him, thinking that, if he was elected, he would undertake what he had promised to do. The fact is that since then the complete opposite has taken place. Is it any wonder that many of the Australian people who have watched the debate over the course of the last almost 10 months have been amazed at the way this Prime Minister has danced away from every commitment that he gave?</para>
<para>When the Prime Minister went into the election, he looked the Australian public in the eye and said that they were working on a plan. The problem is it wasn't the plan the Australian public thought he was working on. They thought he was working on a plan to reduce power prices by $275, because he promised that on 97 occasions. They thought that this Prime Minister, when he was opposition leader, went to the campaign, giving a commitment to reduce their mortgage bill. But, of course, since then, mortgages have gone up on eight occasions, with many more, sadly, likely in the pipeline. They didn't think it was a plan of a hit list of some $150 billion worth of taxes, including, as the Treasurer pointed out the other day, on the family home capital gains tax.</para>
<para>The Treasurer must have commissioned that work when he came into office in May or June just after the election. That's the reality. It doesn't take five minutes to work up the level of detail that we saw last week. If you want to see the true Treasurer of this country, the true member for Rankin, look at his train wreck interview with David Koch on <inline font-style="italic">Sunrise</inline> and Karl Stefanovic on the <inline font-style="italic">Today </inline>show. That's when we got an insight into what he was really thinking. Is it the case that the Labor Party support a policy of taxes on people's homes? Would they see the abolition of different tax concessions, including negative gearing? Would they support that in a heartbeat if they thought that they could get away with it? They would do it in a heartbeat. So you saw a little light into the true Jim Chalmers on the <inline font-style="italic">Sunrise</inline> program, on the <inline font-style="italic">Today</inline> program. You saw the manufactured Treasurer when he was pushed back out by the Prime Minister to do media within an hour or so.</para>
<para>The reality is that, in this short time, I can't go through all the broken promises of this Prime Minister, but we do have a top 10: no changes to superannuation; franking credits won't be touched; a $275 cut to power prices every year; Australian families would be better off; cheaper mortgages; an increase in real wages; no increase in the tax burden; no industry-wide bargaining; cutting the cost of consultants in the public sector; wage rises for aged-care workers. If you look at what the Prime Minister, both as the opposition leader and now in office, has had to say in a number of interviews, you see that his words condemn his now actions. He said, for example, in this House: 'Let me tell you: you have to earn the trust of the Australian people. If you make a promise and a commitment, you do have to stick to it or you'll be punished."</para>
<para>In relation to superannuation, on ABC's <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline>, Mr Speers asked: 'What about superannuation? Will there be changes to the superannuation rules?' Mr Chalmers: 'Look, we've said about superannuation that we would maintain the system.' He goes on to say, 'Australians shouldn't expect major changes to superannuation if the government changes hands.' That's what the Australian people were led to believe. The Australian public knew that, under the Labor Party, tough times would be ahead—they didn't realise how tough. And it is getting tougher over the course of this calendar year. The Australian government, led by Mr Albanese, is making it harder for families.</para>
<para>What did the Australian Prime Minister say about these matters in a press conference in May of 2022? He was asked: 'Does Labor commit to the current super arrangements for self-funded retirees and other superannuants?' The Prime Minister: 'We've said we have no intention to make any super changes.' Now, that is tricky at best, because we know, as I pointed out before, that the now Treasurer was drawing up the hit list before they came into government in May of last year and commissioned the work from Treasury immediately. So he was either making that statement knowing about the work that the Treasurer was undertaking, or somehow the Treasurer was off on a frolic of his own. I don't think that is the case.</para>
<para>Neil Mitchell said to Anthony Albanese on 31 January 2022: 'Okay, superannuation—any changes?' It couldn't have been a clearer question. Mr Albanese: 'We've not planned for any changes on superannuation.' Tricky at best. You've had Stephen Jones, the Assistant Treasurer, out there talking about seeing people's money that they've worked hard for and put into a superannuation fund as a 'big honeypot'.</para>
<para>The difficulty here is that the Australian public heard their Prime Minister and they trusted this Prime Minister in the run-up to an election, and every day since, this Prime Minister has ducked and weaved the truth. This Prime Minister has never once repeated the 97-occasions-repeated promise to the Australian public that he would reduce power prices by $275. A 37-year-old today is making investment decisions on their retirement in 30 years time; they're taking financial advice today about the settings around superannuation. There will be projections on adequacy into their retirement. Do you think the Treasurer got that today in question time? Absolutely he did not.</para>
<para>So, when a prime minister and a treasurer of this country break trust with the Australian public, it's very hard to regain it. If it happens on one occasion, maybe the Australian public could cut some slack—if it were inadvertent, if the circumstances had changed. But, when you look at the weasel words used by the now Prime Minister and the Treasurer in the run-up to the election, you know it was constructed in such a way that it could be broken when they got into government.</para>
<para>So now we have the list of the top 10, with many more to come. Because what we know about Labor is that they always tax. They always spend. And, when they run out of money, they always come after yours. This Labor government is no different to any of its predecessors. We will hold this bad government to account, because this Prime Minister has broken every promise with the Australian public.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there a seconder for the motion?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion. They have left the chamber. They are not here. They can't face the music. When you stuff up, you still get marks for showing up, and they will not show up. This is a dishonest prime minister who deceives the Australian people day in, day out. The Prime Minister is breaking promises he made hundreds of times before the election and ramming policies through this parliament that he didn't even mention once.</para>
<para>Let's go through those promises: a $275 cut to power bills, promise broken; cheaper mortgages, promise broken; lower inflation, promise broken; a plan to bring down the cost of living, promise broken; no changes to super, promise broken; franking credits won't be touched, promise broken. This is a prime minister who could not name the cash rate in April but thought he could promise Australians cheaper mortgages in May. This is a prime minister who promised to bring down your power bills 97 times before the election but has been allergic to the number 275 ever since. Deceitful, deceptive, dishonest—this is a prime minister who is allergic to the truth. He is slippery, he is sneaky, he dodges and weaves his way through the commitments he made to the Australian people and he refuses to be straight with them about the broken promises that he cannot deliver.</para>
<para>This is not the leadership the Prime Minister promised. He said he would leave no-one behind, but he is leaving everyone behind: small businesses, left behind; workers, left behind; mortgage holders, left behind; renters, left behind; retirees, left behind; any single Australian who has been to the supermarket this week, left behind.</para>
<para>In the Liberal and National parties, we're here for the small businesses of this great country, we're here for the workers across Australia, we're here for the renters in our capital cities, we're here for the retirees who just want the money they have saved over decades to be left alone, we're here for the Australians who are hurting badly when they go to the shops and when they fill up their cars.</para>
<para>This is a prime minister who spends his Sundays campaigning for state Labor instead of campaigning for the Australian people. Day in, day out all this Prime Minister can offer is arrogance. He is utterly incapable of delivering on the promises he made. Yesterday, while the Prime Minister was cracking lame jokes at the New South Wales Labor launch, I visited his electorate of Grayndler. I saw a great second-generation family business, Paesanella cheese—a household name. They produce ricotta, bocconcini and mozzarella. Like many small business owners, Joe's success was based on a passion for making high-quality products. Joe's father arrived as a migrant to this country and brought with him this passion for making cheese, which endures to this day. Joe doesn't need lame jokes about trains and ferries; he needs action from this Prime Minister.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister is fond of using the expression, 'I'll give you the big tip.' Well, Prime Minster, I will give you the big tip—if you were here, where you should be. Stop being a partisan political warrior and start delivering on the promises you made to the Australian people. This is a Prime Minister and a Labor government that are completely detached from reality.</para>
<para>Over the weekend, we heard the member for Sydney and her inspiring daughter bravely articulate their stories. As a woman and a mother, I was incredibly touched by the member for Sydney's story, and I particularly want to praise her daughter. This is a reminder that politicians are humans, too. We're normal people with normal problems. I think the women across Australia would be pretty disappointed that Labor MPs so brutally backgrounded against the member for Sydney's leadership aspirations when she and her family were going through such tough times. When the Prime Minister was asked to reflect on this inspiring story, what was his response? 'I was elected leader unopposed.' There was not an ounce of empathy for his colleague, not a single comment in support of her and her daughter. And what about his foot soldiers on the back bench? One MP said, anonymously, 'I don't understand why she would come out with this today, when we know it's wrong.' How tone deaf. How outrageous. I'll give the Prime Minister another hot tip: this wasn't about whether he was elected unopposed or not; this was about the member for Sydney and her daughter sharing an incredibly brave story. Shame on this Prime Minister.</para>
<para>There's no doubt in the member Sydney's mind that she would've won the Labor leadership in 2019, and looking at the first nine months under this Prime Minister there's probably not that much doubt on anyone else's mind either. This is a shambles of a government. The Treasurer is at war with the Prime Minister over taxing the family home. The stunned mullet of a Deputy Prime Minister is unable to explain Labor's new tax on super— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired) </inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the chance for us to be able to have this riveting conversation. Even the seconder couldn't stay on the motion—for the five minutes it was there. When someone becomes Leader of the Opposition—</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If I were them I wouldn't be staying for this debate either to be honest. You have the build-up as to what will be the first policy that a Leader of the Opposition is going to stand for? What's going to be the career defining thing that as leader you say, 'That's the hill that I'm prepared to die on'? Normally we get those in budget reply speeches. We thought that maybe last year we'd get something in budget reply—but nothing, not a single policy. The reason, clearly, that we weren't getting a single policy was that the Leader of the Opposition, to his credit, likes a bit of suspense. He likes a build-up. And the build-up has come all the way to the parliament. Until today when we discover the first policy, the first commitment—if there were ever a Dutton government what would be the first thing that it would do? What would be the legislation that it would implement? What's the first inkling he has given the Australian people as to what he would stand for? The first tax policy that he decides to deal with is people who have more than $3 million in their superannuation account.</para>
<para>Two things happened in the year 2006. First of all, the Leader of the Opposition, in 2006, became the Assistant Treasurer of Australia. The other thing that happened in 2006 was there was a movie called <inline font-style="italic">T</inline><inline font-style="italic">he</inline><inline font-style="italic">O</inline><inline font-style="italic">ne </inline><inline font-style="italic">Perc</inline><inline font-style="italic">ent</inline>. <inline font-style="italic">The One Percent</inline> was a movie from the United States about the one per cent who were the wealthiest in the economy—good on them—and it had interviews with a whole lot of them. It opened up a whole economic debate about whether you're only looking after the one per cent. What we didn't realise was that for the Leader of the Opposition looking after the one per cent was too broad based and he has now gone for the half of one per cent as the hill that he's prepared to die on. The half of one per cent is the big tax policy that he is willing to say he will repeal should there be a change of government at the next election. So for all the sense of wanting to appeal to a broad base of the population, for all the different ways that the Leader of the Opposition might want to say he wants to broaden the base of support that the Liberal Party received the last election, he's decided he has found a pathway, and the pathway is the half of one per cent. It's a funny way to get to a majority but that's the pathway that the Leader of the Opposition has started on.</para>
<para>Let's make clear we have to deal with a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt. We have to deal with a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt and it's extraordinary to hear those opposite just think you don't have to deal with it, as though that were not the fastest-growing section of the budget. The interest payments on the trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt are now the fastest growing part of the Commonwealth's budget. And if you're not going to deal with it this way exactly how you going to deal with it? They say they they'll stop various funds but the funds that they're arguing against are largely off budget funds, all of which go to growing the economy in terms of getting manufacturing going in Australia, growing the economy in terms of increasing the stock of housing in this country, growing the economy in terms of having proper investment in clean energy in this country.</para>
<para>All of these things are issues that will grow the economy and give us a greater capacity to pay down the trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt. But make no mistake—the mere fact of this revenue measure is of course not going to do this on its own. Of course there are other areas of restraint that we have to deal with as a government. But this is part of it, and this is something where the Leader of the Opposition is saying he would repeal it. He is promising to take to the next election to deliver money back to half of one per cent of the Australian population, with every dollar of it borrowed. All of it would be borrowed money and would add to the debt that has to be paid back. All of it would add to the interest burden that falls on the Australian taxpayer, and he's willing to do this because people he has to make sure he defends are the half of one per cent of the Australian population.</para>
<para>There are cost-of-living challenges, but when you start with the cost-of-living challenges in Australia you probably don't start with that half of one per cent. You do start with ordinary wage-earners who have needed to get their wages moving. This government brought forward legislation to get wages moving, and those opposite voted no. This government took forward a submission to the annual wage review which resulted in a 5.2 per cent increase for the lowest-wage earners in Australia, and those opposite were opposed to that approach. This government took a submission arguing that people working in aged care deserve a decent pay rise, which has resulted in a 15 per cent pay rise for those workers, helped with the cost of living and helped with what is happening in aged care, and those opposite were opposed to that approach. Their alternative was to say that low wages were a deliberate design feature of the economy. They oppose something as simple as a dollar an hour for the people who are on the lowest wages in this country.</para>
<para>We haven't just dealt with wages but prices as well. But look at the two different approaches. Our approach in the area of health means that now, with cheaper medicines, we've had the first reduction for the average Australian in the cost of the PBS in its history, with PBS medicines coming down from $42.50 to $30. What was their approach? Their approach was they wanted to have a $7 GP tax. And who do you reckon was the health minister when they had the $7 GP tax? Who do you reckon that was? Their approach on wages—make them lower! Their approach on health—make it cost more! Their approach on child care—make it cost more. Starting on 1 July we have cheaper child care, helping around 96 per cent of Australian families, who will be better off. Childcare out-of-pocket costs rose 47 per cent under the last government. In terms of energy price relief, we had a special day of sittings last year to be able to put limits on what could happen with energy prices. And what was their response? Which way did they vote? They voted no.</para>
<para>If those opposite want a debate on the cost of living, bring it on! But I'm really not sure why they're the ones calling for it. The cost of living is about the difference between your wages and the prices. You have a government trying to get prices down and wages up, and you have an opposition with the exact opposite philosophy, who decide the hill they're willing to die on is to fix revenue by opposing a measure—a really modest measure that's still a concessional tax rate, just not as concessional as it is at the moment—for half of one per cent of the population.</para>
<para>But it would be wrong of me to claim that those opposite don't want to do anything about debt and the debt-servicing cost. We've seen their form and we know what their approach was. We all saw robodebt. We know their approach on how to try to get budget numbers down. We saw budget after budget that was been backed in by two things—consistent underspending on the NDIS and robodebt. They went after the people who needed assistance from government the most, and decided they were the ones to target. They went after the people who needed assistance from government the most and decided they were the ones to target. They went after them in a way that was unlawful, and that wasn't enough—that was unfair, and that wasn't enough; that was indecent in the way it was treating people, and their response was to just put out threats of, 'We'll send you to jail.'</para>
<para>The trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt is a challenge for this nation. It needs to be dealt with. But why on earth would an opposition that is doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done on every cost-of-living issue decide to bring this motion forward and when it comes to the budget decide their key issue is, 'Do what you want to people who might otherwise need help,' but defend as the last bastion and the hill to die on the half of one per cent? This suspension is a joke and should be voted down.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion be disagreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [16:20]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>86</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                <name>Aly, A.</name>
                <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                <name>Burns, J.</name>
                <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                <name>Clare J. D.</name>
                <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                <name>King, C. F.</name>
                <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                <name>Murphy, P. J.</name>
                <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                <name>Zappia, A.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>54</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                <name>Morrison, S. J.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Robert, S. R.</name>
                <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                <name>Young, T. J.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>86</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6960" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from Senate</title>
            <page.no>86</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6965" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>86</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To the children watching up in the gallery, this year there will be a debate in this country about amending our Constitution, and our Constitution is a document that not only defines the boundaries of our democracy; it must be one that serves you and your children and your grandchildren. So the decisions that we make this year must be ones that we are proud of and ones that serve our democracy.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister has said that, when we wake up the day after the referendum, we must feel proud, and he's a known advocate for change and for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. But I think there's a more important question that we should ask ourselves the day after the referendum—that is, as a nation, we respect that the public got it right. That's what happens in a democracy. Whether it's yes or whether it's no, if the public were fully informed and were treated with respect, whatever their decision is, that is the right one, and that is what we should always do in a democracy. And that is why the machinery provisions that we're discussing here are so important.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister and the government do have a mandate to put a question to the Australian people, but it's a mandate for a question, not an answer. The answer lies with the people. Anthony Albanese is our Prime Minister, and that mandate is one that we respect, but we must always respect the mandate of the people to answer it. A peaceful and orderly transfer of power matters in a democracy. It begins with a concession by the losing candidate. This marks the election as legitimate because of the core belief that the people always get it right. That is why the Prime Minister's description of the Voice being about decency and manners is concerning. The same can be said for the criticism that this is about whether Australians want to be counted on the right side of history. Last year, former prime minister Kevin Rudd claimed that arguments against the Voice were 'intellectually fraudulent' and the work of 'bad actors'. Such ad hominem is antidemocratic and should be discouraged as we continue this debate.</para>
<para>What if the referendum fails to achieve enough support by enough people or enough states? In defining the question of support as one of decency and manners, what does that mean for the legitimacy of the vote? Will that majority be bad mannered and lack decency? Is that how we will reflect upon the Australian people the day after they vote? Will the Prime Minister then condemn the majority for being on the wrong side of history? Even worse, some have sought to put our national reputation on the line by labelling the opposing view xenophobic. Again, this form of advocacy is toxic and should be resisted by all.</para>
<para>We know that our Constitution lacks the soaring rhetoric of other foundational national documents. We're not a democracy that is founded in civil war and blood. We are a democracy founded in careful thought and consideration of other democracies and what would serve best for here. Our Constitution will never provide the inspiration for a musical like <inline font-style="italic">Hamilton</inline>, but ours delivers something far more consequential and far more beautiful. Ours is the foundation stone for one of the world's most stable liberal democracies.</para>
<para>It is disingenuous to attack any voices in any debate for lacking decency and manners, especially if that view ends up being shared by a sufficient majority. Those who are advocates for their cause are understandably passionate. Fear of losing the referendum is rational, but fear of the people hearing the opposing argument is inexcusable. Again, that is why what is being discussed in these machinery provisions is so important.</para>
<para>Changing the Constitution is one of the most serious of decisions. The Prime Minister has said there will be a national conversation. A conversation, by its definition, involves the exchange of thoughts and ideas. It should include matters of principle, practice and constitutional design. The Prime Minister will be a passionate campaigner for the 'yes' case, but he should be an even more forceful advocate for the legitimacy of the debate. If that happens, and if both sides commit to that, then no matter the referendum result we will wake up the day after and say that the people have made the right decision.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister gave a key speech at the Chifley Research Centre conference on 5 February this year. It was a good speech. Parts of it are relevant to what we are discussing here. The Prime Minister spoke about the risk of 'the rolling fury of a culture war and the way it undermines civil and rational debate', and he spoke about 'our capacity to disagree respectfully'. The Prime Minister then referred to the 6 January riots in the United States Capitol. He said people who had 'fallen headlong into poisonous conspiracy theories, into a world view of grievance and suspicion' saw 'betrayal' and that there 'were no political opponents, only mortal enemies'—people 'who would rather believe that an election was stolen than accept that their preferred candidate was defeated'. He said that democracy 'can never be taken for granted' and that people should always be 'treated with respect'.</para>
<para>These principles don't apply just to other democracies and the United States; they apply here in this referendum. There is a great risk that the tone of this debate in this year will be highly divisive. The role that we all have to play here starts with understanding and respecting that people can have legitimate differences about what our Constitution should look like.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister said in that speech, 'Governments need to be prepared to put their faith in the judgement of the Australian people.' He said 'drumming up outrage, trying to start a culture war' is counterproductive. He finished with some positive tones. He said he's 'optimistic for the success of the referendum' because he is 'optimistic about the character of the Australian people'. Again, that's where the Prime Minister falls short. He's linking success to the result. The success of this referendum should be that it is an informed, considered and respectful debate. That is what we should respect. Again, the Prime Minister defaulted to his passion for the 'yes' case winning by saying that Australians should play their part in a historic step forward for our country.</para>
<para>This referendum bill has some key changes, one of which will be in the Senate. The three parts that the coalition is committed to are: restoring the pamphlet to outline the 'yes' case and 'no' case'; secondly, establish an official 'yes' and 'no' campaign for organisations; and thirdly, appropriately fund those official organisations. We have heard commitments that the first of those three—restoring the pamphlet—will be made by an amendment in the Senate and that is a welcome change, because we should always trust Australians when hearing both sides of an argument—always. We here in the news and through this place and many others the risk of compromise in digital information. We can't just say, 'It is 2023. There is no need to send a bit of paper to Australians because we can send them a social media link or an email or something else, or they can go to the website.' That isn't good enough. For those of us in this place, we communicate with our electorates using all means. We use social media, digital, emails but we also put things in people's letterboxes, and if that wasn't effective we wouldn't do it. We do it at great expense to the taxpayer because we know that it works and we know that it is important. Particularly for electorates that have migrant communities where English is not their first language, it is even more important that we spell things out clearly in their letterboxes. I think that is always an important part of communicating and it will be for this referendum.</para>
<para>We on this side welcome the commitment to have a pamphlet; that is so important. But there is no commitment for the other two parts that we are worried about—that being, an official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisation and appropriately funding these. This bill will determine the settings for how the referendum on this voice is to be conducted. It should be a constructive one that reinforces the principles that the Prime Minister outlined in his Chifley speech, because the risk of division in our democracy is real. It is not something that just happens in Washington or in other countries; it can happen here. We all need to lean in and make sure that that doesn't happen, and it starts by having a respectful debate. So we call on the Prime Minister and the government to make sure that they commit to properly funding both sides of the campaign because this will increase trust and integrity in the process.</para>
<para>I was a barrister before this, and people would often say to me: 'What is the measure of a fair court or a fair judge?' It is a simple answer—that the loser feels like they were given a fair hearing. So whatever the result of this referendum, the passionate advocates for either case will wake up saying, 'You know what? We put our case fairly, it was heard, the result was made and we respect it.' That is what we should all be saying the day after the referendum, not accusing this country of being xenophobic or racist because the 'yes' vote didn't get up. Or if it is flipped and if 'yes' does get up that we respect that decision too. That is our duty. But again, it starts with making sure that we get the process right.</para>
<para>The proper conduct of the referendum is an obligation on the government and, therefore, on the parliament. The Electoral Commission has given evidence to parliamentary committees that the donation and disclosure regime remains one of the most complex parts of the Electoral Act. Again, the people in this place are probably more knowledgeable about that part of the Electoral Act than most other Australians and it is complex—it just is. So if we can help to reduce any potential corruption in the process, that would be a good thing.</para>
<para>It is also important we recognise that for this referendum the participants are often people who are not regularly involved in elections. Again, for us, and for those political parties or for those who have their own community movements, we have become quite seasoned at being involved in elections. We have structures, procedures, knowledge and people we can draw on. People will be coming out to get involved in this, and we encourage that. But again, they need help so that they make sure that they comply with all our laws and regulations.</para>
<para>I come back to the Prime Minister's speech at the Chifley centre. It was a good one. I ask that when he asks: 'What shall we feel like the day after the referendum,' that he reflects upon his answer to that. It can't just be about his commitment to the 'yes' case. It has to be that our democracy is a stronger one the day after, no matter the result, and that starts with improving this bill because it isn't quite there.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to start my contribution on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 today by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. I pay respects to their elders past, present and emerging. I especially want to acknowledge any First Nations people who may be in the chamber today and any who may be watching. Thank you for care of country over thousands of years.</para>
<para>As a nation we will have an important opportunity later this year to begin to work towards righting a past wrong by ensuring that First Nations people are recognised in our Constitution and that their voices will forevermore be heard directly at the highest level of our federal parliament whenever it is seeking to create a law that directly impacts on First Nations people. This seems like a really simple thing to wish for for those who have come before us: recognition and empowerment. And yet this ambition is far from achieved right at this moment in time. From my personal perspective, I believe it's a privilege to be part of the generation that is prepared to step into this uncomfortable space and begin the process of transforming our nation into a land where we're all rightfully respected and where we can all connect on the basis of a shared history that goes back over 65,000 years.</para>
<para>I hope that everyone will join with me in voting yes with ambition, optimism and determination in the referendum when the opportunity arises. You see, I do believe it's unacceptable that our 122-year-old Constitution does not recognise the first people of Australia. How can the document on which all truth of our nation is based be silent when it comes to recognising the sovereign nations that existed here prior to white settlement? The conversations around enshrining an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament in the Australian Constitution are currently taking place right across our country as people seek to come to grips with what it means exactly for them and what impact it may have on them. From my perspective, a constitutional voice will not just be symbolic; it will be a substantive recognition. In the words from the Statement From the Heart group, who are without a doubt much closer to this than I, the proposals are simple and elegant—and they make the essential changes required. They describe the Voice as being a modest request that will deliver a fair go to Indigenous Australians, as a practical step which will give us our best chance to close the gap and as a unifying moment for all Australians.</para>
<para>But what exactly does it mean to enshrine this Voice in the Constitution? And why is the mechanics of how we do it so important? It's because the Voice needs to be enshrined in our Australian Constitution to ensure it remains a permanent part of our democracy. Constitutional enshrinement can only be achieved through a referendum, so all Australians of voting age will have the opportunity to have their say about this proposition at the ballot box. But, given this, the machinery in place to conduct this process of change must match the weight which this moment carries. The proposed amendments to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 are important, and I'm conscious that the last referendum was held in 1999. I agree, then, with the importance of modernising the legislation that will govern how this referendum is conducted. The referendum vote will be the culmination, but not the end, of a long-overdue national conversation about the rights and dignity of our First Nations people. We must accept that this conversation needs to be evidence based and facts led. As a nation, in order to mature and to take steps forward together, we must look to create spaces where respectful conversations can occur. During the week of action this last month, the Uluru Statement from the Heart launched a series of yarning circles. The yarning circle concept is used by many First Nations people across the world. It's a space for active listening and reflection. This is the approach that I hope we can all take collectively in the lead-up to the vote.</para>
<para>The bill as drafted suspends the operations of the provisions of the Referendum Act that require the preparation and distribution of a pamphlet with 'yes' and 'no' cases for the referendum question. I don't agree with this provision and, indeed, have had people from within North Sydney express their concern that this resource would not be available to them. Of course, communications have changed since the pamphlet was first introduced in 1912. As a member of parliament, I do have opportunities to engage with my voters directly and regularly through a wide range of sources, including direct email, social media, website communications and radio and television commentary. I will do these things, but they should be in addition to and not instead of an official fact-checked pamphlet which has been worked on by the members of parliament. In this context, I welcome the undertakings from the Prime Minister that the bill will be amended to ensure a factual, informative resource will be distributed nationally. The pamphlet must be clear. It must be factual. It must have a factual explanation of the proposal with concise and considered arguments for and against. Importantly, it would be in addition to and not a substitute for a civics campaign. Ultimately, I believe this resource will help the community of North Sydney and the vast majority of the Australian community engage in a respectful discourse, and we will all be better off for it.</para>
<para>I also note and support the recommendations that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters have made following their inquiry into the bill relating to enfranchisement and participation in the referendum. All communications from the government and the Electoral Commission must be clear, factual and impartial, and provided in appropriate formats for all Australians, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and older Australians.</para>
<para>I'm was also supportive of calls for the Electoral Commission to prioritise increasing the enrolment rate for First Nations people prior to the referendum. The current rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enrolment and participation in elections remains low, at just 84.5 per cent compared to a 97 per cent overall enrolment rate. Indeed, the estimated number of unenrolled Indigenous Australians has come under 100,000 for the first time, to just 87,000. That is significant, but that still leaves a balance that remains at nearly the equivalent of an entire electorate worth of voters who are not enfranchised. We must do better.</para>
<para>In an age of disinformation, truth in political advertising laws at a federal level is urgently needed. Currently, political ads are not fact checked, with the validity of content, be that truthful or otherwise, left up to the voter to determine. Deliberate misinformation and misrepresentation continue to erode trust in government and our democratic institutions by the electorate. For this reason, I support the introduction of robust laws that prohibit false statements and misattribution in political advertising in any election process. So I support the member for Warringah's amendment, which would prohibit misleading or deceptive political advertising. I think it's a practical, popular and proven way to clean up our politics whilst approaching the regulation of political advertising with caution and respect for our constitutional freedom of political communication.</para>
<para>In mirroring the financial disclosure provisions of the Electoral Act, this bill has inevitably picked up on the problematic aspects of our current electoral laws. I welcome the move to regulate referendum donations and spending, but unfortunately the bill has adopted the less desirable provisions, including a lack of real-time disclosure and the retention of a high donation threshold. I believe this is a missed opportunity for overall positive reform. This moment deserves a process and a framework that is not just up to scratch but is the most efficient it can practicably be. Again, I can't stress enough the weight that this moment carries. We can't afford to get it wrong.</para>
<para>As an advocate for integrity in this parliament, I acknowledge the transparency and integrity that these amendments will bring to the voting process. Importantly, the amendments will also increase accessibility for many Australians. Behind this referendum is a principle, a principle of recognition of our First Nations people. The question at the centre of the conversation—do you support an alteration of the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice?—is absolutely what matters. Recognition is a simple statement of fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were indeed the first people here and form part of the oldest continuing culture on earth, yet Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to experience a lower quality of life outcomes than Indigenous Australians. Despite good intentions, governments and parliaments by themselves cannot provide lasting solutions. A voice is a practical way to achieve this recognition in the Australian Constitution and facilitate Indigenous people directly advising politicians about what really works in their communities, offering practical solutions to their unique challenges, including jobs, health, education and justice. It will also ensure that policies and laws deliver practical results on the ground and secure value for taxpayer investment.</para>
<para>This is a conversation that needs to be had with respect, and each of our communities' ambitions need to be heard through this referendum process, ensuring that no one voice is more important than another. Ultimately, everyone has the right to their own opinion, and the machinery of the referendum will ensure we each have the right for that opinion to be counted. Together we are going to have a conversation that matters about how constitutional recognition will take all of Australia forward as a nation, and I believe the proposed amendments would help to ensure that.</para>
<para>Ultimately, the Uluru statement is an invitation from First Nations peoples that has been issued to all Australians. I hope the people of North Sydney and all Australians can accept the invitation with kindness and respect, and I look forward to working with my community and all of my fellow members in this place to ensure the conversation that takes place is respectful and provides the space for us each to make our own decision.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 and to make some additional comments in relation to some of its more contested elements, consistent with my additional comments in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, following our inquiry.</para>
<para>A large part of this bill modernises the process for running a referendum, in line with how we now run elections. Generally, these changes have been broadly supported, although they do raise the question of why we need to make temporary changes to the referendum act in the context of an upcoming referendum, rather than considering modernisation of the act dispassionately when there's no referendum looming. No doubt other priorities win out, but it would seem a sensible idea to do a broader review of the act after this referendum to ensure that next time we have a referendum we're at least starting with a process that's grounded in the 21st century.</para>
<para>An example of this is in the wording of questions. Section 25 of the referendum act requires that a referendum ballot paper be set out in the form prescribed, with the title of the proposed law first and a question: 'Do you approve this proposed alteration?' This clumsy wording may be challenging to understand. This requirement could be amended to ensure that a simple version of the change being proposed can be included in the actual referendum question. For example, for this referendum the actual question could be something like: 'Do you support the establishment of a First Nations Voice as provided in the [short title of the act]?' This is unlikely to be fixed this year, but it should be part of a broader review to ensure the smooth running and clarity of future referenda.</para>
<para>I'm supportive of amendments made to improve enfranchisement of Indigenous voters, in accordance with the recommendations of the joint standing committee. In every election or other voting opportunity, it's important that all Australians are given the opportunity to participate in our democracy. But it would be particularly painful if we were not listening to the voices of Indigenous Australians on the question of whether we should listen to the voices of Indigenous Australians.</para>
<para>I'd like to make a few comments on the more contested elements of what's included in and omitted from the bill. I'm not against the inclusion of a 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet, an amendment negotiated by the opposition and expected to be moved in the Senate, but it does raise some concerns. In the past, these pamphlets have not necessarily always been factual and have been full of emotive language. They are, after all, drafted by committees of parliamentarians who hold a view one way or another. There remains a challenge for government to address as to how to ensure that information contained in the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet is accurate and fair—and I'll speak about this more later—but I accept that there is still a proportion of the population that doesn't get its information from the internet. In the interests of fair debate, a clear setting out of the best arguments on each side will afford people an opportunity to sit down and consider both sides, following up with their own research on any particular points that challenge or resonate with them. I suspect the number of people who sit and read 2,000-word essays has diminished, but creating the opportunity is probably a good thing.</para>
<para>The bill suspends subsection 11(4) of the referendum act, allowing government to spend money on providing public information and education about the referendum and to counter misinformation. The government has indicated that this education campaign will be on the mechanics of referenda, rather than for one side or the other, and that neither side will receive government funding. There is a leap of faith involved that this will be upheld, but, given that the last referendum was in 1999, I can see that education is required on the mechanics of a referendum so people understand the significance of their personal vote as well as their state's vote. Education is also required on what a referendum is and what it is not, and on what type of information belongs in the Constitution and what type of information does not. No doubt there'll be cries that the education campaign strays into a 'yes' campaign. While this remains a risk, the best we can do is be vigilant and attempt to remain fair-minded in an increasingly polarised world.</para>
<para>Donation transparency is an area desperately in need of reform at a federal level, with federal regulation lagging behind almost all the states in terms of both the donation disclosure threshold of $15,200 and the timing of the disclosure months and months after votes are cast. While there's a simplicity to aligning donation disclosures for the referendum with part 20 of the election act, it's a lowest-common-denominator approach. I would like to see stronger transparency requirements in relation to funding campaigns for the voice referendum. I accept that it creates a reporting burden for entities unaccustomed to the financial disclosure regime, but I also think that any entity campaigning on the voice either way should be willing to disclose that publicly in advance of the referendum. There is overwhelming community support to improve the transparency of who is funding political campaigns before people vote.</para>
<para>I support greater transparency in line with most states, with more immediate disclosure of donations above $1000. If this is not in the legislation, in line with community expectations and to show government that requiring real-time disclosures won't cause the sky to fall, I would like to see any companies, not-for-profits or individuals contributing to campaigns for either side to voluntarily disclose their commitments in real time. If the norm starts to change voluntarily, this may make regulation easier for the major parties. In my election campaign I disclosed all cash donations in real time on my website. Ninety per cent of donors chose to disclose their names despite not being required to. This shows that it's possible and not a big deal if you have nothing to hide. Those who choose not to disclose their support until months after the referendum, hiding behind the 'I complied with the law' excuse, may increasingly have to explain to their stakeholders why they were not proud enough of their political support to own it in real time.</para>
<para>Another issue that's not covered in the bill but came up in the submissions to the committee inquiry is truth in advertising. It's essential that we do a better job of ensuring truth in political advertising. This is broader than the proposed voice referendum, but concerns about racist misinformation in this context are real and sharpen the focus on truth in advertising because of the potential damage that could be done. My crossbench colleague, the member for Warringah, has introduced the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill 2022, laying out a potential approach to rebuilding community trust in what our politicians say. This is an admirable and solid contribution to debate on this topic, reflecting a strong community appetite for political information that can be believed. I support this bill and would like to see some version of this enacted in this term of parliament.</para>
<para>I accept that there are a number of issues that need to be resolved in setting up appropriate structures to ensure the community has faith in the arbiters of truth. No doubt there will be resistance to whichever body is tasked with determining the truth of statements, and conspiracy theories will abound. This challenge is not insurmountable and can't be used as an excuse not to commit to a structure to rebuild trust in our politicians. I accept that it may be challenging to build an appropriate regulatory framework on this board issue in time for the referendum and that getting it wrong could be very damaging in the long term.</para>
<para>For this reason, I would like to see the government set up an independent panel specifically for the referendum, with the goal of finalising the question, ensuring access to fair information and addressing instances of misinformation. Many expert witnesses to the committee inquiry backed this idea. The panel could be comprised of both sides of politics and experts to oversee public information relating to the campaign. This is also consistent with the amendment moved by the member for Warringah to require fact-checking of the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets.</para>
<para>For such an important referendum for the future of the country, truth and transparency are vital, and I urge the government to consider improvements to this end in the implementation of this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What an absolute stitch-up. This proposal is the sporting equivalent of two teams lining up, one running out in brand-new uniforms with all the gear, a top-line coach, a change room, a bus and crowd that's been booked, and the other side is tied up on the sidelines, gagged, with no gear, and they had to walk in because no-one would pick them up. We are talking here about the Constitution. It is not a note from your mum. It's not a shopping list. It's not a school exam. It's the Australian Constitution. The proposition by the government is that they won't fund both sides of a referendum. Since when is that even reasonable? The proposition being put forward is an absolute stitch-up. It is wrong, and this is one of the reasons that our side of politics fought so hard to make sure there was at least a pamphlet.</para>
<para>I was quite interested in what a pamphlet might be, because it sounds like an A4 piece of paper that you might fold up and find in your letterbox, so I went back to the 1999 referendum—well, one of my staff did, anyway—and found the official referendum pamphlet. It is pages and pages and pages of information for people to sit down and take the time to look through and make their own informed decision about. Regardless of what the vote is about and regardless of what the issue is, we are talking in this bill about changes to Australia's Constitution. The concept that we would set a prototype, which would be the first of its kind, to the best of my knowledge, and which could be used for future referendums, where both sides are not equally funded and the debate is not managed and is instead run by companies and other sponsors, is outrageous.</para>
<para>In this nation, we are a democracy. This is one of the greatest democracies in the world, and that means that we listen to the opinions on both sides of a debate. Like anyone in this House, I have seen any number of opinions from legal experts on the proposition and the issue itself. Guess what? They've got different views, and that is no surprise to me whatsoever. We've had some who are judges, who have put forward their view and their legal opinion—which is what they do—and we've had others who have different views on what the actual vote might change in the Constitution and what it might do to not only the operation of this House but also the way in which the executive and others work. These are the issues that people are concerned about.</para>
<para>The idea that the Australian people will walk up and vote one way in a referendum because it feels good is not the way to approach the issue whatsoever. Feeling good is not factual. Feeling good does not get good outcomes for the country. Feeling good is going to terrify individuals because they are always afraid of the unknown, and the unknown in this case is extensive. What is it that the government is scared of? Why wouldn't they fund both sides of a referendum? Why wouldn't they provide equal funding and equal opportunity for every individual to put forward their views in a concise, purposeful and respectful way, as you would expect in this debate, because the government is going to the people with their proposition to change Australia's Constitution?</para>
<para>This is a significant change, and no-one should underestimate what changes to the Australian Constitution do. I'll come back to the pamphlet. When the referendum was put forward proposing the changes for Australia to become a republic, extensive information was provided to the Australian people. Both sides were able to put their case in a respectful way, and the Australian people made a decision. At that stage, their decision was known. I think that the further this debate goes and the more discussions there are and the less information that is provided, the more concerned the Australian people will become about the unknown. Nothing terrifies people more than the things they don't know.</para>
<para>What have we seen in recent weeks? We've seen the Minister for Communications, who I've got a lot of time for, I have to say, announce that there will now be the equivalent of a ministry of truth in this country. <inline font-style="italic">Nineteen Eighty-Four</inline>, here we come! A government ministry will decide what facts are so that there is no misinformation. I mean, seriously? Since when do governments decide what facts are in the information that is provided in the public sphere? What happened to freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of religion?</para>
<para>This, in my view, is one of the great dangers in the way that this government is approaching not only this debate but this referendum. The further down this rabbit hole they go, of not supporting both sides equally and fairly, the more concerned people will become and the more likely the current government will not get the result that they want I say to those opposite: it is beyond time that you ran a standard constitutional referendum. That has been the process, always, and the further we go away from that constitutional referendum, in my view, the less likely you will get the result that you want and you are asking for.</para>
<para>No matter how many specialists line up, if the Australian people think that they are not well enough informed, if they are worried about what the outcome might be, if they don't have the information that they can look at themselves in the time that it takes for them to absorb that information—and this is complex debate; it is not simple and it is a significant change of the Australian Constitution—the further they will move from a proposition.</para>
<para>We know there is a lot of foreign influence out there. We know that the way people communicate and talk and discuss and receive their information changes. But we also know that there is nothing more informative than a direct piece of mail put into your letterbox that you can read in your own time and in the time that it takes for you to absorb that information. So I'm very pleased that the Labor government has changed their mind about providing the pamphlet. But they still have not changed their mind about funding both sides of the 'yes' and 'no' case and, of course, about controlling the way the debate is run. If they are concerned about misinformation, this is one of the best ways to deal with it: ensuring that both sides are equally funded and that both sides have equal opportunity.</para>
<para>I have said publicly, and I will continue to say it, that I will be voting no. But I know that I am one vote amongst the Australian people—one vote. I will proudly stand with Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and support her view, and I will campaign. I will campaign for the 'no' case. On the information that has been provided, I think that is the best outcome for this nation—to not change Constitution. That is because, in my view, we are one people, we are one country and we are all equal, and we should never walk away from that position. I understand what has been put forward by the Labor government, but I am very significantly concerned about the way that this has been worked and the way it has been proposed.</para>
<para>The other challenges that I think we will have in the very near future are around Australia Post. For those of us who live in regional Australia—I live in a significant regional city, and we are not getting one-day deliveries on mail. The further west you go and the further towards remote Australia go, the less likely it is that you can be delivered this information in a reasonable amount of time. So I say to those opposite, I say to the federal government: this is the time to do the right thing—not the ideological thing and not the thing you think will give you the outcome you want, but the right thing. If you continue to refuse to provide details to the Australian people, they will not support your proposition. You can never underestimate the mob. The mob always get it right. They always get it right.</para>
<para>So we need to make sure that the information is correct—I have no issues with that whatsoever—but we also need to make sure that it is equally funded and that both sides of the campaign have the same opportunity. Not one that is supported by extensive corporate Australia delivering significant amounts of money and standing up at all sorts of different sporting events and whatever else it might be, and the others being shut down by what is now the ministry of truth, because they decide that the information that they put forward and their opinion is not factual. That is not what this country was built on. Freedom is not free. It is paid for by others, and we should never forget that the opportunities that are provided to the Australian people to even have this debate have been provided by others, and we should always thank them and those who take that opportunity to put forward.</para>
<para>So I say again: fund both sides of the debate. Do not try to slip this one through. Do not run with: 'It's a stitch up. It's okay, because it will make you feel good. If you vote yes, you will feel good. If you vote no, you will feel bad.' It is Australia's Constitution. It is the most significant document for our nation in the way that it is governed for all Australian people.</para>
<para>In conclusion, I will come back to the point that I made earlier: we are one people, we are one country and we are all equal. I do not support the bill in its current form.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I congratulate the member for Hinkler on such a strong contribution. Australia has a tried and tested method of undertaking referenda. It is a method based on precedent, fairness and transparency, and it has served our nation well over the past 122 years. This bill will determine the settings for how the referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament is conducted. The bill outlines how a referendum's donations regulations will operate, how the prepoll scrutineering and counting will operate and how the newly introduced foreign interference regime will be applied to this referendum.</para>
<para>The bill makes a number of noncontroversial changes to the act to bring the operation of the referendum in line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. However, the bill represents a considerable departure from the established precedent. The coalition has raised three key points with the government to address our concerns on the referendum process. Firstly, we've asked the government to restore the pamphlet that is posted to each household and outlines the yes and no case. We've heard that the government has agreed that they will now support that measure, which we strongly welcome. It was unfortunate we had to take so many months to get there. Secondly, we've asked the government to establish official yes and no campaign organisations. And, finally, as the member for Hinkler put so eloquently, we've asked the government to appropriately fund these official organisations in an equal and fair way. These measures are fundamental to having a referendum with informed voters and a process with integrity. There is also the basis on which other referenda have operated and it will be consistent, of course, with the precedent that has served us well over the last century and more.</para>
<para>The coalition has welcomed the engagement from the government on the bill but until we have our concerns addressed exactly the position of the coalition is to oppose the bill. It is important to note that the changes included in the bill will likely become the new normal and be used as a precedent for all future referenda. This is bigger than just the question that we put the Australian people in a referendum this year. This potentially has significant implications for the future of Australia's Constitution and future referenda questions that may be put over coming the decades. So it's really important that we get this right now and that this is properly considered in the context of future questions, not just the one that we face this year. There may be future referenda questions that the Labor Party, or the government, wishes to defeat, so it is important to consider that it's not just about trying to get a yes answer to this vote, it's about where do we go from here over the future decades. When we consider questions like this, we should never undervalue the importance of precedent. This whole chamber is based on precedent in many ways. It is precedent that has served us well and it is precedent that we should cling to when taking our next steps.</para>
<para>It is interesting to look back at the history of the referendum pamphlet in Australia. The requirement for a referendum pamphlet was implemented 1912 and there have only ever been three referenda without an official pamphlet, those being 1919, 1926, 1928. I don't think any of the members present here today were around to vote in those referenda. There were very significant reasons why there weren't pamphlets. In 1919—this was a very rushed referendum—there was insufficient time to produce one. In 1926 there was no agreement on how to produce the yes argument to that question. In 1928 there was overwhelming agreement between parties and government in relation to the state debts referendum. There was near unanimous support. For every subsequent referendum, every other referendum over the last 100 or so years, there has been an official pamphlet produced. It would've set a dangerous precedent if the government had embarked on its original course, which was to deliberately not provide one. We know how important it is because people trust that official material. The feedback I am receiving from the constituents in my electorate is that they don't understand what is been proposed and are keen to get more information and further details on the proposals. The opposition, of course, has been consistent in its call for the government to provide more detail in relation to this question. I hope that the official booklet will provide these constituents of mine with more answers to the questions that they are asking.</para>
<para>We have heard from the AEC that when they provide mailed material to voters during elections 40 per cent of recipients will use this documentation as a main source of information when they cast their vote. We welcome the government's announcement that they're going to restore the pamphlet, but we'll wait to see an amendment presented to the government to that effect. We cannot just simply take the government's word for it.</para>
<para>I note that there has been an important submission made to the committee's inquiry into this bill by Blind Citizens Australia. They outlined:</para>
<quote><para class="block">…we have serious concerns about this legislation in its current form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are greatly concerned that the new legislation was introduced without proper consultation with the blind and vision impaired community … We believe this failure to consult risks disenfranchising our community and excludes our voices from the electoral process …</para></quote>
<para>I think those are important words for this chamber to reflect on. The Australian Human Rights Commission's submission noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Commission supports retaining the requirement under s 11 that a Yes/No pamphlet be distributed to Australian electors as part of the referendum process.</para></quote>
<para>The coalition is also advocating for the establishment of official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns through this bill. Having official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will make things simpler for the regulatory environment and for the proper conduct of the referendum. The ABC has given evidence to the parliamentary committee that the donations and disclosure regime remains the most complex part of the electoral act—of course it is. We all know that; we've all been through elections to get into this place. We understand how complex Australia's disclosure requirements are; often, members of this chamber and others who aspire to be here get tripped up by it—and these are professional people who are operating with the support of professional organisations who are supposed to know these things. An official campaign structure is going to be the best way for our regulators to ensure appropriate education and enforcement of the electoral laws for the referendum.</para>
<para>We know that there will be a significant number of participants and organisations in this referendum. There'll be many players who come out of the woodwork who will not be associated with political parties and who will not be regular participants in electoral events. Having a single point of coordination to provide education and to commence an audit process for donations—   particularly from foreign influencers—is the best way to ensure the integrity of this referendum.</para>
<para>We've heard from officials that there might be people who will fall under donations legislation and other electoral laws but don't even know it. I can absolutely see that occurring with so many people interested in this question, many of them not having participated financially in elections previously. Even the Labor-controlled Joint Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs noted in 2019:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… it is important and appropriate that members of Parliament retain responsibility for authorising the official Yes/No arguments and supports the retention of this requirement.</para></quote>
<para>I will now move on to our request for equal funding. We are seeking an assurance that, once these bodies are established, there is a guarantee of equal funding—if any is provided—to each side to ensure that neither side is advantaged and to ensure that they can comply with the disclosure and regulatory regimes of the referendum. I think it's an important point that if we're adding this extra cost of compliance, adding all this regulation, and wanting participants in this referendum to comply with the very complex electoral systems that we have, they be provided some public funding to support them in bringing people up to speed, to ensure they employ appropriate people who can police that, and to ensure that we have good compliance and a good, transparent election. This plays into a basic principle of fairness.</para>
<para>While the government has currently committed to not spending on the set-up of 'yes' or 'no' campaigns, this does not mean that both will start on an even playing field, as some of the previous speakers have mentioned. In fact, the government outlined in its October 2022 budget—in book 2 on page 17, to be precise—that campaign group Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition will be made recipients of tax-deductible gifts through changes to the relevant legislation taxation laws we passed towards the end of last year. This will directly operate as a form of funding for the 'yes' campaign. According to the government's own figures that it used in the budget, the financial advantage derived from these gifts will be valued at $800,000, with the figure likely to only grow as the referendum nears. There is no equivalent, of course, in the 'no' campaign. There is no equivalent treatment in terms of tax deductibility.</para>
<para>Let's take a closer look at some of the provisions that are also contained within this bill. Schedule 1 modernises postal voting in referendums, aligning it with the equivalent procedures in federal elections as outlined in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. In light of the significant uptake in postal votes—particularly post pandemic—this is a necessary step in reforming the referendum process, and the coalition will be supporting that element of the bill.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 allows for the early opening and sorting, but not counting, of prepoll votes. As a coalition member, I consider efficiency critical to the provision of government services and therefore support this measure. I'm sure we'll all be grateful there will be a quick count and that everything is prepared ahead of time for that. I've heard stories from many scrutineers in electorates across Queensland and other jurisdictions about unnecessary delay in sorting prepoll votes. I think this is a good, commonsense measure, and of course we support that.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 updates authorisation requirements to align with recent changes to the Electoral Act. Again, where the legislation is merely being modernised, of course we support that. Schedule 4 is also admirable in that its amendments effectively ban foreign interference in the Voice referendum and allow for transparency through its updated financial disclosure scheme—of course, no objections there. Schedule 5, like those before it, aligns the referendum process with the Electoral Act. The same goes for schedule 6. Schedules 7 and 8 contain a number of language changes, as well as legislative drafting modernisations. As noted above, most of the provisions are uncontroversial. It is, by and large, a considered attempt to modernise the Referendum Act.</para>
<para>If the amendments ended there, I would absolutely support the bill. But, unfortunately, they do not. The government's bill and the proposal for the conduct of the Voice referendum will not require the production and distribution of the 'yes' and 'no' printed pamphlet, as it currently stands. It will not establish or fund the 'yes' or 'no' campaigns. With the Prime Minister's unwillingness to provide any detail to the Australian people, the risk of a partisan educational campaign cannot be understated. In a hotly debated referendum such as this, allowing total government control over the educational campaign makes the Voice referendum dangerously susceptible to misinformation and a one-sided narrative. Having clear 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations creates trust and integrity in the process.</para>
<para>In addition to this, it will make things simpler for the regulatory environment and for proper conduct of the referendum. Having a single point of coordination to provide education and to commence an audit process for donations is the best way to ensure the integrity of the process. Furthermore, it will also stop foreign interference, something that we should all recognise the importance of, particularly given recent headlines regarding the level of foreign interference taking place across Australian government—and in civil society, for that matter.</para>
<para>Moreover, the regulatory auditing process, which takes up great time and taxpayer money, should be optimised in a national referendum. This could be done by having an official campaign to provide a starting point for enforcement and education by the AEC. Some of the changes made could also have the adverse effect of incriminating organisations and individuals that are unaware that their current or previous activities relating to the Voice referendum will be captured by the proposed regulatory scheme. This is dangerous, and we should safely guard against that potential.</para>
<para>Changing Australia's Constitution is not something we should ever take lightly. I am a constitutional conservative, and I'm instinctively sceptical of any changes to our founding document, as are most Australians. Of the 44 referenda that have been put to the Australian people, only eight have succeeded. Labor has not proposed a successful referendum since 1946. It is the only time they have succeeded in changing the Constitution. Changing Australia's Constitution is not something we should ever take lightly; it is not routine, and it should only be undertaken in exceptional circumstances and with almost universal recognition of the problem and support for the solution. Our Constitution has enabled Australia to be one of the most successful and longstanding democracies in the world, and we should only interfere with that document in the most extreme circumstances.</para>
<para>This bill does have some positive elements. It modernises procedures to make them more comparable to a federal election. It makes the experiences of first-time referendum voters more parallel to what they've done in federal elections. This will be the first time I will vote in a referendum. It's also, I'm sure, the first time the member for Griffith has voted in a referendum. In fact, anyone born after 1981 hasn't voted in a referendum before. But, despite the positive elements of the bill, the legislation ultimately fails in its most important provisions. Supporting this bill supports an unfair and unbalanced referendum to alter Australia's foundational document.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following words be added after paragraph 2:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"; and:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) strengthen opportunities for enfranchisement and participation in the referendum, particularly of First Nations people, including by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) facilitating on-the-day voter enrolment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) extending the Remote Mobile Polling program;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) ensuring the Australian Electoral Commission has adequate funds to conduct effective awareness and education campaigns, including translation and interpretation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) removing restrictions on the voting rights of prisoners and Australians living overseas".</para></quote>
<para>The Greens will be supporting this bill, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, because the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 provides the framework for how referendums are conducted, and we welcome many of the reforms in this bill to update that framework. In the past 10 years, the parliament has conducted several inquiries into constitutional referendums and reforms. Those inquiries recommended a comprehensive suite of reforms, including aligning referendum laws with broader electoral laws, removing the restriction on governments funding education and promotion campaigns, modernising the way information about the 'yes' and 'no' cases was distributed, and establishing an independent expert panel to advise on the wording of referendum questions and information campaigns. This bill does some of those things.</para>
<para>Many submitters to the earlier inquiries emphasised the need for a comprehensive, objective review of the referendum machinery separate from the rush of an impending referendum, and the Greens agree. Referendums are about constitutional change and about foundational democratic reforms. Beyond giving a voice to First Nations people, future referendums will determine whether Australia becomes a republic and whether we remove the restrictions on running for parliament that ignore the multicultural background of so many Australians. The Greens believe we need more comprehensive reforms to the referendum act to make it fit for the challenge of those future referendums, but for now it is critical that the improvements proposed in this bill are enacted before the upcoming referendum.</para>
<para>We welcome the introduction of donation disclosure provisions for referendum campaigns. The bill would align referendum disclosure obligations with the Commonwealth Electoral Act obligations; however, what the government has failed to acknowledge is that those obligations are woefully inadequate. The Greens have long called for political donations over $1,000 to be disclosed in real time so that voters can see who is funding campaigns. This is, in fact, Labor's own policy, so this bill represents a missed opportunity to strengthen disclosures. We'll be moving an amendment to lower the disclosure threshold to $1,000 and we hope that Labor supports us in improving transparency for all political donations.</para>
<para>I said earlier that referendum machinery reforms should be considered not only on the eve of a referendum; but we also cannot ignore the timing and context of this bill. Alongside progress towards treaty and truth, the upcoming Voice referendum is a generational opportunity, and it will be critical to maximise the participation of all Australians in the vote. Without reforms, there is a real risk that many First Nations people may not get the chance to have their say in the Voice referendum. While enrolment among First Nations people has been increasing, it remains lower than that of the general population. On-the-day enrolment options would prevent a situation where First Nations people who try to vote in the referendum are turned away.</para>
<para>Even with increased enrolment, many voters, particularly in remote areas, may be effectively disenfranchised by the unpredictable, limited availability of mobile polling services. During the last election, some communities were visited by remote mobile polling units for only a few hours, and some missed out altogether. Communities received little information of when polling places would be open, and many missed out on voting as a result. We need to do better. I understand that the government will move amendments in the Senate to extend the remote polling period. We welcome that as a positive first step. The Northern Territory Electoral Commission report on the Daly by-election noted that, where a polling place in the Wadeye community was open for five days, there was a nearly 40 per cent increase in voter turnout from the previous by-election, where the polling place was open for only two days.</para>
<para>Giving people in remote communities the best chance to have their say is an investment we all need to make. There also needs to be a concerted effort to engage interpreters to assist voters at polling places to understand the voting process and make sure their vote can be counted. Again, the last election saw many communities without interpreters, and the AEC needs to be funded to ensure that that is not repeated.</para>
<para>The Greens believe that constitutional reforms are generational changes that will affect the lives of all Australians. Young people, particularly First Nations young people, will be impacted by the outcome of the referendum and deserve to have a say. We estimate that an additional 32,000 First Nations people would be able to vote if the voting age were lowered to 16. The Greens have a bill to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, and we urge the government to support that. I will be moving a second reading amendment calling for measures to address voter participation, particularly among First Nations voters. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has made similar recommendations, and the AEC has supported those calls. The government needs to act.</para>
<para>Lastly, I want to talk briefly about the pamphlet. The Greens support some form of independent, objective information outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases being made available to the voting public; however, we acknowledge the many submitters who have questioned whether the pamphlet, and the archaic way that it will be developed, will meet this objective. It is critical that all Australians are given access to resources to inform their decision. It is critical that those resources are accurate and clear, that they don't misrepresent the implications of a Voice, that they don't fearmonger or spout racist talking points and that they don't undermine the democratic process. We will continue to call for measures that ensure publicly funded resources are clear and factual, developed in consultation with experts and available in appropriate formats and languages to reach all voters. We will also continue to support calls for truth in political advertising campaigns. The Greens believe in democracy. We want to see referenda conducted fairly and openly with transparency and respect. This bill goes some way to go towards that, and we will keep pressure on the government to go further on electoral reforms in this term of parliament.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Watson-Brown</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. At least, I think I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022; although, based on much of the debate we have heard from the other side and the crossbench today, you could be forgiven for thinking that we are discussing a bill to implement a referendum regarding an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. That, of course, is not what this bill does. It changes the operation of referenda, not just for the forthcoming referendum on the voice but, presumably, for all referenda which may follow.</para>
<para>This bill goes to the public information campaign and the quality of informed debate regarding proposed questions and constitutional changes to be submitted to the Australian people for a decision. The bill also makes some changes to transparency arrangements regarding expenditure on referendum campaigns and imposed reporting requirements akin to the current laws, transparency and obligations which apply to Australian elections. As currently drafted, the bill suspends the operation of the provisions for the referendum act that require the preparation and distribution of a pamphlet with 'yes' and 'no' cases to the referendum question. It also prevents any Australian government spending money on referendum campaigns.</para>
<para>Early last month the Prime Minister indicated the government would, in fact, relent and provide 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets to all Australian voters. Yet where is the government bill to that effect so we really know they will be provided? Aside from the pamphlet, the government remains resolute that it will not fund the campaigns for or against the change. I have heard many members get to their feet here today and talk about the 1999 referenda on two questions—an Australian head of state and the transition of Australia from a monarchy to a republic—and proposed changes to the preamble of the Australian Constitution which would have, among other things, included the following phrase: 'We, the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders as the nation's first people for their deep kinship with the lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country.' That would have been the first step towards proper constitutional recognition of Australia's first peoples.</para>
<para>Despite significant support on all sides of politics, the proposed preamble referendum was resoundingly defeated and this was particularly the case in my electorate of Flinders, with 63 per cent voting against. At the time, my electorate equally voted against the transition to a republic, with 58 per cent voting against. Many in this place who have spoken before me have indicated that they have only faint memories of the 1999 referendum. However, I remember it well and so do most of my constituents, because more than 50 per cent of all residents of Flinders are older than 40. I remember it particularly well because at that time I was a very young adviser in the office of the Attorney-General, down on the blue carpet in the ministerial wing of this building. I had just joined the office of the Attorney, then Darrell Williams QC, and was tasked with the responsibility of constitutional law, an area which I loved and had worked in for more than a decade by the time I made it there.</para>
<para>I had a peripheral role in relation to the logistics of the referendum. I answered calls from the public about it. I listened to their questions and, indeed, I was witness to their marvellous curiosity about what the proposed changes would do and what they would not do. Those calls numbered in their hundreds and they were accompanied by thousands of letters from interested Australians who took the changes to the Constitution very seriously indeed. We know from AEC research that almost half of the people who received mailed material would use this information as their main source of information in casting their vote. I cannot help but wonder if the government feels we have moved beyond the information age—that is, the age in which you would give the public information—to the age of the 'vibe of the thing'?</para>
<para>I have heard so many frankly silly references to the Australian Constitution as some kind of mission statement, an expose of our values, our history or our birth certificate—as I think the Prime Minister likes to call it. It is nothing of the sort. It is a pragmatic and practical document which brought together a bunch of errant colonies—in particular, the most mischievous of all the colonies, Western Australia, which for most of the time during the Constitutional Conventions, which ran between 1890 and 1898, wanted to go it alone. As the covering clauses state, the Constitution was designed:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, …</para></quote>
<para>It spelt out the operation of this place and the powers of the Commonwealth parliament, which, at the time, were largely focused on logistics—matters like quarantine, lighthouses, stamps, currency, telephony and railways. It provided for the courts and the appointment of an executive government.</para>
<para>The 1999 referendum was, for many people, their first real examination of the Australian Constitution and its provisions. Copies of the Constitution were readily available and even more readily read. Our civic awareness and engagement were at an historical peak. It was a moment to be celebrated and, indeed, to be repeated, rather than condemned to history as old-fashioned, out of date or archaic. On the walls of this building at the moment, in the public areas, there is a mini exhibition of constitutional reform of times gone by. It describes the circumstances which led to the 1942 Constitutional Convention, the first which occurred after Australia's Federation in 1901. The convention, undertaken in wartime, considered a proposed new section 68 of the Constitution to provide this parliament with the power to undertake all measures which, in the declared opinion of the parliament, will tend to achieve economic security and social justice. A general outrage was precipitated by this egregious catch-all provision, and it was later watered down. But the modest exhibition on the walls of the first floor of this building describes the 1942 process as follows: 'State and federal political leaders met to discuss the proposed new powers: the repatriation of service personnel; employment and unemployment; marketing of commodities; company legislation; trusts, combines and monopolies; profiteering and prices; the production and distribution of goods; foreign exchange and investment; air transport; railways; national works; national health; family allowances; and the power to make laws for Aboriginal people.' It goes on upstairs: 'After extensive debate, the premiers agreed that the states would voluntarily transfer the proposed powers to the Commonwealth for a period of five years after the armistice. However, some premiers soon faced opposition from their respective parliaments and could not fulfil their agreements.'</para>
<para>On 19 August 1944 the Commonwealth government held a constitutional referendum to ask the Australian people to approve the 14 powers listed. That proposed amendment did not pass. The Constitutional Convention and its aftermath had tested the Constitution's limits on Commonwealth power. Inputting the question to the Australian people at that time, then Prime Minister John Curtin used lofty terms, equal to those we hear in the debate today about constitutional reform. On this occasion, leaders of His Majesty's government and His Majesty's opposition from all seven parliaments in Australia were gathered to consider from a non-party and a national point of view the course of action to be followed at one of the greatest turning points of our history, saying, 'We shall be dealing with matters which profoundly affect the future welfare of Australia,' and yet the Australian people said no, as they had done 36 times before—having said yes only eight times before. And so what does the Albanese government propose? Not to tell people what is proposed. Not to think through the potential consequences of any mooted changes. Instead, he proposes to keep the Australian people in the dark, with no funding for the 'yes' or 'no' campaigns and, until recently, no pamphlet explaining in simple terms what the referendum choice is all about.</para>
<para>The Voice is not a burning issue in my electorate. People are focused on the challenges which befall their days: how to find staff, how to meet the ever-increasing repayments on their mortgages, how to absorb hundreds of dollars more in increased energy bills, how to find affordable accommodation, how to buy a first home and how to save for their futures without fear that their sacrifices will be wiped out by ad hoc and retrospective change to superannuation, capital gains tax, negative gearing or franking credits. But when I raise the Voice with my constituents, invariably the response comes back, 'What exactly is it?' Much as I wish I could, I can't answer that question and, to be fair, nor can the Prime Minister. Some days it sounds like it's a voice to parliament; other days it's a voice to the executive government; and other days still it's both. Either way, the Prime Minister is proposing to give people a say about the concept but not the construction and, more importantly, the consequences of the referendum.</para>
<para>This bill is, quite simply, an attack on fundamental pillars of democracy, and it has a shallow disregard for the Australian electorate. It comes from the heart of a government which has given up on its people as informed citizens capable of thinking through constitutional choices for themselves. It is essential that we all in this place defend the rights of voters to be informed not just for the imminent but for all constitutional referenda and for our constitutional reform to pursued with integrity and accompanied by rigorous and respectful debate. We have done it before, and we can do it again.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 is a very complex bill. It should be separated that this is changing some of the ways that referenda are to be run from here on in. That in itself is a cause for great concern to me and to many, because there doesn't appear to be a level playing field. That is a very important principle which needs to be addressed. We need to know that when a referendum happens for this upcoming recognition of Indigenous people in the Constitution it's not only a huge change to the Constitution but the process will linger on for other referenda.</para>
<para>I don't think it is giving any solace to people with great concerns about the referendum that this bill is allowing huge amounts of disinformation and factual incorrectness and is not addressing other really serious issues that people are crying out for by not funding both sides of the argument. It's a travesty, as far as I'm concerned. We have to have a pamphlet available with accurate information for both the 'yes' and the 'no' case. We have to have the ability to establish official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations and to appropriately fund them. It is very, very important.</para>
<para>The bill is responding to some inquiries that have been led by standing parliamentary committees. Some of the machinery things to bring the referendum process in line with the Electoral Commission process makes common sense. But overall this bill is very concerning. To support this, the coalition have to have no doubt that there will be equal support for the 'yes' and the 'no' case. As the bill stands, it does remove the requirement to provide all households with a pamphlet. The government have mentioned, separate to this bill, that they're going to restore the pamphlet, but there are no details and there is no funding. It's very wishy-washy. We need certainty going into this critical piece of legislation, and I would like to say informed voters are of that opinion. I have taken vox pop polls around my electorate. Most people are in the dark about what is proposed, let alone how the machinery of referenda would be run. It's a very dangerous precedent to set that nothing is defined, apart from how foreign interference and donations can be restricted and how any Australian citizens who are funding campaigns have to be clear.</para>
<para>With all the referenda that I've been involved in in my lifetime, there was plenty of information for both sides. There were only three referenda that didn't have 'yes' and 'no' campaigns. There were exceptional circumstances in 1919, after the war—there wasn't sufficient time to produce them. There was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument in 1926. And, in 1928—a unique event—there was overwhelming agreement between the parties. We know now that people are hungry for information. When you scratch the surface, lots of people in my electorate, dozens of people I incidentally meet, have grave concerns. If you want the Australian people to have trust in the integrity of the process, you need a pamphlet, and that is meant to be a signature of this new government—that they are all for integrity and openness. We are asking for equal funding, and it's a reasonable request.</para>
<para>I will say a few words about the referendum itself. It is a really important referendum. Every referendum is important because the referendum result can allow changes to the Constitution. But, from what I've seen, it gives carte blanche for the government to then go and establish not just constitutional change but yet another level of bureaucracy on top of the bureaucracy that's funded to the tune of over $30 billion every year, which hasn't delivered any significant tangible benefits pro rata with the amount of money spent across state and federal governments.</para>
<para>I object to the concept of a change in the Constitution to give special legal standing to a group of people based on race, even if it is Indigenous Australians. And there's no definition of what is Indigenous. You get lots of different definitions, and that's very vague and undefined. Many people have commented that it would just be a body of advice, but what we've learnt in subsequent announcements from ministers on that side and by eminent High Court lawyers is that what is an opinion and an advisory comment could have standing as being obligatory when it's taken to the High Court, and it will be justiciable. There's a bank of High Court lawyers and barristers who agreed with this. Legal opinion is ringing loud and clear, and this isn't what was advertised by the other side.</para>
<para>The National Party have done our legal homework. We have sought opinions from highly qualified legal people. I would like to also put on the record that six per cent of my population is Indigenous, and I'm sure the vast majority of them would support it, but our role here, particularly with constitutional change, is to establish the consequences of what a law will do to how this nation is run. To have one body which, depending on the size of population survey you do, represents three per cent of the population and gives them special standing at state, federal or local government levels—because the local voice, the state voice or the federal voice has an opinion—will gum up the whole works of the nation.</para>
<para>The concept of Australia is that we are full of people of all nations, and I acknowledge that Indigenous people have been here. There have been three waves of Indigenous civilisations in the 60,000 years. But, since Australia has come into being, once you are Australian and you are a citizen, you get the same treatment. You get the same education, support and health. The law is applied the same, without fear or favour. This is, in the words of a former Prime Minister, creating a de facto third chamber. A recent opinion from a former Labor minster in Australia's second-most-respected national paper even said this will be a shadow government. It will have the ability to pass an opinion which can then be acknowledged, read, understood but not agreed with, and then it will be off to lawfare, and that will not be fair to the rest of the nation.</para>
<para>There is also no legal impediment for any Indigenous member of Australia to run for local government, state government or federal government, and we have whole departments dedicated at state and federal level to Indigenous affairs. We have Indigenous advancement strategies. We have health policies. We have Prime Minister and Cabinet committees. We have prime ministerial committees taking advice from Indigenous groups. We have land councils. We have so many voices from Indigenous Australia, and this will be just be another bureaucracy, but the making of laws and the way we decide to govern ourselves will be decided by an unelected third chamber. That is the nuts and bolts of it.</para>
<para>The fact is, whether you are someone from Ethiopia who just got their citizenship, like the last ones in my electorate, or you are from the Biripi, or the Ngunnawal or the Ngambri people in the area where I was born and raised, here in the Monaro—sure, Australians respect and honour the traditions of the Indigenous—we are all the same. We are one country under one law and we all have the right to stand for parliament. This particular bill isn't about that, but I take the opportunity to put my thoughts on the record.</para>
<para>This Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill is very vague and one-sided, and I won't be supporting the bill unless it's changed considerably. By the sounds of it, that is not going to happen.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. As a parliamentarian, a lawyer and a constitutional conservative, and as someone who was an active participant in the 1999 republic referendum campaign, our last referendum, I think the most important decisions we can make as citizens in a democracy are the decisions we make at a referendum. Elections all have a time frame, and for Australia it's three years. You can change your mind at an election—and we on this side certainly hope that at the next federal election Australians do change their mind—but a vote at a referendum is for something that is permanent. It's the most serious decision a citizen can make at the ballot box. Australia is one of the few countries in the world that leaves the question of amending their Constitution to the citizens themselves, and that is a very good and powerful responsibility we all have.</para>
<para>My view is that trust is created when the process is fair to both sides. The government shouldn't be putting its fingers on the constitutional scales. There are three things that I think are needed to ensure a referendum in the modern era is fair. Firstly, as is our tradition, there needs to be the distribution of a 'yes' and 'no' booklet so that all Australians can hear the arguments of both sides. Secondly—and this is important at this time—there needs to be the formal establishment of a 'yes' case and 'no' case as the place to receive funding, to receive donations and to expend money. This is required because the environment in which the referendum is operating in is more complex due to foreign interference and more complex because of the difficulty in complying with electoral legislation more broadly. Thirdly, as was the case in 1999, there needs to be equal funding for the 'yes' and 'no' side. Both sides in 1999 were able to put their cases so that Australians could hear the arguments.</para>
<para>Sadly, the government seems to want to game this referendum. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have form when it comes to interfering in referendum questions. In 2013, when the Prime Minister was the Minister for Local Government, and the Attorney-General held the same role in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, they presided over an aborted attempt to recognise local government in the Constitution. The Prime Minister as minister promised $10 million to the 'yes' case with another $10 million from local government and millions more through various local honey pots. The so-called 'neutral' case was in effect a de facto 'yes' case mechanism. So there were millions of dollars promised to the 'yes' case. On the other hand, the 'no' case was offered $500,000. In other words, the 'no' case was funded to the tune of about five cents per voter. This was absolutely outrageous interference in the referendum process.</para>
<para>I believe in equality of public funding, because Australians deserve to hear the arguments. I believe that is a very important matter of principle. It's not about the Voice. It's not about recognition of local government. It's not about a republic. It's about the belief that, regardless of the topic, Australians need to hear both arguments.</para>
<para>Let me remind members opposite of the 1951 referendum. That was the referendum to ban the Communist Party, which was loathed by Labor. Some believed it was the thin edge of the wedge. That campaign was the shining moment in the political career of Dr HV Evatt, who travelled the country allowing Australians to hear the 'no' case. The 'no' case won, and it won because people got to hear it. Imagine if that process had been rigged. Imagine if Menzies had played it for partisan benefit. It wasn't; the 1951 referendum followed the normal rules. As a democracy, good process matters. It always does. I believe that we should always trust the Australian people. They get it right.</para>
<para>The framers of the Constitution set up a mechanism whereby Australians could make an informed choice about changing our Constitution. The framers wanted Australians to hear the alternatives. In order to make an informed choice, you must have information. We've seen only eight successful amendments to the Constitution in almost a century and a quarter. Three of those eight were delivered by the late Bob Ellicott, when he was Attorney-General in 1977. He put four questions up. Three, as I mentioned, passed, and the fourth failed, despite receiving 62 per cent of the national vote. Ellicott's view on successful referendum questions was insightful. He said that referendum success required broad support among Australians and that that's the 'result of broad consultation and the provision of information as to its purpose and effect'.</para>
<para>I come to this bill as someone who's a supporter of the principle of the Voice and someone who's a supporter of a fair process. A democracy that seeks to manipulate electoral processes for partisan reasons is a democracy that is corroding the very foundation of the trust that underpins it. I believe that, in elections on referendum questions, Australians deserve to hear the arguments, through traditional media and through social media. Governments shouldn't censor by obstruction or by promoting one view over another. That's the cynic's approach. Cynics believe we should manipulate processes to achieve outcomes. I should stress that this bill is about the process around the referendum and not the referendum question itself. This bill is not even about the eventual question; it's literally about the referendum machinery.</para>
<para>There's much in this bill that's sensible, particularly around aligning many of the rules of the referendum with those that occur in federal elections. We live in an age of foreign interference, and we support measures that seek to modernise referendum machinery to bring it into line with election machinery designed to safeguard Australia's institutions against foreign interference. It's right to modernise, because we've also seen much change since the last referendum, including online campaigning and, with it, the emergence of malicious actors. So the machinery for a referendum should be in line with a federal election, and we support that, but we're opposed to the discarding of formal 'yes' and 'no' cases prepared by members of parliament in a booklet. Giving Australians a formal case from each side that's been approved by the members who will vote yes and the members who will vote no will add to this debate.</para>
<para>I believe in free speech and I believe in Australians having access to all the arguments, so I support the distribution of formal 'yes' and 'no' cases. I also support public funding for both cases because the Constitution should never be for sale. I welcome the decision of the government to reinstate the official 'yes' and 'no' case booklet, but why was the booklet ever withdrawn? It was withdrawn because the government thought it could manipulate the process. Formal 'yes' and 'no' cases should appear at every referendum. They should be sent to every elector. They should be publicly funded. No referendum campaign should be driven by money or by who has access to the most billionaires. It should be driven by arguments that Australians can hear.</para>
<para>The formal 'yes' and 'no' cases mean that every Australian can hear those arguments, and the government should provide funding to each side so that Australians can actually hear those. I know some have said that funding a formal 'no' case will simply mean the government is funding racist arguments. I don't accept that, because I know the great majority of Australians are not racist. We're one of the great multicultural and multifaith nations on earth. Australians hate racism, and we know a racist trope when we see it. Racist arguments will be a vote loser, and I can't imagine respected Australians of the calibre of the former deputy prime minister John Anderson advocating arguments that would in any way denigrate First Australians.</para>
<para>A formal 'yes' case and 'no' case will communicate the gravitas of a referendum, and an official 'yes' campaign and 'no' campaign organisation would also create the structures by which both sides could respond to the important disclosure and regulatory regimes that exist in our electoral processes. It means the debates from both sides will be driven by the mainstream and not by groups from the far edges or by vested interests with large pools of cash.</para>
<para>I've said repeatedly that we must approach this referendum with goodwill. Everyone has a responsibility in this debate, be they for the 'yes' case, the 'no' case or genuinely undecided. We all have a responsibility to listen to each other with respect. If you're a leader or an advocate of the 'yes' case, you have a responsibility to listen to the legitimate questions of those who doubt, and, if you're a leader or an advocate of the 'no' case, you have a responsibility to listen to the real concerns and the lived experience of Indigenous Australians. Both sides deserve to be heard, and we should create the space where Australians can engage with the questions asked.</para>
<para>We saw recently a news report in the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> about an event that the member for Sydney held advocating for the Voice. It was a community forum, and she was asked questions. The <inline font-style="italic">Herald</inline> described these questions as probing questions, and I think it's good. In fact, many of those probing questions were the same ones that Peter Dutton has been asking since early January. I'm glad that the member for Sydney held the forum. If the referendum goes ahead there will be events like this all over the country, because a referendum is a decision of the Australian people and I want the Australians to hear the arguments. We must oppose any and every attempt to shut down debate.</para>
<para>I want to be very clear to the global big tech companies who own the social media channels Australians rely upon. I say to them: don't censor this debate. Global big tech companies censoring debate in Australia is in itself a form of foreign interference and shouldn't be allowed. We're not Moscow, we're not Beijing, we're not Kabul, we're not Tehran. We're Australians. In this country the citizens have a right to hear the arguments. When there are bad arguments, disinformation and unpalatable tropes—as there will be—let them rot in the public space as they should. Let Australians expose them and tear them down. Big tech companies don't have a right to determine what is a good or a bad argument. Australians don't need the censorship of big tech, nor do they need big corporates, under the guise of corporate social responsibility, directing Australians how to vote. I want to say to corporate Australia: if you want to be involved in this debate that's a good thing, but make sure you really are a good corporate citizen. Make sure the planes are running on time. Make sure you've invested in fixing the mobile black spots. Make sure you're not still trading with Russia. Make sure you're not ripping off Indigenous consumers. Make sure you're not destroying the sacred places of Indigenous heritage. Make sure you're keeping price rises down, and if you're a bank your interest rate down as well. I say this explicitly, because this is a debate of citizens. It's the debate of Australians. I don't want the Constitution to be a plaything of big money, big tech or big corporates, whether those corporates are located overseas or whether they're located here in Collins Street, George Street or any other capital city in Australia.</para>
<para>I make these points because I think we must all walk gently in this debate. We must respect good process. We must respect debate. We must make places to persuade, rather than make people feel fearful to speak. We must understand this referendum will be the place where citizens decide—we the people. As with the substantive matters in this move towards a referendum I believe the government should move back towards a normal process. Part of that normal process of a referendum is those three things that we have talked about: a formal no case, equal public funding and a formal yes and no case booklet which seems to now have been achieved. The normal formal processes for yes and no cases were established and, as was the case in 1999, funded equally so that all Australians can hear the arguments. And good process will mean the government listens in terms of the question on the amendment.</para>
<para>I remember being on the national no committee in 1999. We looked at the way in which Australians were engaging with the yes and no booklet, and we saw that it was a very important document in terms of Australians thinking about this. I think we have to go back to some of the basic ideas in this debate. Most Australians, unfortunately, don't know we have got a Constitution, and those who do know we have it have never read it. Yet we are asking them one Saturday to make an important decision about what that Constitution looks like and what the future of important government structures under our Federation are to look like. Australians will want to sit at home and look at the amendment. They want to understand it. They want to read it. What we found in 1999 was that Australians take decisions of this sort seriously. We need to be able to ensure Australians are hearing the arguments for and against. As I say, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about a referendum on a voice, whether we're talking about a referendum on a republic, whether we're talking about a referendum to ban the communist party. It doesn't matter what the topic is. It is the process that must be fair. It is the process that must inform Australians. It is the process that must allow both sides to get their arguments out. They are the points that we on this side of the House have been making about changes to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act.</para>
<para>We believe that the government should adopt the orthodox process and take a leaf out of the 1999 republic referendum where there was a yes and no case booklet delivered in the mail to every elector. There was a publicly funded yes and no campaign. Those campaigns were drawn from the constitutional convention that had convened in 1998. As I say, I had the privilege of being appointed to the national no case committee by John Howard for that referendum. The environment which we are now conducting our politics in is an environment where the level of foreign interference, according to the agencies, is at record highs. It is higher than it ever was during the Cold War. There are malicious state and nonstate actors that would seek to disrupt our democracy. There needs to be formal cases recognised to make it easier to deal with that threat and to make it easier to deal with an increasing amount of bureaucracy, understandably because of the importance of preserving our electoral system and our referendum system as it were, such that the compliance for small organisations around the country will be very difficult, and the capacity for foreign interference through small organisations will be greater. Those are the reasons why we on this side of the House have been so trenchant in our views about this bill, and why we think those three things are very important preconditions to this. Fundamentally, what we need to see from the government here is a commitment to good process. Good process means the government will listen in terms of this bill. Good process means the government will listen to the question in the amendment. Good process ultimately builds confidence, and, sadly, confidence is ebbing, but good process is the best pathway on this issue, as it is on so many others as well.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, which proposes crucial amendments to one of the most important instruments available to the Australian people for change. Questions of national character and constitutional reform are some of the most serious questions we can ask of voters in this country. When we propose a change to the Constitution at a referendum, it is a change which goes to the foundation of the way in which our nation operates, of how it is governed, of how it is protected, of how it does what the Australian people expect it to do.</para>
<para>The Constitution empowers the Australian people to own their democracy and, when we change it, we must be cautious that we are not disempowering voters on one side or the other. A lot has happened since the referendum act was last used. In fact, it hasn't been used since 1999. It was in 1999 that the Australian people rejected a politician's republic in favour of the status quo. They opted to retain the constitutional monarchy because, well, it worked, and the change would come at a price too high—uncertainty, instability, and an increase of power to the elected, not the electors.</para>
<para>As the Samuel Griffith Society pointed out in their submission to the inquiry, the fact that the nation has experienced the longest period in its history without a referendum should be seen as an indication of Australians' overall satisfaction with our existing constitutional arrangements. However, after nearly 25 years, the legislation which enables such a referendum has not kept pace with the modernisations we have made successively to the electoral act, amendments which have improved the efficiency, transparency and integrity of our electoral process.</para>
<para>Since the last national referendum, we have seen some remarkable change. The iPod was invented and has since transformed into wearable mobile technology thanks to the Internet of Things. YouTube was invented, along with the social media platforms from which we now source so much of our information and news. Advances in cybersecurity, generational shifts in workforce participation and the working week, and social change at scale unlike anything we have seen, at least my lifetime, have taken place in a quarter of a century since the referendum act was last used. It is time for its modernisation. That is why in 20121 as chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I led an inquiry into constitutional reform and referenda, passing the baton on to the member for Moncrieff on my election as Speaker of the House of Representatives. That inquiry, which has contributed to this bill in debate today, showed me a number of things. The minister claims that this bill aims to ensure that referenda reflect contemporary federal election voting processes, and extends transparency and integrity measures in the electoral act to support voter confidence in referenda. That may well be the aim, but, in some respects, it will not be the result.</para>
<para>Australians are becoming more aware of the Constitution's role. Since the report of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs was handed down, Australians have become a little more aware of the real-life implications of our Constitution on democracy and government. That is not unusual as we are approaching a referendum. I believe that Australians, given that there have 25 years since our last one, will take a more active role in understanding what referenda are about, a lot more about our Constitution and about how the Constitution should be changed, if at all. During the COVID-19 pandemic and in the aftermath of the COVID lockdowns, the nature of Australia's competitive federalism was laid bare before the Australian people. For some, the to-ing and fro-ing between the states and the Commonwealth was proof that the system was strong, demanding cooperation across borders while protecting state electors' interests. For others, it was a point of concern and contention that governments disagreed at times and agreed on other issues.</para>
<para>The question we are discussing now is not whether competitive federalism is the best system of governing our Commonwealth and its states. The question is whether the provisions proposed empower the people of this country to make such decisions for themselves if or when the time comes.</para>
<para>This debate should be considered in light of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament debate. What we debate in relation to this bill will naturally be viewed as a reflection on the upcoming referendum on an Indigenous voice to parliament. It will, after all, be the first national referenda held in nearly a quarter of a century. The changes we make now, however, will extend to the referenda which follow: crucial moments of significant and fundamental change to the way our nation operates. As such, it's important that we all take a critical and forward-thinking approach to these reforms and that we undertake this debate with dignity, that we do it in a collegial spirit and, perhaps most importantly, that we do it with respect. I am heartened by the tone of the debate in relation to this bill, because this bill is almost a precursor to the Voice referendum itself. How this debate is managed by this House over the next hours and days, if it comes to that, really does set the tone, and I think that tone needs to be one of respect.</para>
<para>Now, there are things that we have taken for granted in our typical election process which have not been amended since the previous referendum nearly a quarter of a century ago, and I will go through some of the things that we do agree with in relation to this bill. The coalition supports some of those changes. We support allowing the early opening and sorting—but not counting—of prepoll ordinary votes from 4 pm on voting day along with the extraction of declaration votes during preliminary scrutiny. These changes will support the timely scrutiny of prepoll votes on the night of voting day, consistent with federal election processes.</para>
<para>We support measures to combat foreign interference, particularly in relation to financial contributions. In a rare foray from Labor into actually improving integrity and accountability measures, this bill would see the financial disclosure procedures amended to protect referenda from foreign interference. It would prohibit foreign donations of more than $100 and prohibit foreign donors and actors from incurring referenda expenditure, to a maximum of $1,000 per financial year. This includes aggregated smaller donations below the disclosure threshold.</para>
<para>As the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted, 'The threat of foreign influence in democratic referendums can risk undermining democratic integrity and has the potential to erode democracy by compromising trust in voting results and trust in political participants.' The limit on foreign campaigners and the restriction on their ability to fundraise or directly incur referendum expenditure is a mechanism to counteract the effects of foreign influence in Australia's democracy and maintain Australians' trust in their referenda. Genuine freedom to vote at referenda requires freedom from undue influence or interference. Donors will also be required to report to the AEC the details of donations for referendum campaigning valued above the disclosure threshold. If only those opposite would consider the same level of scrutiny with respect to Australian superannuation funds or union contributions to general elections!</para>
<para>Unfortunately, this bill is one-sided, and that really touches on one of the key concerns. It's hypocritical. The bill as proposed does not include a commitment to provide equal information about and equal funding to both sides of the debate. This means that those with the most money and the greatest capacity to provide free information—that is, governments—have an extraordinary and unprecedented advantage. This is a heinous double standard. What has become clear is that the Australian people are losing faith in the Albanese Labor government. They're losing faith in the government's integrity, their intentions and their abilities. It's not often I'll quote the current member for Warringah, but I will today. When she talked about her Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill in December last year, she said 'the government knows it needs to protect truth, and it's failing to do that'. The Australian people know it to be true. To that end, the coalition and Australians with common sense are calling on the government to amend this bill and commit to: restoring the pamphlet to outline the 'yes' and 'no' cases, which they have now done; establishing official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns organisations; and appropriately funding both of those official organisations.</para>
<para>Early on, we called Labor out with respect to the pamphlets. It may sound like a little thing, but the inequity and inaccessibility with relation to information for the opposing argument would be a grossly undemocratic stain on this critical referendum. Initially, Labor refused. It came as a shock. In their own words in the 2021 SPLA report, they said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Awareness and understanding of our Constitution, referendums and constitutional matters is disturbingly low amongst Australian citizens.</para></quote>
<para>I was shocked because I assumed that Labor meant what they said and said what they mean.</para>
<para>Recommendation 6 of the SPLA inquiry that I referenced before specifically called on the Electoral Commissioner to distribute the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets to all electors, using any additional methods that the Electoral Commissioner considers appropriate. Labor agreed to this when they were in opposition, but once granted the reins of power they went back on their word. Shock, horror—I know! There have been three referenda without an official pamphlet: 1919, 1926 and 1928. In 1919 there was insufficient time to produce a pamphlet. In 1926 there was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument. In 1928 there was overwhelming agreement between the parties and the government. Surely, a century on, we are past these kinds of excuses.</para>
<para>We've also called on Labor asking them to provide equal public funding for both sides of the campaign. A recommendation of the SPLA report in 2021 called for the act to be amended to provide for the Australian government to fund referendum education and promotion of the arguments for and against the referendum proposal. This is the model applied across like-minded democratic parliaments.</para>
<para>In conclusion, what the coalition want to see is equal funding, equal access to information and equal standing for Australians who share a common love of country but, perhaps, differing views on one particular issue. It's about being a mature government, a fair government and a responsible government. That's what Australians expect. With all that said, I cannot support this bill as it's currently written, and I want to support it because we need to modernise our approach to referenda. We will support a bill that allows for a referendum with informed voters and a process with integrity based on precedent. To that end, we're hopeful that the amendments that I've outlined today will be introduced in the Senate and accepted so that we can vote on what is an important reform to the way we amend and defend our Constitution.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
    <electorate>Canning</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise this evening to oppose this bill, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, along with my opposition colleagues, because I fear this establishes a process that undermines the very referendum that we're all going to participate in as Australians. A change to our Constitution is a very momentous thing. It's a big thing, and it involves all Australians. It's very important that we have the whole population informed about the change they're being asked to vote on, that the information that they're given is accurate and correct, that it's a level playing field and that they get both sides of the argument. I'm not confident that this bill does that.</para>
<para>This is a really important question that the Australian people are being asked to answer—the question of whether we have a Voice to Parliament or to the executive established. It's a debate that needs to be handled with care, with prudence and with respect, and I fear that this bill alloys the debate by depriving it of the integrity and the process that it demands and absolutely requires.</para>
<para>We have raised three points for the government, to address our concerns on the referendum process. First, we made the case that the pamphlet to outline the 'yes' and 'no' cases be restored, and that has been done. We also argued that there should be official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations established. Finally, we argued that those organisations be funded appropriately. Those second and third points have not yet been agreed to by the government, which is why we're opposing this bill.</para>
<para>So why are we advocating for the retention of a pamphlet? Without a pamphlet, this bill sets a very dangerous precedent, and there is no valid reason or precedent for deliberately not providing one. Setting a new standard for the conduct of referenda in this instance will create precedents for future referenda. As I said, it's really important that the Australian population is fully apprised of what they're voting on, they understand both the 'yes' and 'no' arguments and they go into the ballot box understanding exactly what they're being asked to do. There's always been a requirement for a pamphlet. In fact, it was implemented back in 1912. There have been three referenda without an official pamphlet: 1919, 1926 and 1928. In 1919 there was insufficient time to produce the pamphlet, in 1926 there was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument, and in 1928 there was overwhelming agreement between parties and governments on the question. Of those referenda, none of the circumstances apply. We know there's not complete agreement on this issue, we have the time to produce a pamphlet and we can get agreement on how to argue the cases. It's really, really important that we have this pamphlet, and I'm glad the government has agreed to provide it as a part of this bill.</para>
<para>It's really important that people use official material. One of the things that I've noticed—indeed, I experienced it myself going through to school—is the decline of civics in this country. Of course, during our education, we get taught about our system of government, about the parliament, about the judiciary, about how our democracy works, about all the constituent parts and about how they come together. But I think, over the last 20 years, there has been a decline in civics, and that's why it's so important that we provide a pamphlet for Australians as they are being asked this important question. At the same time as we've seen a decline in civics, we've also seen an increase in misinformation, which has been accelerated by social media.</para>
<para>I recall a few years ago I went to a local high school in my electorate and I asked a group of year 10 students, 'Who do you trust more? Facebook or the government?' Overwhelmingly, they trusted the government over Facebook, largely because people don't know what they can trust online anymore.</para>
<para>So we've seen the decline in civics and the increase in misinformation. People are digitally saturated as it is. A lot of the information that we get—whether it be bills, bank information, you name it—comes to us via email, and a lot of those things get missed because of the saturation we all feel from the digital world on our individual devices. So a pamphlet is a really good way to get people to pause, whether it be at the kitchen table or wherever it is in their home. They'll sit down and consider the issues before them—in this case, the issue of whether or not to establish a voice.</para>
<para>One thing I will say about the online world—and the member for Fisher raised it just before—is there has been an increase in misinformation driven by state actors, non-state actors and other aligned forces. In fact, we've heard ASIO over the last few years talk about the risk of foreign interference in our elections and how we're seeing espionage and foreign interference being conducted in this country at unprecedented levels that far exceed the Cold War. For people to receive a pamphlet from the Australian government, with the code of arms on it, that says, 'This is the question you're being asked to consider; this is the change to the Constitution; this is the 'yes' case, and this is the 'no' case,' in a world of uncertainty and digital saturation such a pamphlet is an excellent idea. I think it's great that the government has met us on that request.</para>
<para>I am also concerned about the role that big tech will play in this debate. We've seen how big tech has operated. We've seen how some of the companies do business, whether it be censorship or shadow banning. We've seen how the algorithms work. We've had plenty of testimony from people across the world who've worked for some of these big companies and have seen how they do business. I've got to say it alarms me that these foreign companies will have a say in the way that the question is shaped, the way people interpret the data and the arguments coming at them. That's another good reason why we need to have that pamphlet delivered to people in their homes—so that they can consider the arguments for themselves.</para>
<para>The other thing I'll say about social media is that the algorithms are driven by outrage. It's almost as if social media is designed to push us to the extremes, to polarise us, to create outrage, to divide us and to separate us from each other. This topic is very sensitive; it goes to a very central question around reconciliation in this country. It's got to be handled with care, and I have no faith that social media, judging by the way it has done business in the past, will be able to conduct or assist Australians through this very sensitive debate over the next six to eight months. So, again, I am very glad the pamphlet has been agreed to.</para>
<para>The second question is: why are we advocating for an official 'yes' and 'no' campaign? The main point here is that it will increase the trust and integrity in this process. Having an official 'yes' and 'no' campaign will make things simpler for the regulatory environment and for the proper conduct of the referendum. We've seen evidence from the AEC to parliamentary committees that the donation and disclosure regime remains the most complex part of the Electoral Act. Having two single points of contact for the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns is vital, I think, particularly so people know, when they're receiving messages from those campaigns, that they can at least have confidence that they are coming from an officially sanctioned campaign and that it is not misinformation or disinformation. It will create order and simplicity in an otherwise very complex undertaking. As I said, this is a very sensitive question. Having a pamphlet out there will assist in limiting misinformation. Having an official 'yes' and 'no' campaign will also provide that order and simplicity for people, and, again, increase the integrity of the process.</para>
<para>Finally, why are we asking for equal funding? Well, it's really important that both of these bodies, the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, if they are established—and, at the moment, they won't be by this bill, which is why we're opposing it—have equal funding, as we saw in the last referendum in 1999 on the question of whether to become a republic or not. That gives each side the opportunity to build their campaigns and get the arguments out there, and it creates a level and equal playing field. As it stands, we've seen a lot of corporates come out already for one side of the campaign, and I think there's going to be an unequal playing field if the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns are not funded equally.</para>
<para>So we will oppose this bill. We hope the government comes to its senses and creates that level playing field. They've restored the pamphlet for the 'yes' and 'no' cases, but they're yet to establish official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns and they're yet to appropriately fund those official campaigns. In closing, we will oppose this, and I call on the government to implement those two amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to discuss the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. Of the 44 referenda that have been put to the Australian people, only eight have succeeded. Personally, this will be the first referendum that I will vote in, and it's worth remembering that this will be true for more than six million Australians. It is vital that Australians have trust in any referendum and understand the process they are participating in.</para>
<para>This bill is amending the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 in preparation for the referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament and will apply these proposed changes to the conduct of this referendum and any others that follow. It is very important to note that this bill is not dealing with the issue of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, but rather the way in which any future referendum campaign is conducted in Australia. This bill makes a number of non-controversial changes to the act to bring the operation of the referendum in line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act.</para>
<para>The bill suspends the provisions of the referendum act that require the production and distribution of a 'yes' and 'no' case on the proposed constitutional change and imposes restrictions on the government otherwise spending money on a referendum campaign. It will regulate donations and expenditure for referendum campaigns and impose reporting obligations. It will ban foreign donations of amounts of more than $100 being used for a referendum campaign and ban foreign campaigners authorising referendum material.</para>
<para>The bill updates the referendum act to generally bring it into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, which has been amended recently. In this age of disinformation, it's so important that the government takes the lead and provides clear information to Australians about the referendum procedure and has a strong and robust referendum process. We have raised three points with the government to address our concerns about this process: we've asked for a restoration of the pamphlet to outline the 'yes' and the 'no' cases, for the establishment of official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations and for appropriate funding of these official organisations.</para>
<para>I'll now talk about why these changes are required. These measures are fundamental to having a referendum with informed voters and having a process with integrity. It is also the basis on which other referenda have operated and will be consistent with this precedent, and it is the way we practise democracy in Australia.</para>
<para>The government has stated that the purpose of removing this provision relates to the modernisation of the referendum process in the digital age. Other arguments have included the desire not to publish a significant amount of printed material that will not be read and will end up in landfill. However, Labor did not explain why the removal of the pamphlet in its entirety could not be replaced with a digital pamphlet or that the AEC will continue to provide printed material to households, as part of the referendum.</para>
<para>In evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the AEC provided evidence that the pamphlet to all households would be expected to cost approximately $10 million. And the AEC noted that around 40 per cent of Australians rely on the printed material that the commission, in conducting an election, provides to households. It's an important number to repeat, Mr Deputy Speaker: 40 per cent of Australians rely on the printed material that the commission provides when conducting an election. We need to remember that there are a large portion of Australians who are not digitally literate. We have an obligation and responsibility to provide them with easily accessible information on this referendum and any referendum in the future.</para>
<para>I do understand that the community are concerned about misinformation and I share their concern. We know that, unfortunately, electoral events are increasingly influenced by misinformation. The ACCC reported that 92 per cent of the respondents to the ACCC news survey had some concerns about the quality of news and journalism they were consuming, and that analysis had 'identified concerning consumer and competition harms across a range of digital platform services that are widespread, entrenched, and systemic'. That is why printed booklets in official campaigns are so important.</para>
<para>We now operate in a social media world which has changed the way in which we consume information. Through social media, artificial intelligence and deepfake videos, we've adapted to getting news that we can no longer trust. In many ways, we are losing the ability to trust our eyes and ears. Sometimes this is innocent, but, as other members have spoken about, there are bad faith actors that are looking to use these new technologies and platforms in social media to mislead and undermine campaigns. That's why we need these official 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets—to give greater certainty to all Australians.</para>
<para>Freedom of speech and democracy ensures that we can express and seek differing points of view to make up our own minds; to form our own opinions and make our own decisions. Democracy depends on this. Labor has not made any provisions for an official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisation to be established. This is of concern in relation to the implementation of modern electoral regulations on donations and foreign interference. An official campaign structure will provide boundaries for the AEC to coordinate education on the responsibilities of organisations and individuals participating in the campaign. The regulatory auditing process to administer these regulatory schemes would be assisted by having official campaigns to provide a starting point for enforcement and education by the AEC. We welcome the government's announcement that they will restore the pamphlet; however, having an official 'yes' and 'no' campaign would make things simpler for the regulatory environment and for the proper conduct of the referendum. It would go a long way to countering the misinformation that could be distributed through digital and social media.</para>
<para>An official campaign structure is going to be the best way for our regulators to ensure appropriate education and enforcement of the electoral laws for this referendum and future referendums. We know that a significant number of participants and organisations in this referendum will not be associated with political parties or regularly participate in electoral events, so having a single point of coordination to provide education and to commence any audit process for donations or foreign interference is the best way to ensure the integrity of this referendum.</para>
<para>As I said earlier, we have a whole generation of Australians who have never voted in a referendum. Here in Canberra we're very engaged every day. It's literally our job and the job of our staff to be engaged in the detail of the political process. But I think we all know that many Australians are not engaged with the political process. That's not a criticism of them: it's a fact—it's an observation. They're focused on putting food on the table. They're focused on taking their kids to sport and being engaged with their communities. So we can't forget that many people are not engaged in this process yet and will not become engaged in this process until much closer to this referendum or to any future referendum. So having official campaigns is important, to ensure that when they do seek information they can go to a trusted source. As I said, an official campaign structure will go a long way to helping those Australians who have not voted in a referendum or who are not engaged to understand the process they're undertaking, and what exactly they're being asked to change.</para>
<para>The bill makes fundamental changes to how referenda are conducted in Australia and they go beyond what has been done in the past. In particular, there's the removal of a requirement for a pamphlet to be provided outlining the cases for and against the change. We will support a bill that allows for a referendum with informed voters and a process with integrity based on this precedent. This is what is expected in a strong and robust democracy. We cannot alter our electoral laws based on one referendum. A change to this document should not be undertaken lightly; our Constitution has served our nation well and has resulted in our strong and stable democracy.</para>
<para>As I said, we have called for three things: firstly, the restoration of the pamphlet to outline the 'yes' and 'no' cases, and it appears that this has been agreed to by the government. We have also called for the establishment of the official 'yes' and 'no' organisations, and for appropriate funding for these official organisations. As it stands, the government has not agreed to these two points. I urge the government to reconsider; as I've outlined, official information and official campaigns are so important in a digital age—in a world of misinformation. It's also important because it allows Australians to have an understanding of the process they're about to take part in. Almost six million Australians have not engaged in this process previously, and it's so important that we give them some confidence in this referendum.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill symbolises the start of the process of holding a referendum to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament in our Constitution. It's the vitally important first step. This is an historic moment for our country, and I would urge all Australians, whatever their political persuasion, to embrace it. Over the past few years, reconciliation in this country has come a long way, but the cold, hard truth is that it's far from complete. The upcoming referendum is a chance for all Australians to move reconciliation forward. This is our moment, our country's moment, and we need to seize it.</para>
<para>Only three weeks ago, I attended the 15th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations breakfast here at Parliament House. It was an event that marked just how far we've come, but also how much further we need to go. I thought about Aunty Mary Hooker, my friend and constituent. She was a proud Bundjalung woman. Sadly, Auntie Mary passed away in 2019. She was here for the National Apology to the Stolen Generations in 2008, and she returned in 2018 for the National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse. After being forcibly removed from her family as a child, she suffered horrific abuse at the Parramatta Girls Training School and also Ormond Training School in Thornleigh in Sydney. She wanted her story to be told, which I have done in this parliament on a previous occasion so that it's recorded in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>. Yet, despite all she endured in her life, Aunty Mary refused to be consumed by hatred. She wanted justice, but she never carried that hatred in her heart. She was passionately committed to reconciliation and to bringing Australians together. She knew that we all have to continue walking down that road. The work that so many like Aunty Mary started needs to be completed. I spoke to her husband, Rodney Hooker, about this just this afternoon.</para>
<para>I hope it is complete in my lifetime, although it may not be. However, the responsibility to move reconciliation forward currently rests with us, and a new generation is rising to lead. In our area it is young people such as Alicia Agland and Kishaya Delaney of the Uluru Youth Dialogue who are driving and guiding the Voice campaign. A couple of weeks ago, the Minister for Indigenous Australians visited our electorate of Calare and spoke to many young Australians who were keen to learn more about the Voice and what it would mean for our area. We went to Lake Canobolas and visited Ngurang-gu Yalbilinya, a partnership between the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council and Canobolas Rural Technology High School. It's an innovative, community driven program that connects to culture and makes a real difference to the lives of the young men who learn there.</para>
<para>We went to Canobolas high school, Wellington High School and Nanima Preschool, just outside of Wellington. There we saw the future of Australia, which was appropriate, because the Voice is very much about the future of this nation. It will deliver long-overdue recognition in Australia's founding document. It should already be there. It's hard to believe that it's not. The Voice is also about tangible, practical results in communities around Australia. It's an acknowledgement that policies and approaches of the past have not worked and that change is needed. The Voice won't be delivering programs. It won't be a third chamber of parliament. It won't have a veto. It's an advisory body. It will consult with Indigenous Australians on policies affecting them. And, because it will be in the Constitution, it will be an enduring voice.</para>
<para>The Indigenous groups that I have spoken to in our electorate are not looking to divide Australians. Through this Voice, they are seeking better outcomes in fields like education, health and housing. They are not seeking division. They want this to be a moment of unity, and that's the spirit in which we need to be having this national conversation.</para>
<para>This referendum won't be decided by members of parliament; it will be decided by Australians in all corners of our nation, and I would ask the people of Calare and Australians everywhere to approach the referendum with an open heart and an open mind—a generosity of spirit. In the days, weeks and months ahead, there will be many opportunities to find out more about the voice and have questions answered—to have those conversations. It doesn't matter how old you are, where you live or from what walk of life you come. We want everyone to engage in this pivotal moment in our history.</para>
<para>This bill is set to modernise the legislation that will govern how the referendum will be conducted. As I have said, for this historic referendum, it's the starting point. I urge all Australians to support giving our First Australians this long overdue recognition and voice. Together, we can do it. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. Most of this is noncontroversial and seeks merely to bring the operation of the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament referendum into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The stated purpose of the bill is to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to suspend the provisions of the act that require the production and distribution of a 'yes' and 'no' case. The bill otherwise restricts government expenditure in relation to this referendum campaigning.</para>
<para>There are three parts of this bill that trouble those on my side. First is the pamphlet, which we say needs to distributed to all Australian households. The second is that this bill does not establish 'yes' or 'no' organisations. Third, we say that those 'yes' and 'no' organisations should be properly funded by the government.</para>
<para>The upcoming Voice to Parliament referendum is very important to the future of race relations in Australia. It is important to Indigenous Australian and it is important to non-Indigenous Australians. It is important that Australians understand the content of what they are being asked to vote upon. The upcoming process on the Voice should not be the stuff of wedges. Those who support the Voice should be given the opportunity to fully explain their case for constitutional change. Similarly, those that oppose the Voice should not be demonised as racists or bigots. This is an opportunity for our country to have an intellectual debate without descending into anger. It is an opportunity for Australians to consider both sides of an argument for constitutional change without hatred, without virtue signalling, without name-calling and without outrage. The government can assist by getting the process, the mechanics, correct. That is why I advocate for proper funding of both the 'yes' and the 'no' campaign. I also support the distribution of a pamphlet to each Australian household. In this way, regardless of the outcome of the vote, Australians will be capable of waking up the morning after the referendum satisfied that their fellow Australians had the opportunity to be fully informed, that there was integrity in the process.</para>
<para>If we turn now to the history of referenda in our country, Australian governments have largely been reluctant to submit a proposal to alter the Constitution to the Australian people. Australians, when voting in referenda, have largely been reluctant to support changes to our Constitution. Since Federation in 1901, only 44 questions for altering the Constitution have been put to the Australian people. Of these 44, only eight have been approved. The last constitutional referendum was in 1999 and included questions on a republic in a preamble to the Constitution, both of which failed to be carried by a majority of voters or a majority of states. Majorities of both are, of course, required to alter the Constitution.</para>
<para>The most recent successful referendum was in 1977, relating to voters in territories being allowed to vote in referenda, age limits for judges and the question of casual Senate vacancies. Having regard to the small number of successful referenda in our history, the way that we conduct referenda into the future is important and deserving, therefore, of a prudent approach. In his second reading speech on this bill, the minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A decision to change our Constitution is a significant national event, and it has been more than two decades since a change has been proposed. It is therefore important that the government can fund civics education in relation to the upcoming referendum on the Voice.</para></quote>
<para>I fully support the minister's sentiment on this. It is therefore beyond comprehension that he then stated, 'The government has no intention of funding 'yes' and 'no' campaigns.' If we are to give Australians a proper civics education, it only makes sense that there is a proper government funding of both the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigns.</para>
<para>I was particularly concerned that the bill sought to remove the requirement to provide all households with a pamphlet outlining both the 'yes' and 'no' case for changing the Constitution. It is noted now that the government has announced an intention to restore the pamphlet and that announcement is welcomed. In an age of misinformation, it is extremely important that the government takes the lead on this and provides clear information to Australians and establishes a strong referendum process. If the government does want this referendum to pass, it must ensure that the process has integrity. To that end, I call upon the government to establish official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations and to appropriately fund those organisations. This is the basis upon which most other referenda in our country have operated and will be consistent, therefore, with established precedent.</para>
<para>There are cogent reasons to provide written material to all Australian households. We have heard from the AEC that, when they provide mailed material to voters during elections, 40 per cent of recipients will use the documentation as a main source of information in casting their vote. We also know that electoral events are increasingly influenced by misinformation. The ACCC, for example, has published data reporting that 92 per cent of the respondents to a recent survey had some concern about the quality of news and journalism they were consuming.</para>
<para>Proper, equal government funding of both the 'yes' and the 'no' cases will therefore increase the trust and integrity of the referendum process. Having official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will make things simpler for the regulatory environment and for the proper conduct of the referendum. The AEC has given evidence to parliamentary inquiries that the donation and disclosure regimes remain the most complex part of the Electoral Act. An official campaign structure is therefore going to be the best way for our regulators to ensure appropriate education and enforcement of the electoral laws for the referendum. We know there will be a significant number of participants and organisations in this referendum who will not be associated with political parties or who do not regularly participate in electoral events. Having a single point of coordination to provide education and to commence any audit processes is the best way to ensure the integrity of the upcoming referendum. Therefore, I conclude by reiterating the importance of careful consideration being given to changing our Constitution. Australians must be given the opportunity to be fully informed of the arguments for and against change—the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigns.</para>
<para>The upcoming Voice to Parliament referendum is vitally important to the future of our country, to the future of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. It is vital to the future of race relations in this country. It is therefore outrageous to suggest that a referendum of this magnitude does not deserve equal government funding of both positions. It must be concluded with respect, and, for that to occur, we must consider the content of the debate. We must first ensure that the process, the mechanics, are correct to enable a debate based on intellect and integrity.</para>
<para>In all of those circumstances, it is pleasing to note that the government has agreed to the distribution of pamphlets to all Australian households. If the government also agrees to establishing both the 'yes' and the 'no' organisations and agrees to proper, equal funding of both of those organisations, this bill will be supported by those on my side.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to those in this chamber who have contributed to the debate on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. I also take this opportunity to recognise and thank the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for their review of this bill and for their continued consideration of matters relating to electoral laws and practices.</para>
<para>Referendums are an integral part of our democracy, but the last referendum was held over 22 years ago. Since that time the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, the referendum act, has not kept pace with changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the electoral act. The bill makes amendments to replicate current electoral machinery provisions into the referendum context to ensure the voting process and experience are similar to that of a federal election. The bill will also ensure that integrity and transparency measures that currently apply to federal elections will also apply to referendums. This includes the establishment of a financial disclosure framework for referendums to support transparency and accountability with respect to funding and expenditure.</para>
<para>A decision to change our Constitution is a significant national event, and it has been more than two decades since a change has been proposed. It's therefore important that the government can fund civics education in relation to the upcoming referendum on the Voice. I can foreshadow that the government will be moving amendments to the bill in the other place to, among other things, respond to recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, JSCEM, inquiry into the bill. The most substantive amendment will be in relation to the pamphlet.</para>
<para>The bill before the House would temporarily suspend the requirement for an official 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet. The Special Minister of State has considered arguments to reinstate the pamphlet, which would contain arguments authorised by a majority of parliamentarians who voted for and a majority of parliamentarians who voted against the proposed law and be posted to all enrolled households in Australia. As an act of good faith, in our continued effort to work across the parliament, the government has agreed to reinstate the pamphlet. Amendments to that effect will be moved in the other place. This was a significant concession. I note recommendation 2 from JSCEM's advisory report recommends the government ensure appropriate structures and mechanisms are put in place to ensure clear, factual and impartial information is made accessible. The government will continue to consider that recommendation.</para>
<para>I acknowledge that the opposition continues to argue that the government should be using taxpayers' money to fund official 'yes' and 'no' cases. The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act does not provide for public funding of 'yes' or 'no' campaigns, let alone establish official campaign vehicles. And this government does not intend to move amendments to change this. As the Prime Minister has said, taxpayers should not be funding 'yes' or 'no' campaigns.</para>
<para>I note that a number of the members who have contributed to this debate have referred to the government's ambitious electoral reform agenda. It is true that our party is the party of electoral reform, and the Albanese government is committed to lowering the disclosure threshold to a fixed $1,000, reigning it in from the current $15,200. The Special Minister of State is also committed to delivering a mechanism for pursuing truth in political advertising within Australia's electoral framework. Both these issues need careful consideration and are currently before the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. When the committee reports back on its review of the 2022 federal election, the Special Minister of State will consider how to implement broader electoral reforms most effectively. Now is not the time to rush these proposed reforms in the context of this bill and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. However, such changes to electoral laws should also be reflected in referendum machinery where appropriate.</para>
<para>The amendments in this bill are important and necessary to deliver a modern referendum in which the voting process and experience are similar to that of a federal election. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their contribution and commend this bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Griffith be disagreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is now that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Warringah be disagreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be now read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until the first opportunity on the next sitting day.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6967" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>111</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In 2021, when I started doorknocking in Boothby, people talked to me about a lot of issues. Lack of action on climate change was high on the list, as we watched once-in-100-year-floods happening month after month in the eastern states. The previous government's appalling treatment of women was high as well. But probably the No. 1 issue I heard of from people as I doorknocked and met with them at community events and spoke to them on the phone was integrity. People simply did not trust the Morrison government. They talked to me about sports rorts. They talked to me about car park rorts. They told me about the Leppington Triangle or, as it's more commonly known in South Australia, the Sydney Airport land deal. They talked to me about a company based in a shack on Kangaroo Island getting some multimillion dollar contract, and a tiny not-for-profit being given $444 million they hadn't even asked for, for the Great Barrier Reef—with no process. They talked to me about regional jobs and investment rorts. By that stage, I thought we all needed therapy. They were all distressed at the waste of taxpayer funds. They were angry at the blatant flaunting of a lack of process, and they were exasperated at a government that, despite being caught out again and again and again, and despite making headlines time after time after time, just kept doing the same thing: treating the public like idiots and mugs—nothing to see here!</para>
<para>But mostly the people of Boothby talked to me about why we didn't have a federal anticorruption commission. They held out hope that this anticorruption commission might fix the terrible route that the former government was heading down, might restore respect, might restore our international standing so they could talk to their friends and families overseas without having to make excuses for and be embarrassed by our government. Remember, this was a time when our standing on the international anticorruption index had dropped a precipitous 12 points to its lowest standing ever. It wasn't just the Australian public thinking things were going wrong, an objective international index was saying it on the world stage. How embarrassing.</para>
<para>That was the regime that those opposite oversaw over the last decade and the residents of Boothby were appalled, but, of course, they didn't know the half of it. At the time that I was talking to them, when they were telling me how much they wanted integrity reinstated in our government, none of us knew that the former Prime Minister Morrison had had the Governor-General secretly install him into five ministries. The departments of health; finance; industry, science, energy and resources; treasury and, finally, home affairs—in addition to his appointment to administer the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Crucially, there was no public record of this having occurred. No-one knew. No-one in parliament knew. So when parliament has the role of holding ministers and government to account they didn't know. Certainly the public were not told. The Australian public that we are all ultimately responsible to were kept in the dark. Not even the ministers that he was co-ministers with knew what he had done. What a team—where your leader holds you in such respect that he deceives you, even those said to be close friends. Imagine your boss trusts you so little that he installs himself in your position with your powers just in case he wants to overrule you at any stage but apparently that's all okay with those opposite. The fact that the former Prime Minister deceived the public, deceived the parliament, in fact, deceived them was okay. The interesting conundrum is that the former Prime Minister obviously knew that it was wrong enough to keep it secret from everyone, but then the reason we found out about it was that he bragged about it. Bizarrely the reason that the Australian public, those opposite and all of us here a found out about these secret ministries was that the former Prime Minister bragged about them to journalists writing a book about him. Did he think he was to be congratulated for his deception?</para>
<para>On 30 November in this place a censure motion was debated noting that the secret ministries undermined responsible government and eroded public trust in Australia's democracy. The former Prime Minister's response offered no real rationale, just the usual dissembling deflection that we have become so used to in recent years. And then those opposite got up to congratulate him. They shook his hand. They congratulated him. They hugged him. They didn't just vote against the censure motion—apparently it's all okay—they actually congratulated him. I'm not sure that I've ever congratulated anyone for deceiving me. It was a sight to behold. Not everyone, I'll give you that, but a large number. I will particularly mention the member for McPherson, one of those directly affected when the former Prime Minister had sworn himself into her then portfolio of home affairs, who has called out his behaviour and showed the integrity we would expect in this place and abstained from the vote. I will also mention the member for Bass who voted to support the censure motion. But the rest voted against the censure motion. They voted to send a message to the former Prime Minister, and of course to any future prime ministers, that it was okay to deceive them. They voted to send a message to the Australia public that they didn't care that he had deceived the Australian public. But one thing that is plainly apparent to even the most casual observer of politics is that when politicians are seen to be deceiving the people they represent democracy pays the price. It is a break in the social contract that enables democratic representation. Our society and our country relies on strong democratic institutions. These institutions must be accountable to the public.</para>
<para>The ANU Australian electoral study released a report in 2019 that tracked the decline in satisfaction with our democracy. While satisfaction with our democracy was working in 2007—it was a healthy 89 per cent of respondents—by December 2019 it had fallen to only 59 per cent. This is the context upon which the former Prime Minister set about undermining our democratic conventions and norms. The previous government certainly had an accountability problem and that's probably a bit of an understatement. However, we the Albanese Labor government say no. We say this isn't good enough. We take seriously our contract, our article of faith with the Australian public and, surprising as it is, we now need to actually legislate to stop such egregious abuses of power happening again in the future, and so we come to this bill.</para>
<para>This bill represents the bulk of the government's response to the Bell report, the report of the inquiry into the appointment of the former Prime Minister to administer multiple departments, led by former High Court Justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC. It provides for greater transparency and accountability in Commonwealth administration. It will ensure that the Australian people are able to access information related to the composition of the federal executive council, those appointed to administer the government. As the Attorney-General said in introducing this bill, it demonstrates this government's readiness to act promptly to restore the Australian people's confidence in our federal system of government, and to rebuild integrity in public institutions and democratic accountability.</para>
<para>Deputy Speaker Buchholz, as you well know, in Australia, we operate under a responsible system of government. Basically, that means our ministers, including our Prime Minister, are accountable to this place and to the parliament for their actions, and ultimately to the Australian people. That is why we come in here in question time and ask questions of our ministerial colleagues. It is why we know which minister is responsible for what—so that we know to whom to ask the questions. It is an exercise in accountability. How can that accountability function if we don't know who is actually administering which department and which portfolio? When the government referred these matters to the Solicitor-General, Stephen Donaghue, KC, Dr Donaghue advised that the principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined by the actions of the former government. He continued, 'It is impossible for the parliament to hold ministers to account for the administration of departments if it doesn't know which ministers are responsible for which departments'—a fairly basic concept.</para>
<para>As many of my colleagues have said in this place already, there is something almost bizarrely ironic about the Prime Minister's repeated justifications for his actions. He claims that no-one could understand the position of Prime Minister in a crisis. Perhaps we could go with him on that point for the first—the ministry of health. COVID certainly was a crisis different from that we have seen in living memory. But it doesn't explain why he would keep it secret. In fact, if it was an important step made to secure the country, surely the country would be pleased to hear it had been taken, comforted that such a step had been made. But no, he chose to keep it secret. Nor does it explain why over the next year and a half he took on a further four portfolios. What is the rationale for that? We don't know. We all know that a minister can be sworn in quickly to replace another, so the rationale that ministers might get unwell and he might need to be able to replace them very quickly makes no sense. After all, he seemed to be able to find it very easy and convenient to get himself sworn into ministries on a regular basis. And what if he got unwell? Should we have had someone sworn in as a back-up Prime Minister as well? What a nonsense. But what I think is so offensive to so many Australians about the former Prime Minister's typical refusal to take responsibility for his actions is that, at the same time he was misleading and hiding the truth from the Australian people, he was asking them to extend him an extraordinary amount of trust. He was asking Australians to forgo their usual freedoms in the service of a greater good to protect the most vulnerable amongst us during the pandemic. He was encouraging Australians, reassuring them by seemingly bringing us into his trust, his confidence and he betrayed that trust. All along he was playing us, the Australian public, as mugs, keeping vital information from us because he knew better than us, better than centuries of convention. Of course, he also betrayed the trust of his colleagues. It was not enough to undermine good, responsible government by failing to notify the public of his secret ministries. The former Prime Minister also failed to tell those whose jobs he secretly took.</para>
<para>It is a sad day in this country that this bill is required to make sure that future elected officials abide by long-standing and honoured conventions, yet here we are. Along with the National Anticorruption Commission, this bill aims to start to fix the loss of trust the Australian public has with elected officials, and to fix the lack of accountability we saw in the last government. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022. When the multiple ministries scandal involving the former Prime Minister detonated in August of last year it left Australians reeling, but also breathing a sigh of relief. They had dodged a bullet; they had kicked out a carcass of a government reeking of corruption from rorts, political stacking and a warped ideology intent on marching over the weak and notable also for it self-aggrandisement despite its chronic underperformance on multiple fronts, ranging from climate, women's economic development, integrity and resilience building. The multiple ministry scandal has been scorched onto our national psyche. This assault on a democracy already resting on shaky pillars represented the former Prime Minister's plot to sew himself and his government into power for good. At the end of their term, they resembled a syndicate operating in a moral vacuum rather than a government working in the national interest. And the people of Higgins and elsewhere noticed. Whilst this saga may have eroded public confidence in government, it has been heartening to watch how swiftly the Albanese government acted to install more robust legislated safeguards to ensure this never happens again.</para>
<para>The explanation proffered by the former PM was a convoluted word salad designed to obfuscate rather than to enlighten. I was none the wiser at its conclusion, but can only speculate that he used the cloud cover of the pandemic to amass power. It was a violation of the Westminster system of government and an abrogation of cabinet process. It also exposed the Commonwealth to risk over any disputed contracts involving the then PM. It speaks volumes that today's modern Liberal Party boasts precious few who are prepared to stand up for accountability and sanction the former Prime Minister. Instead, they circle the wagons and double down, confecting moral outrage directed at the parliament over this being a witch-hunt. Despite their cabinet being completely undermined—hobbled, even—they held fast to the party line, putting self above the national interest. With one exception: I commend the member for Bass for having the moral courage to cross the floor in the name of democracy. Why her colleagues acquiesced with the former Prime Minister is unfathomable, and history will judge them accordingly.</para>
<para>If anything, this parliament's historic censure of the former Prime Minster last November should instil some assurance that the basic democratic principles of responsible government, integrity, accountability and transparency remain alive in his House. The Albanese government is trying to starve corruption of oxygen. As a mark of this commitment, we wasted no time in establishing and inquiring into the legality of the former Prime Minister's actions. On 26 August last year, Hon. Virginia Bell was appointed to lead an inquiry into the implications of the former Prime Minister's clandestine self-appointment to five additional ministerial portfolios. These included health, finance, industry and science, energy and resources, home affairs and Treasury. Indeed, Bell's conclusions affirmed the blow this power grab struck to public trust in government. The Albanese government has responded with legislation to ensure that the Australian people always know who their ministers are.</para>
<para>Allowing no time to elapse after the release of Bell's report, we have started legislating its recommendations into the Ministers of State Act. These reforms will enshrine the checks and balances required to prevent further attacks on our democracy and expunge the possibility of Australians, the parliament or executive government ever being ignorant of who is running the show. Specifically, this bill will require the Official Secretary to the Governor-General to publish a notifiable instrument, registered on the federal register of legislation, that the Governor-General has chosen, summoned and sworn an executive councillor to the Executive Council, appointed an officer to administer a department of state or directed a minister of state to hold an office. It will also require notification of the revocation of any of these positions. It's importance cannot be understated: a defence against the slippery slope of autocracy. The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 is this government's message to the Australian people that integrity and trust in government matter, and that we will not delay or deny the need to restore either.</para>
<para>It is important to reflect on the how rather than the why that the multiple ministries scandal arose. Events of this magnitude do not occur de novo unless the scene has been set. Indeed, the ministry scandal was a low point in a pattern of poor behaviour of the former government, which had become normalised because there were no consequences. Systems had been weakened, people silenced or public institutions neutered.</para>
<para>Hence we have turned our eye to hardening the public sector against corruption with a suite of measures as part of our overarching integrity agenda. In the wake of the termination of the secret trial of Bernard Collaery, the Albanese government intends to strengthen public sector whistleblower protections. Specifically, this tranche of reforms will enforce a positive duty on public sector agencies to protect whistleblowers. It will include: better education of officials; protections for witnesses; improved oversight of roles for watchdogs like the Ombudsman and Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, who oversee our national security agencies; improved sharing of information; and streamlined investigative processes.</para>
<para>These reforms could have been implemented sooner if not for the antics in the Senate in December last year by the Greens, who, with the coalition, scuppered release of the report from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on amendments to whistleblower protections. We intend to deliver these reforms, not delay them, and remain hopeful that they will be in place before the National Anti-Corruption Commission is established.</para>
<para>Our bill will implement 21 recommendations of the 2016 Moss review and other parliamentary committee reports that were parked by the previous Liberal government, as part of a wasted decade of talk and not enough walk. We have also started a long overdue review of all secrecy provisions in Commonwealth legislation. We are particularly concerned about protecting press freedom, which is why the Attorney-General convened a roundtable with media organisations on 27 February this year. Journalists should feel free to do their job without fear of going to jail. Like the NACC, press freedom is key to holding government to account.</para>
<para>These reforms around protecting press freedom emerged from a joint committee on intelligence and security in 2020 and from the Senate standing committee in May 2021, but nothing was advanced—again, a footnote in the wasted decade of Liberal rule. The omission of action by the Liberals threatened press freedom, which is perfect for a government with an aversion to scrutiny. While public trust in the judicial system is high, we recognise that it cannot be taken for granted. This is why the Albanese government has given in-principle support to the establishment of a federal judicial commission in response to recommendations by the Australian Law Commission, an institution established by Gough Whitlam.</para>
<para>Misconduct by judges is rare, but it can have devastating effects on ordinary people, amplified by the asymmetry of power. Hence we want to ensure that complaints can be handled in a transparent and independent way so that trust in the judicial system is not eroded and Australians get that fair go. The fair go, like press freedom and human rights, are seeds that need cultivation in a thriving garden of democracy. Pour toxic killer on them, in the form of a power hungry, morally bereft government, and you get a fertile ground for corruption to gain a foothold.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I give the call to the opposition chief whip, on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr van Manen</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've listened patiently, but I refer the member for Higgins to standing order 90 in her reflections and wording about members.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have been listening. I will caution the member for Higgins, who has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>People like my constituents Hayley and John, who are awaiting the resolution of their son's NDIS case through the now defunct Administrative Appeals Tribunal, intimately understand, like robodebt victims, that corruption adversely affects lives. With a staggering 67,000 cases on foot at the end of 2022, the AAT was not living up to its mission statement of being accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick. This was confounding when once it was glowingly described by the then Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, of the Howard era, as an institution that led the world in administrative law, innovation and best practice.</para>
<para>So, what happened? Corruption took root and thrived. Successive Liberal governments appointed at least 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close associates, some individuals without the requisite expertise, while thumbing their nose at transparent, merit based selection. It was cronyism. This litany of mismanagement fatally compromised the independence and technical competency of the AAT.</para>
<para>Looking under the hood revealed more problems—unsustainable finances; delays, such as a median of 77 weeks for FOI lodgements and 31 weeks for NDIS cases; and multiple legacies of electronic systems from a poor amalgamation restructure—which drove up inefficiencies and costs. The decay of the AAT is a salutary lesson of how an ideological quest for small government can leave devastation in its wake.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>115</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mental Health</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to take this opportunity to raise the issue of mental health and government supports in this area, with a particular focus on my own electorate of Cowper on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales. Having been given the honour and the privilege on a second occasion to be in this place and having been given the role of shadow assistant minister for the prevention of family violence—and I acknowledge my friend across the table, the member for Richmond, the Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, and I commend her on the work that she is doing, because it should be bipartisan and it should be above politics—one of my first acts in this role was to organise as many meetings, telephone calls and forums as I possibly could with local and national providers of services related to domestic violence.</para>
<para>Both the member for Richmond and I are former police officers and we have seen the devastation, the destruction and the ugliness of domestic violence. When I spoke to those agencies, it became very clear to me very early on that much of the funding was back-end loaded. I'm not saying that that's not the right thing to do; we need to have funding for those services that are for people who experience domestic violence and have places for them to go to escape and have ways for them to move on with our lives safely. I think successive governments have worked towards that, in terms of that back-end funding, but the service providers that I've seen locally and across the country have all noted that that problem of back-end funding without an adequate focus of effective resourcing for mental health services in prevention and early intervention is a real issue. Many of them have described it as the perpetual ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. We spend infinite time and resources on the clean-up and on helping people—and, again, we need to do that until we solve the issue of domestic violence. So it's the clean-up and the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than providing the fence to protect the potential victim from falling in the first place.</para>
<para>At the same time that I was collating these discussions, the National Party leaders commenced their listening tour around multiple electorates, including mine, focusing on regional youth and women. In my electorate we had a women's breakfast in Port Macquarie and in Coffs Harbour, and also youth forums at Charles Sturt University. At all of these discussions—at every single one of them—the issue of the scarcity of mental health support providers and programs in the regions came to the forefront. This single issue united each different group. On paper, you might not think that they had the same concerns or priorities, but this certainly was the common thread.</para>
<para>One of the greatest concerns that they had was with the recent <inline font-style="italic">Strengthening Medicare Taskforce report</inline>. It was noted that not one mental health professional was on the task force and that the subsequent report excluded mental health completely from its findings. I don't wish to be critical, but mental health is probably the No. 1 issue in the country in terms of health. Reports have shown that over 70 per cent of GPs listed mental health as one of the top three priority areas. Now that the Medicare subsidised sessions have gone from 20 down to 10, for professionals who are seeing people with real issues, such as bipolar or personality disorders, it takes more than 10 sessions to identify this. I asked the Prime Minister to reconsider lowering those 20 sessions down to 10—to reinstate them, to ensure the mental health and wellbeing of people in our electorates.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The independent Reserve Bank Board—I stress 'independent'; I know some opposite have perhaps chosen to forget that this is a long-term independence and an institution of that particular organisation—are set to meet again. I know that there are many in my community, in my electorate of Hawke, who will be waiting anxiously for that decision. We don't pre-empt the independence of that board and the decision that they'll make. However, it is clear that the markets are expecting another increase to interest rates, which will be the tenth in a row. We know that much of the inflationary pressure guiding these decisions is driven, in a large part, by Russia's illegal war in Ukraine. This, combined with the COVID-19 pandemic, has placed immense pressure on global supply chains, preventing business from servicing demand both here in Australia and abroad. In fact, the RBA noted in the most recent statement on monetary policy that supply-side factors likely account for between 50 and 75 per cent of the inflationary pressure on our economy.</para>
<para>Although the RBA recognise these supply-side drivers, monetary policy changes are entirely unable to address them. Instead, increasing interest rates primarily tighten the household budgets of mortgage holders. According to the RBA, this represents less than a third of the population nationally. However, it is almost half of the households in my electorate of Hawke. Furthermore, these rate rises are disproportionately affecting lower income earners with less financial headroom in their household budgets. This was confirmed by RBA Governor Philip Lowe in a recent hearing of the House Standing Committee on Economics, in which he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… if you've got lower income and a smaller buffer and a mortgage, the tighter interest rates are affecting you more …</para></quote>
<para>While this is not a difficult economic concept, it is nevertheless a very important one to highlight. It is communities like mine that are doing it very tough as a result of these interest rate rises. They are the families not taking their annual camping trip, and they are the people cutting back on their weekly supermarket shop. As a result of these rising interest rates, they are the ones making the most significant sacrifices. In the same hearing, Governor Lowe went on to say that low-income people with mortgages are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden here. This is something that all economic fiscal and monetary policymakers must keep in mind.</para>
<para>Interest rate increases are not the single tool to tackle the inflationary pressures affecting our economy. That's why the Albanese Labor government is focusing on what we can do to address the inflation challenge. Our three-part strategy is about repair of our broken supply chains, relief for people doing it tough and restraint in our budget process.</para>
<para>The previous Liberal government oversaw a decade of wasted opportunities and warped priorities that left Australia with falling real wages, broken supply chains—which make inflation worse—and $1 trillion of debt without an economic dividend to show for it.</para>
<para>After years of neglect under the Liberal government, the Albanese Labor government is getting on with revitalising Australian manufacturing and strengthening our supply chain resilience. The National Reconstruction 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, support the development of strategically important industries, and shore up supply chains.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government has also introduced legislation that will drive investment in cleaner and cheaper energy, putting downward pressure on power prices, as well as investing in more affordable housing through the Housing Australia Future Fund. Unfortunately, the structural challenges that came from the decade of neglect cannot be repaired overnight, and that's why our government is also providing responsible and direct cost-of-living relief that delivers an economic dividend and does not add to inflation. Almost 7,000 families in Hawke will receive cheaper child care as the maximum subsidy is lifted to 90 per cent. Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave is being expanded to provide a full 26 weeks of leave, and the cost of medicines at our local pharmacies has come down, slashed by $12.50 a script.</para>
<para>These are a handful of measures amongst others that the Albanese Labor government is taking to ease the cost of living for people in my electorate of Hawke who are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden as we address the inflation challenge.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Victoria: Andrews Government</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tonight I rise to condemn the Andrews Labor government of Victoria for its failure to apply the $75 million in Commonwealth funds provided by the former coalition government to build an overpass at the intersection of Jetty Road and the Mornington Peninsula Freeway in Rosebud. The Jetty Road overpass has been a major point of focus for my predecessor, Greg Hunt, who secured the much-needed funds to get the project on the move; for me since before the election of May 2022; and, indeed, more recently, for our member for Nepean, the mighty Sam Groth, who committed the necessary state funds for a future coalition government in Victoria to make the overpass a reality.</para>
<para>The intersection as it currently stands bifurcates the Rosebud industrial estate from the primary residential area of Rosebud. The industrial area includes the Rosebud campus of Chisholm TAFE, where hundreds of students undertake study in critical trades such as building, electrical and plumbing; the Advance College, which teaches tens of local teenagers in vocational VCE and other introductory vocational courses; and a Goodstart learning centre for local families.</para>
<para>The previous coalition government committed $75 million towards the completion of an overpass and sound mitigation along the Mornington Peninsula Freeway three years ago. At that time, the then member for Flinders, Greg Hunt, said in the media:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"When you talk to locals on the Peninsula, the intersection of the Mornington Peninsula Freeway and Jetty Road is one of the major issues facing the community."</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"Whether its locals travelling to and from work on weekdays or visitors to the Peninsula on the weekend, the intersection of the Mornington Peninsula Freeway and Jetty Road has been a traffic nightmare for locals for far too long," Mr Hunt said.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"This is one of the top issues in our local community and I recently ran a petition in local area, collecting over 500 signatures."</para></quote>
<para>Three years on, no progress has been made, despite the funds remaining available over all of that time.</para>
<para>Sorry; I stand corrected. Last year there was some progress: the Victorian coalition announced an additional $100 million in the lead-up to the 2022 state election—and then we waited, and we waited, and we waited some more. We waited for the Andrews government to do something—anything—for one of the highest-ranking priorities in one of its most marginally held seats in Victoria. And we heard nothing. Sensibly, because now the people of Nepean know that they will not be heard by a Labor government in Spring Street, Sam Groth won back the seat for the Liberal Party with a mighty Flinders-matching margin of 6.7 per cent. That is because Sam listens, Sam acts and Sam serves.</para>
<para>But, with the Labor government now returned to power, the funds needed for Jetty Road remain uncommitted by the Andrews government. As it stands, a mere $5 million of the $75 million provided by the former coalition government has been invested in pedestrian safety improvements at Jetty Road. With glacial progress, the Victorian government Department of Transport and Planning has completed their planning and development works, and a business case has been submitted to the Albanese government for consideration. I do thank the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the member for Ballarat, Catherine King, for the number of conversations she has had with me regarding the funding and the need for this critical infrastructure, but I was nevertheless sorely disappointed to learn that the remaining $66.5 million in unspent Commonwealth funds had been deferred until 2026-27. I fear an even greater postponement in the forthcoming May budget.</para>
<para>Given that these funds were committed back in 2019, local residents from Rosebud, Fingal, Rye, Saint Andrews, Tootgarook, Blairgowrie and beyond are rightly disappointed—and that is putting it mildly—with the length of time it has taken to get to this meagre stage of implementation. Together with Sam Groth, I am asking the state and Commonwealth governments to ensure that the next steps are prioritised to get construction underway. The residents of the Mornington Peninsula have dealt with the traffic congestion and safety issues at Jetty Road for far too long. Over summer, that intersection is pure gridlock. You can't blame the Prime Minister for coming to Portsea by helicopter, skipping the January bottleneck, which can add up to an hour to travel to Victoria's best beaches. A similar version of this is experienced every morning and every afternoon as locals leave the southern Mornington Peninsula for work, to do their shopping or just to collect their kids from school across the road. I will continue to fight for this much-needed upgrade on behalf of my Mornington Peninsula community, and I look forward to eventually seeing it done.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gilmore Electorate: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's no secret that regional areas like my electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales South Coast face a number of challenges when it comes to accessing quality health services close to home. I'm a passionate believer that local people should not have to travel hours to receive the same quality of care as those in the city. That's why I've been a strong advocate for many improvements to our local health infrastructure.</para>
<para>When it comes to alcohol and drug addiction, particularly for young people, we know that accessing support close to home can make a big difference to health outcomes. That's why, just last week, I was really delighted to represent the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mark Butler, to officially open the Walawaani Youth-Specific Detoxification and Rehabilitation Facility near Batemans Bay. Run by Mission Australia, this facility received $8 million from the Australian government's Community Health and Hospitals Program. It is well known that alcohol and drug misuse doesn't just affect the one person; it can be disastrous to families and communities. Walawaani will provide a safe place for younger people to overcome addiction in a state-of-the-art centre, with youth-specific alcohol and drug case management, counselling and community aftercare. There are also residential living skills, education and sport and recreation programs, offering a holistic approach to care.</para>
<para>Having facilities like this on the South Coast near Batemans Bay allows vulnerable younger people to receive treatment and support for alcohol and drug misuse closer to their homes and families, and in their communities. Even the name Walawaani has very special meaning. It's a local Indigenous word which means, 'We hope you have a safe journey.' Mission Australia worked with the Aboriginal community in the Batemans Bay area, including with Dhurga linguists. The name has also received the blessing of the Walbunja elders. How special is that! It's local health care for local people, and I am proud to be delivering that.</para>
<para>Last week, there was more good news for the Batemans Bay region when we opened the expressions of interest for the new Batemans Bay Medicare Urgent Care Clinic. People in regional areas like ours should be able to access good quality, affordable local health care, and our bulk-billed, urgent care clinics will provide just that. Non-life-threatening emergencies make up over 50 per cent of total presentations to hospitals in New South Wales. These emergencies can often be time-consuming for patients as they wait for treatment, and they add pressure to our already overstretched hospital emergency departments. Urgent care clinics will significantly reduce the pressure on our local hospitals by treating patients with urgent but non-life-threatening emergencies, operating extended hours seven days a week, ensuring that local people receive the high-quality, affordable health care they need when they need it. That's another promise we made that I am delighted to deliver on.</para>
<para>Last week was a busy one for health in the Batemans Bay region. It also saw the first sod turned on the new Eurobodalla Hospital. The community has waited a long time for this, and it should have been a proud community moment. But I think the New South Wales Liberal government forgot to check their Rolodex, because—whoops!—they forgot to invite the local state and federal members. That's right—neither I nor the member for Bega, Dr Michael Holland, were invited along to this pivotal local moment. Unfortunately, as is too often the case, the Liberals just saw it as another politicking moment in the lead-up to the election. Perhaps they were worried that we might have asked them to match New South Wales Labor's commitment to open this hospital at level 4 status—something the community has been asking for for years and years. Before being elected as the Bega MP, Dr Holland was a pivotal member of that movement. He is one of the key people responsible for the fact the Liberals even agreed to build a new hospital in the first place. Leaving him out of this event is just shameful.</para>
<para>But the shame doesn't stop there. The Liberals are also trying to distract from the fact they refused to build the much-needed radiation therapy centre. Thanks to people like Cathy Hurst bravely sharing her story, we know the impact this is having. The Albanese government has delivered on our promise of $8 million to fund it, but the New South Wales Liberals are standing in the way. No-one should have to go through what Cathy Hurst has gone through to receive her cancer treatment ever again. It is shameful, and I won't stop until the community gets the health services it deserves.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Precisely two weeks ago the Treasurer gave a speech, saying that he wanted to start a conversation about superannuation. What was that code for? It soon became clear that it was code for three things that the Treasurer wants to do. The first was that he wants superannuation funds to invest in ill defined, nation-building projects. This is a bad idea. It will put at risk the returns Australians receive and, in turn, the amount they receive to support them in retirement.</para>
<para>The second thing was that he wants to legislate an objective for superannuation. Indeed, he shared the wording of that objective in that speech. It all sounds very high-minded, but there is a simple political reality behind what Labor is doing. The big industry super funds, some of them with funds under management exceeding $200 billion, are deadset opposed to any measures which would see that money go anywhere else. It's a very comfortable arrangement for the union appointed directors on the boards of the big superannuation funds. Just think how enormous the management fee on $200 billion is.</para>
<para>The industry super funds hate the idea that Australians might be able to withdraw some of their own money and use it, for example, towards a deposit to buy their first home. This was Liberal policy at the last election, and it will be at the next election. It is a very good idea, and it is absolutely consistent with the notion that superannuation savings are there to help you save for your retirement, because there is nothing more important to a secure retirement than owning your own home. For all of Labor's talk about a dignified retirement, the simple fact is that what Labor really cares about is looking after the big union linked industry super funds.</para>
<para>The third thing that the Treasurer's speech was code for when he said 'starting a conversation' was that he wants to increase taxes on superannuation, and that conversation crystallised very quickly, within a week and a half. We got to the end of the conversation, and there he was, with the Prime Minister, announcing a new tax on superannuation. Why is this a problem? It's only 80,000 people affected, the Treasurer tells us, and they're all rich, so who cares? Well, it is a big problem. Labor told us repeatedly that they had no plans to increase taxes on super. On Melbourne radio 31 January 2022 the Prime Minister said, 'We have not planned for changes on superannuation.' On <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline> on 27 March the Treasurer said, 'Australia's shouldn't expect major changes to superannuation if the government changes hands.' On 2 May 2022 the Prime Minister said, 'We have no intention to make any super changes.'</para>
<para>Do not think it stops here. This is a government that is desperate to raise taxes. If they feel they can get away with this one, just look out for what else they might do. I've seen some commentary over the last few days along the lines of: 'Phew, it could have been much worse.' With respect, that commentary is a little bit naive, because, with each passing day, more details have come out, revealing that the number affected will be vastly greater than the 80,000 figure which glibly rolls off the Treasurer's tongue.</para>
<para>Ultimately, this goes to principles and values. The Treasurer was asked to rule out a capital gains tax on the family home and failed to do so. The Prime Minister rushed out a few minutes later to deny any such plans, but, given his clear and brazen broken promise on superannuation, who can believe him? The simple fact is that a Labor government always wants to impose higher taxes.</para>
<para>We heard soothing words from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer before this election. We were promised 'safe change'. We are getting something very different. We've seen the details of the measures as they've become announced. A lot of the details have clearly been made up on the run. We saw the argument from the Treasurer that this only cuts in at a big dollar amount so most people shouldn't be concerned, but the simple fact is that threshold is not indexed, so over time more and more people will be captured. This has been a very sneaky way to do this—very sneaky and tricky from a very sneaky and tricky Prime Minister. They denied before the election that they had any plans to do this. Of course, after the election they did exactly what they had denied they were going to do. The superannuation tax changes announced last week are troubling, and a clear and unambiguous example of a broken promise. I'm sorry to say, and I predict, that this will not be the only new tax measure we will see from this government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New South Wales: Election</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 25 March, New South Wales residents will have the opportunity of voting in a Labor government after a decade of Liberal privatisation, mismanagement and infighting. For too long, New South Wales has had a government that has been obsessed with the privatisation of public assets; that has chronically underfunded our public schools, public transport, local infrastructure and hospital system; and that has kept the wages of public servants, like nurses, ambulance paramedics, teachers and police, low. The consequences have been disastrous for many communities in south-western Sydney. Our communities are experiencing rapid growth but this is not being met with adequate roads, schools, public transport or sewerage. The coalition government in New South Wales has had 12 years to deliver and our communities are examples of that failure. So many projects have run over time and overbudget. We have ferries that can't allow passengers on the top deck because they might lose their heads if they go under a bridge. And trains and trams are cracking after limited use—or, worse, they won't even fit on tracks at all.</para>
<para>New South Wales Labor has a plan to provide a fair share and a fresh start for the people of New South Wales. Schools in Werriwa are overcrowded, with new suburbs waiting years and children needing to travel to get to their closest public school. Labor in New South Wales has promised to rebuild our education system, with a comprehensive plan that includes a $400 million education future fund, building public schools and shifting 10,000 temporary teaching positions to permanent ones. I want to commend the commitment to building a new high school in Leppington to cater for the fast-growing suburbs of Leppington, Denham Court and Austral. And tolls disproportionally target our communities in Werriwa. Over the last five years, rising tolls and new toll roads have added thousands of dollars to already stretched household budgets. Labor will also cap tolls to ease cost-of-living pressures, whilst reviewing the toll network to untangle the mess made by the current New South Wales coalition government.</para>
<para>New South Wales Labor have presented a fresh start and a positive vision for the people of New South Wales, and I look forward to seeing a Labor government after March 25. But a new parliament, of course, means that many serving parliamentarians are retiring after serving their communities for many years. I'm privileged to have worked with these local members both as a councillor and as member for Werriwa, and I would like to put on the record my thanks for their services to our community. Melanie Gibbons has been the member for Menai since 2011. While we come from different sides of the political fence, I'd like to wish her and her family all of the best for the future. Nick Lalich has represented the area as the member for Cabramatta since 2008, having served on Fairfield council as a councillor since 1987. Guy Zangari has been the member for Fairfield since 2011, and is a powerhouse in his representations the area. He is often at multiple functions and community events every weekend. I hope he enjoys the next stage of his life with Melissa and his children. He deserves more time with them, and I'm told that the fish should watch out!</para>
<para>Paul Lynch, the member for Liverpool, is also retiring after 36 years of representing our community. Paul was elected to Liverpool council in 1987 and to state parliament in 1995. He has worked hard to represent the needs of the community, and he has so many people who admire his work and will be sad to see him go. He has worked so much in the time that he has been in parliament. Paul has also been a friend, supporter and mentor to me, and I will very much miss our collaboration over this time. He and Deb deserve the best retirement. I thank him for everything he has done for our community, for me and for my family.</para>
<para>I wish the candidates in the election all the best, with a shout out to Anoulack Chanthivong, the member for Macquarie Fields; and Labor candidates Charishma Kaliyanda for Liverpool, Nathan Hagarty in Leppington and Mick Maroney in Holsworthy. I look forward to working with whoever is voted in by the people of New South Wales—all the new members in my area—but I really hope they are Labor members!</para>
<para>House adjourned at 19:59</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>119</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Monday, 6 March 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Mr Wilkie</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 10:29.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>121</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murray-Darling Basin</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Anyone turning on the television in past months would have seen the terrible effects in South Australia of the river flooding. I thank everyone—including many people from my electorate—who has pitched in and supported our communities along the river. With the river in high flow, it's all too easy to forget that the Murray-Darling is frequently in drought, exacerbated by relentless overextraction.</para>
<para>Of course, we have the $13 billion Murray-Darling Basin Plan that is designed to address this problem. Within the larger plan are the very important efficiency measures that are designed to return 450 gigalitres to the Lower Lakes, the Coorong and the mouth of the Murray. A total of $1.575 billion was set aside to spend between 1 July 2014 and 30 June next year to recover these extra 450 gigalitres. However, we're now nine years into that budget allocation and a mere 4.5 gigalitres, or just one per cent, has been recovered. That's been at a cost of around $275 million. So there's one year left until the plan ends, with 99 per cent of the recovery still to be achieved, and $1.3 billion basically sitting idle. You don't have to be a genius to work out that the 450 gigalitres will not be delivered by 30 June 2024.</para>
<para>The government has had their scientists look at it, and they say—with optimism that, quite frankly, I don't share—that, with the time and money left, we'll get to 60 gigalitres recovery. They estimate that, to get to the full 450 gigalitres, we're going to have to now spend between $3.4 billion and $10.8 billion. To put that into context, that's the value of the water debt that will be owed to South Australians by July next year.</para>
<para>I know Minister Plibersek cares about the 450 gigalitres. In marked-up briefs released under FOI, she's clearly concerned about the failure to deliver this water recovery. But we need more than earnest care; we need a strategy beyond the current plan, which is due to expire in June next year. There was a time when the health of the river was so important that the Weatherill Labor government established a royal commission into the Murray. We need to approach the river with the same sense of importance as we did back then, because these floods will be gone—floods don't last forever—and we will be back in drought. We need to ensure that this river is healthy, for our generation and, importantly, for the many generations to come. We are all sitting idle and allowing this river to die.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We know people are doing it tough right now. It's harder to pay the mortgage, to pay the rent, to pay bills and to pay for the essentials. Australians are walking away from the supermarket now with much less in their shopping bags for the money they've spent than in the past. The Albanese Labor government is acutely aware of how difficult it is right now for people just to get by. We are absolutely focused on doing what we can to relieve the pressure.</para>
<para>You would know, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, that we're experiencing sustained and unprecedented pressure on global energy markets. Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine has pushed energy prices to historic highs all over the world. That's one of the big factors in energy prices. The Albanese government brought back parliament in December last year to actually take action on rising energy costs. We passed the Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022 to protect Australians from the worst of the rising energy costs. We delivered targeted relief on power bills to households receiving income support, to pensioners and Commonwealth seniors health card holders, to family tax benefit A and B recipients and to small-business customers. There is, no doubt, more work to do, but we took these actions to shield Australian families and businesses from the worst of the energy price spikes.</para>
<para>We're also delivering cheaper medicine. From 1 January this year, we reduced the maximum PBS co-payment from $42.50 to $30. Since then, Australians have paid up to 29 per cent less for their Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescriptions. The maximum out-of-pocket cost for medicines on the PBS is now $12.50 lower. For a family relying on two or three medications—and there are many families that do rely on that—this can put as much as $450 back into their household budget. That's a significant assistance for those families. Over 3.2 million prescriptions were cheaper in the first two months of this year, and, thanks to our policy, patients have saved more than $36 million. We've also expanded access to the seniors healthcare card. More Australians can access cheaper medicine and visits to the GP.</para>
<para>We also fought for and secured a pay rise for 2.8 million workers on minimum wage. We've delivered fee-free TAFE, making it easier for people to invest in their skills and training. Our changes to child care, making it more affordable and accessible, come into effect on 1 July this year. We know there is much more to do. Reducing pressure and giving relief where we can as quickly as we can is what the Albanese Labor government is focused on and will continue to be focused on.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I give the call to the member for Lindsay, can I ask members to keep their conversations down, because it's making it hard for the members to be heard.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A growing number of young people have been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes due to contracting COVID. The research is showing that COVID does have an impact on the whole of the immune system. My son Byron, who is 19, is one of these people. We've been dealing with this over the last six months or so and managing his type 1 diabetes, and I'm really proud of him and all these thousands of young people in our country, who continue as normally as possible with their lives.</para>
<para>Like the 15,000 Australians who use Fiasp, I was quite surprised to find out through the media the other day that Fiasp is being removed from the PBS. Fiasp is a fast-acting insulin. It's the only one of its kind on the PBS. It means people with type 1 diabetes can use this insulin and then eat pretty much straight away. They can do sport like every other kid, and, if their blood sugar levels go too high, they can inject a bit of insulin and keep going on with their sport rather than having to sit on the sideline. This really does change lives. It changes the lives of 15,000 families across our country.</para>
<para>That's why I was saying it's a real surprise that the government is removing Fiasp from the PBS. It is quite upsetting, because all these families will now have to pay thousands of dollars more if they want to obtain Fiasp. In addition to that, if you're privately funded, you may not be able to actually obtain it—there will be restrictions in place. This means ordinary, everyday Australians, who are already struggling with cost-of-living pressures, who want to have a normal life for their kids and want them to achieve their best, will now have to pay thousands more.</para>
<para>The question is, to the Prime Minister and to the health minister: what sort of negotiations have you been having with Novo Nordisk to ensure that you're fighting for all these Australians, all these young people, to make sure they don't remove it from the PBS? I know the Prime Minister was asked a question about this, and he said, 'Our health minister will look at that as we do.' I'm sure that the government has known about this for some time. What have you been doing? Please be transparent with the Australian people. Please be transparent with the 15,000 families who rely on Fiasp for their children's lives. This is a life-saving drug. Insulin is absolutely essential, and this particular insulin, Fiasp, changes the lives of young people who want to have a normal life like everyone else.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The Australian government is committed to providing practical services and support for defence personnel, veterans and families, and we're delivering. In December I had the opportunity to open two new veterans and families hubs: one in Nowra, led by RSL LifeCare, alongside my colleague the member for Gilmore; and one in Wodonga, led by RSL Victoria, alongside the member for Indi. Now, those local veteran communities can access tailored services, including support for transition to civilian life; advocacy services and social connectedness; physical and mental health services; and a range of community activities including volunteer and sporting opportunities.</para>
<para>The federal budget handed down in October includes $46.7 million to deliver 10 veterans and families hubs across the country to improve access to the specific services and supports that local veteran communities need and, frankly, deserve. In January I announced the lead organisation for the new Burnie veterans and families hub, the North West Tasmania Veteran Welfare Board. In Caboolture, I announced Lives Lived Well will bring their mental and physical health expertise to a hub to support veterans in Brisbane's north and the Sunshine Coast, in conjunction with the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia (Queensland Branch).</para>
<para>I've also been travelling the country meeting with veteran communities on the next round of hubs. We know that each local community is different. What works at ANZAC House in Perth now is different to what is needed at the Oasis in Townsville. We're taking that principle forward in these new hubs. We do not want a cookie-cutter approach. And the feedback we've been getting around the country reflects that. I will name a few key takeaways. Veterans in the Tweed, which I visited with the member for Richmond, want to be sure that, no matter what side of the border someone lives, whether it's New South Wales or Queensland, there will be easy access to the hub and the services it will provide for locals across the region. Meanwhile, in the defence-industry-heavy Newcastle and Hunter region, which I visited with the member for Paterson, there was a fantastic acknowledgement that veterans in the defence industry continue to contribute to the sovereign capability of our nation. They want to be sure that the hub supports more veterans into employment. Veterans in Ipswich, which I visited with the member for Blair, want a safe place that's welcoming for veterans and families of all ages, something that we want for all hubs. In Torquay, which I visited with the member for Corangamite, the veteran community spoke of the need for ease of access to the hub itself and for the services that it could provide to the wider region.</para>
<para>I want to pay tribute to the Defence personnel, veterans, families and ex-service organisations around the country that have been so generous with their time, contributing to consultation sessions about the new hubs set to pop up around the country. With this and other engagements, I've also been able to speak with a broad cross-section of veterans about the Albanese government's Veterans' Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway. I can't wait to see what we can achieve together for a better future for our veterans and families.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Flinders Electorate: Roads</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This week I will be rising in the chamber to talk about a number of much-needed infrastructure and road improvements across the Mornington Peninsula. I've spoken before, both here and elsewhere, about the troublesome roads and long-fought-for upgrades at the intersections of Forest Drive and Uralla Road with the Nepean Highway in Mount Martha. The previous coalition government fully funded the $20.5 million for the upgrade of these intersections back in 2019, initially with a $10 million commitment but later doubling the funding. There have been many false starts and promised time lines that were dropped, and all the while the number of dangerous accidents and near accidents at these intersections keeps mounting.</para>
<para>So I was relieved to read in the<inline font-style="italic"> Mornington Peninsula Leader</inline> last week that the state government will finally be moving on the intersection of Forest Drive. According to that article, which appeared on 2 March, by locally based journalist Lucy Callander, work on upgrading the dangerous Mount Martha junction is expected before the end of the year. The end of the year? Well, tomorrow sounds good, certainly better than the end of the year. But, when we've already been waiting the better part of a decade since my predecessor as the member for Flinders, Greg Hunt, first announced funding for it, 10 months is better than never. Of course, the Victorian Minister for Roads and Road Safety, Melissa Horne, didn't alert me to the new plan, despite the fact that the road improvements are fully funded by the federal government. In fact, nor did she alert my state counterpart, Chris Crewther, the member for Mornington, with whom I have been advocating for this fully funded project to get started for well over a year. But let's be blunt. Our local community are tired of the 'he said, she said' huff-puffery of politics; they just desperately want to see it done. It has taken far too long for these critical works to reach this point.</para>
<para>But, worryingly, still there is very little detail about the progress for the Uralla Road upgrade. In the 10 years leading up to March 2020, there were 11 reported crashes at the Nepean Highway and Uralla Road intersection, of which five crashes resulted in serious injuries. During the same period, there were six reported crashes at the Nepean Highway and Forest Drive intersection. Tragically one person lost their life in these crashes, and three people were seriously injured. But these figures do not account for the countless near misses and close calls, to which I have personally been witness more times than I would care to recall. Whilst I am relieved to see a public plan for progress at Forest Drive, residents in my electorate will rightly demand that the safety concerns at Uralla Road be addressed now. Please, Victorian government, just do your job.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Afghanistan</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's only one country in the world today where women are banned from education. It's Afghanistan. This horrendous attack on human rights reverberates every day in my community, as we are home to the highest number of people born in Afghanistan of any electorate in this parliament. Despite promising both the Afghan people and the international community that rights to education, work and full participation in civic life would be protected, the Taliban have instead imposed increasingly restrictive policies on women and girls. Women in Afghanistan are now unable to freely express their views, generate livelihoods or contribute to their country—or even move around society without a man accompanying them.</para>
<para>At a protest in the heart of my electorate in Dandenong last month, we heard from Roya, a young woman recently arrived in Australia after fleeing Afghanistan. On the day of the Taliban's takeover, Roya received a message from her friends, telling her how lucky she was to be able to go to school. As she so bluntly said, it is inconceivable that in 2023 there are still places in this world where women are denied a right as fundamental as that of education.</para>
<para>Roya is a remarkable, strong, well-educated young woman. She's the type of person capable of making an extraordinary contribution to Afghanistan, or indeed to any country—now, luckily for us, ours. Yet the Taliban have made it clear that women like Roya are no longer welcome, so long as they hold power.</para>
<para>But Roya's story is just one of millions. I couldn't possibly count how many constituents have come to me with similar stories of what confronts and awaits the women in their family who remain—sisters, mothers, wives, daughters, stranded due to visa delays, border rules or just the vagaries of life and timing. They are traumatised in their grief for loved ones, family and friends living under the Taliban who are facing not just discrimination but forced marriage, sexual slavery and a wasted life of repression.</para>
<para>It's difficult to actually describe to my colleagues who don't deal with this every day the ongoing daily trauma for people from Afghanistan. It's like a nightmare or a natural disaster, but one that just never ends. At every neighbourhood forum, every street stall, every community event, my staff and I bear witness, in conversations, to this trauma, day in and day out.</para>
<para>I firmly stand with the Afghan people in expressing my unequivocal support for Afghan women to participate fully, equally and meaningfully in all facets of life. The Taliban regime and its abhorrent treatment of women and girls must be vigorously opposed, here, and by like-minded nations. So long as Afghanistan remains under Taliban control, the world must treat it as a pariah state, just as we do North Korea or the Myanmar military junta. The Taliban must be excluded from the international community as long as they exclude women and girls from Afghan society.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme</title>
          <page.no>124</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to give voice to 15,000 Australians—15,000—and their families, who, only a week ago, were told that an insulin drug that they've become very reliant upon has been taken off the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS. Fifteen thousand Australians have been using this drug called Fiasp.</para>
<para>Fiasp improves the blood sugar control for people with type 1 diabetes. Not one of these people were told in advance. There was no consultation.</para>
<para>For a family that buys the Fiasp drug today, a script costs $7. Once it's been taken off the PBS, that script will cost $280—$280 per script—putting back everyday Australian families thousands of dollars a year, right now, amidst a cost-of-living crisis. There was no consultation with these people by the government. Despite me writing to the health minister, there has been no explanation from the government. There is no suggestion of a fix from the government.</para>
<para>Now, I only became of aware of this because of a girl in my electorate. Her name is Freya Goldston. Freya is a 14-year-old. She is a great swimmer. She uses this Fiasp drug. It keeps her energy up. It allows her to participate, like all of her classmates do, in sport and in school. But Freya and her mum, Jackie, will now have to scramble before 1 April—which is when this becomes effective—to get in to see a doctor, to get scripts, and to go and pay $280 instead of $7. What have we heard from the government on this? Zilch. Nothing. It is an absolute disgrace.</para>
<para>Why have I talked about Freya? It's because I met the girl. I met her about six years ago when she first came and saw me, again, about her type 1 diabetes. She was an 11-month-old—a little baby—when she inherited this disease. But she is only one girl. She is one of 15,000 Australians who have been left wondering what to do now that they cannot pay for this drug. The government must answer the questions and they must fix this problem.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights: Afghanistan</title>
          <page.no>124</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Like the member for Bruce, I rise today to acknowledge the ongoing hard work of the Afghan members of my community in Bennelong who support and advocate on behalf of Afghan refugees seeking asylum here in Australia and also across the world.</para>
<para>Recently I met with the Afghan Women's Wellbeing Group and Resolution Community Services to discuss the ongoing and tireless efforts they make to provide support to members of the Afghan community who have had to flee their home in the face of ongoing turmoil and persecution. The people of Afghanistan are faced with Taliban-incited violence. There are thousands of Afghan Australians in our community who have family members facing grave risk. Family homes are being targeted; family members are disappearing.</para>
<para>In Bennelong, members of the Afghan community have banded together to provide support to these refugees. Since the rise in turmoil in Afghanistan, they've worked tirelessly to provide administrative, financial and emotional support to their community. The Afghan Women's Wellbeing Group and Resolution Community Services have become the voice in Bennelong for the Afghan community. They have made themselves available 24 hours a day to provide support to those who are seeking to flee Afghanistan. They've worked together to sponsor visas for hundreds of citizens, dedicating countless hours of their time to fundraising so that they can cover application fees, provide support in seeking passports and ensure that these citizens have the paperwork they need.</para>
<para>One of the first meetings I held in my office when I became the member for Bennelong was with one of these groups. They told me of the deeply sad and traumatic experiences of the people of Afghanistan and also their families who are here in Australia. Their groups attempted to work with the previous government and the former member to provide support to their community and were faced with a series of closed doors, unreturned calls and unanswered emails. It wasn't until the government changed that they were welcomed back into offices across the country to discuss these issues. They've had opportunities to meet with MPs in and around Bennelong and with ministers and to work closely with members of the department to advocate on behalf of Afghan refugees. They thank the government for the commitment of thousands of existing places to accommodate desperate Afghan civilians. They urge us, as a rich and prosperous country, to continue to provide the support and advocacy for those in Afghanistan who are in undeniable and immediate need. The Taliban continue to demonstrate their contempt for the rights, the freedoms and the welfare of Afghan people, particularly women and girls, as well as their disinterest in normal relations with the international community.</para>
<para>I'll continue to work alongside these important organisations in my community and alongside the government to provide support to the Afghan Australian community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wide Bay Electorate: Motorsport</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Wide Bay has a proud reputation when it comes to motorsport, including the breathtaking action of the Australian Rally Championship which sees man and machine—and woman and machine—combining the most incredible reflexes and skill with the latest technology, with rally cars hurtling through country stages in the Imbil forest at speeds completely foreign to mere mortals like us. Speedways at Mothar Mountain and Maryborough also draws big crowds, with our nation's best drivers regularly competing in Wide Bay.</para>
<para>When I did some local research into one of my favourite categories of motorsport, motorcycling, I came into contact with Jeff from Maryborough, who educated me on one of our oldest motorsport clubs in the region, the Maryborough Motorcyclist Club. Like me, Jeff is hooked on motorbikes, and he says that, in some ways, being a motorbike rider is like going to prison—once you're behind the bars, you're there for life.</para>
<para>Jeff told me the Maryborough Motorcyclist Club was first established in 1915. In 1928 the club established a facility at Newtown Park, where the present cricket grounds at Ariadne Street are located. Newtown Park racecourse was a third of a mile long, and races were held over three laps. During that era, the Maryborough Motorcyclist Club held races on the beach at Scarness, as well as on a track on the present site of the Maryborough Aerodrome and Island Plantation boundaries.</para>
<para>The club started hill climbs at Copenhagen Bend in 1935, and at that location work began on a short circuit track called McAuliffe Park, which was used by the club for about 20 years before the property was sold. The search for a new site began, ultimately ending in 1967 where the current Action Park track exists at Maryborough West. The first motorcycle short circuit race meeting was held at Action Park in 1969, and in the 1970s the club ran a number of different competitions, such as short circuit racing, observed trials in the Tiaro area, and scrambles at Action Park and at Tinana on the grounds of the Maryborough Speedway. The Maryborough Motorcyclist Club held the first of many Australian titles in 1983.</para>
<para>In 2016 I was really pleased to help out the club with a $11,600 grant towards a new multipurpose shed. I thank Jeff for the history lesson. I say to Jeff and all the members of the Maryborough Motorcyclist Club, 'Stay upright and watch out for tin tops.'</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tangney Electorate: Environment</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LIM</name>
    <name.id>300130</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tangney is beautiful, diverse and rich with unique ecosystems. Today I wish to shed light on a section of the Swan River foreshore in the suburb of Alfred Cove, in my electorate, where some passionate members of the community have been able to restore and rehabilitate what was once used as a rubbish tip. It is through these local community groups, who recognised the area's extraordinary natural values all those years ago, that we as a community can benefit and learn about the wildlife that thrive in this place.</para>
<para>Alfred Cove has the largest remaining stretches of samphire, saltmarsh and seagrass in the Swan River estuary. They form a federally protected threatened ecological community. Samphire plants were a bush food used by the Noongar Aboriginals and are, with the exception of one species, endemic to Australia. Importantly, samphire is 40 times more effective than virgin rainforests in capturing and storing carbon and pumping oxygen into the air, water and mudflats. This ecosystem supports 149 species of birds and provides a nursery for crustaceans and fish. This also includes some species of bird that fly all the way from Siberia to Alfred Cove just to feed. It's also visited by the river dolphins, which, you will not be surprised to hear, are close to my heart.</para>
<para>I applaud the City of Melville, which has been active over the last two years in developing, in collaboration with the community, a master plan for the area, but many of the important environmental aspects of the master plan are not expected to be achieved for 10 to 20 years, due to funding requirements. I'm hoping that funding will be made available well before then. When government and active community groups, like SERAG and the Melville bird sanctuary, work together I know that great things can be achieved, and we must make use of such opportunities. I'm looking forward to seeing this beautiful space thrive, and I encourage my fellow parliamentarian friends to visit it with me whenever you come to Tangney.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>126</page.no>
        <type>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Trade</title>
          <page.no>126</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the importance of providing appropriate protections for Australian businesses investing overseas; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that Australia has negotiated Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses over the past 30 years in investment treaties and free trade agreements;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that Australian companies investing in foreign countries have used ISDS clauses to protect their investments from being taken over by foreign governments;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recalls that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) free trade agreement negotiations came to a standstill under the Government of Prime Minister Gillard arising from the refusal to include ISDS clauses in these agreements; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it took the re-election of the Coalition Government to get Australia's trade policy back on track; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) recognises that the current Government's decision to once again scrap ISDS clauses in new free trade agreements and renegotiate them in existing ones shows that the unions are controlling the Government and putting Australia's trade gains at risk.</para></quote>
<para>Before I get to the specific things about ISDS clauses and why they're not scary things—they're things that we should be happy to negotiate with someone or another country when we are doing free trade agreements with them—I want to talk more generally about the golden goose that trade literally is and put that in the context of ISDS provisions and other things.</para>
<para>Deputy Speaker, you may be aware that global trade, measured in US dollars, has gone from something like US$6 trillion to the mid-20 trillions. So it has more than tripled over the last two decades. During the same time that global trade has taken off and many more countries have become involved, realised their specialty in trade and got into that world, the rate of global poverty has gone from 30 per cent of the global population to 10 per cent. I put it to you that those two are integrally related. As countries start to open up, they trade, work out what their natural advantage is—whatever it may be—and become more wealthy. That obviously is a good thing.</para>
<para>Why is it a good thing? It's obviously good financially for those communities, people, families and countries. But what also happens is that, as a country gets richer and gets to a certain level of GDP wealth net per person, they start to become more environmentally sensitive and more environmentally aware, and things like labour laws get better. If we go way back, a country like Japan, post World War II, started off with a low-wage advantage. But they have evolved, through being an open, trading economy, and their natural advantage is now high tech or whatever—not low wages. It's a good thing environmentally, and it's a good thing for employees, as a country gets wealthier and starts trading.</para>
<para>In relation to Australia—and I'll give a bit of credit here to the Hawke and Keating governments of the eighties, who started to talk the trade case—when we came into government in 2013, 20-odd per cent of our goods and services were covered by free trade agreements, and, over the nine years we were in government, that increased to nearly 80 per cent, with the deals done with the UK and India. What has that meant for Australia? That has meant a lot of positives. That has meant that one in four jobs in Australia is related to the export sector. Jobs in the export sector pay higher than more domestically focused jobs. So, in Australia, it has been a wonderful story as well.</para>
<para>The reason I put that forward, in explaining why I've brought this private member's motion today, is that there has been, probably in the last two or three decades, a similar theme from both sides of politics about the benefits of trade and the importance of trade. But where I think there's starting to be a bit of a discrepancy in that theme is in the statement by the new government that they would review the ISDS provisions in some of our free trade agreements. I'm going to go into that and some of the other things that they're starting to talk about, which I think put at risk the bipartisan agreement we have on some of this stuff, and, in some cases, I think they're putting the cart before the horse.</para>
<para>It doesn't happen all the time, but there have been a number of countries that have requested that an investor-state dispute settlement provision be put into a free trade agreement. For a country like Australia, it's not a big deal because we are a transparent country. We follow the rule of law and we're transparent in the way we do things in our legal system as well. I think there's been one court case where someone took us, as a country, through that process, and we won that case. Again, it wasn't necessarily a major deal. However, if we are to go to some countries and say, 'Those provisions need to be removed,' that puts at risk the free trade agreements we have with those countries. Some of them are major trading partners, and those free trade agreements have brought great benefits to our exporters. That's why this is an important point to talk about.</para>
<para>The other thing is that the new government is starting to throw in other things, especially in relation to some of the developing nations who need to get trading and who will then become more environmentally conscious and better with their labour laws. Some countries and the Labor Party are talking like this. They want to throw a whole lot of conditions on everything right now. They want all these environmental outcomes and all these labour law outcomes. There are some very important environmental outcomes that we as a globe have to achieve. That should be handled within COP and other environmental institutions and programs. That is the way you do that. There are also labour programs where you can talk about this thing. The Labor Party should not kill the trade goose that laid the golden egg.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rick Wilson</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm glad to speak to this motion on investor-state dispute settlement. I will help the member for Page with some key facts and even a little bit of relevant history. I'm actually going to talk about ISDS. First let me say very clearly that Labor has always supported fair, free trade and investment. The Albanese government has not wasted time in ratifying two agreements within the first nine months—namely, the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement and the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement. We are also now in a position to ratify the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation that applies common high-standard principles for managing trade and service export between some 70 countries. But we don't support the use of investor-state dispute clauses in trade and investment agreements, because they aren't necessary for enabling secure and fair treatment of Australian investment overseas and they do put at risk Australia's capacity to regulate in the best interests of our community.</para>
<para>For anyone at home who has never heard the term 'ISDS', these clauses allow companies to resolve a dispute with a foreign government using an international tribunal system rather than relying on the judicial review processes that exist in the given country or on country-to-country resolution mechanisms within trade agreements. To some extent they're regarded as a shortcut for companies to challenge obstacles to their operations or to overcome unfair treatment, particularly if that includes the expropriation of assets.</para>
<para>Over a period of time these tribunals have been found to have severe shortcomings in terms of their integrity. There have been numerous cases of large multinationals using ISDS to attack sensible public policy regulations in areas like environmental protection and workers' rights, simply because those regulations affected company profits. For example, ISDS cases have included the French Veolia company's action against the Egyptian government, seeking compensation for a rise in the minimum wage. In August last year the British oil company Rockhopper won 210 million pounds through an ISDS action against the Italian government because in 2015 the Italian government had the temerity to ban new oil and gas projects within 12 nautical miles of its coasts. Even when those ridiculous ISDS cases fail, they still impose significant costs on the countries that defend them and they have a chilling effect on countries contemplating the kind of regulation that has been challenged.</para>
<para>We have our own experience in Australia of being on the end of these dangerous dodgy legal actions. It wasn't that long ago that tobacco company Philip Morris used an ISDS clause in seeking to overthrow Australia's very effective plain-packaging reforms. That action ran for several years, it cost the Australian taxpayer tens of millions of dollars and it delayed other countries, including New Zealand, implementing their own plain-packaging reforms. We didn't win that case. Philip Morris only lost on a jurisdictional issue, so we don't know whether they would have succeeded if they had been able to use a more relevant agreement as the basis of their claim. Perhaps the shadow minister for trade will have a closer look at that, rather than claiming we won it, which is simply not true.</para>
<para>More recently it was argued that the Western Australian legislation used to ensure Clive Palmer couldn't sue the WA government for billions of dollars might be capable of being challenged through an ISDS mechanism and just last year there was interest shown by energy companies in Japan and Korea about using ISDS to challenge our regulation of domestic energy supplies and prices. That is what is at stake with ISDS clauses. They allow big foreign companies to challenge and obstruct good public policy and they detract from a sensible focus on supporting robust legal systems in developing countries and from strengthening country-to-country dispute resolution mechanisms.</para>
<para>We've already seen how ISDS clauses can allow foreign companies to interfere with Australia's sovereign capacity to regulate in our national interest. That is what those opposite would like to enable. They would like to enable foreign multinationals to interfere with Australian environmental and workplace laws and with Australian management of our own energy resources.</para>
<para>We're currently in negotiations on the settlement of an historic trade agreement with the European Union. Does the shadow minister for trade argue that we should be pursuing the inclusion of an ISDS clause in those negotiations? The EU will not accept such a clause and, indeed, is active in seeking to reform and move away from existing ISDS arrangements. That's because ISDS clauses are unnecessary and they're dangerous.</para>
<para>This Labor government will continue to pursue, settle and support fair and free trade agreements. But I can tell you we will not support a system that puts Australian sovereignty at risk—a system that subjects Australia to enormously expensive legal action in dodgy tribunals with no appeal processes, a system that could stop us from regulating to protect health services, safe workplaces and our environment. If the member for Page, the shadow minister for trade, thinks that that is a sensible and winning proposition to take to the Australian people, well, good luck to him.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this motion by my colleague the member for Page, the coalition shadow minister for trade, and, indeed, to support the coalition's remarkable success in the trade portfolio over the last decade, in which I've been proud to play a small part. It is worth remembering where we stood in global trade terms when the last coalition government came to power in September 2013. On election night, Prime Minister Tony Abbott declared Australia 'open for business', and he backed it up with the most aggressive and ambitious trade agenda of any Australian government. The Prime Minister set the mighty task of completing three free trade agreements within a year: the free trade agreement with South Korea, a free trade agreement with Japan and a free trade agreement with China. He gave that mandate—and that torturous time line, I might say—to my friend and then-boss the Hon. Andrew Robb AO, former member for Goldstein. I had the privilege of being Andrew's chief of staff and serving with him in the trade portfolio throughout his tenure.</para>
<para>Those first three trade agreements were concluded within 14 months, but the first agreement of the trifecta, with Korea, was completed quite quickly. Why? Because it had sat largely completed and yet unsigned, because an election was coming and the Australian Labor Party was not allowed by its union masters to ink the deal, despite five years of negotiating effort, almost entirely conducted under the former Labor government, going to waste. That delay had a real impact on Australia's exporters, who were held back from enjoying an eventual reduction of tariffs, of up to 300 per cent, on our Australian agricultural exports such as beef, wheat, sugar, dairy, wine, horticulture and seafood; the elimination of tariffs on resources, energy and manufactured goods; and new opportunities and avenues for Australian education services, but also telecommunications and a range of other professional services including financial, accounting and legal services.</para>
<para>Australia's union movement has always had a bizarre allergy to investor-state dispute agreements, and as we have seen so well here, as in other domains, the union movement is the tail that continues to wag the ALP dog. ISDS clauses provide a level of certainty and confidence for Australian businesses investing overseas. Equally, Australia is a highly attractive place for foreign investment, underpinned by our robust legal system and general protections for investors, under both contractual and consumer laws. But we understand that not all governments and not all countries and, indeed, not all subnational governments act as we do, nor do we always share the same legal systems and practices, nor do we necessarily share the same political and institutional cultures. ISDS clauses provide safeguards for investors against arbitrary government actions such as appropriating of property or property rights, discrimination and the denial of justice.</para>
<para>Australia has negotiated ISDS clauses for over 30 years, firstly in investment treaties and more recently in free trade agreements. There are ISDS provisions in our FTAs with China, South Korea, Chile, Singapore, Thailand, ASEAN, Peru, Hong Kong and Indonesia and, indeed, in the CPTPP. Australia has ISDS provisions in 15 investment treaties: with Argentina, China, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Hungary, Laos, Lithuania, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Sri Lanka, Turkiye and Uruguay. There have been barely a dozen instances where Australian companies have used ISDS clauses to bring a claim against other countries to protect Australian investments there. Importantly, an ISDS clause has been used against Australia on only one occasion: the tobacco plain-packaging case, which Australia won, perhaps, on a jurisdictional point but won nevertheless.</para>
<para>So why does Labor hate ISDS clauses? Because the unions tell them so. Until 2011, there had been a bipartisan approach on ISDS in this country, to provide certainty to Australian businesses investing overseas, but, strangely, in Gillard's trade policy statement of 2011, the ALP declared it would no longer include such clauses in our investment agreements. The ACTU asserts that ISDS provides an avenue for foreign corporations to threaten and lodge claims for actual or potential harm resulting from changes in policy and regulation in the country in which they are investing. This reminds me of the ACTU's vast nationwide scare campaign against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement in late 2015 on the basis it would cause the loss of thousands of Australian jobs in favour of imported Chinese labour. The sky didn't fall in then, nor has it fallen in as a result of any ISDS clause.</para>
<para>It is no surprise the coalition wears the crown for achievements in trade. Under coalition steerage, the share of trade covered by FTAs shot up from 25 per cent at the start of the last coalition government to over 70 per cent by the time the coalition lost government—almost 80 per cent if you include India and the UK.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Like occurs in this place occasionally on technical matters, we find ourselves immersed in rather dramatic, overblown, hyperbolic discussion with dark conspiracy theories. What we're talking about here is quite a sensible step forward in the way in which we're going to undertake free trade agreements.</para>
<para>Can I just say from the outset that my first job after finishing university was in the international trade law section of the Attorney-General's Department. I taught, after that, international trade law and the benefits of international trade in the Monash University economics department. So I'm someone who's been committed to the benefits of trade for a long time. It is something that has benefited the Australian economy and the Australian people for many decades—indeed, for longer than that.</para>
<para>On this side, we are committed to free, fair and inclusive trade. It's not free as in a free-for-all; it has to be done in a way that is balanced and that takes into account the overall benefits for the economy. Minister Farrell, in a speech in November, talked about the four overarching principles which are going to guide our approach: first, that deepening and diversifying our trading relationships is critical to ensure we have a more resilient nation; second, that we need to defend and reform the rules based multilateral trading system; third, that we need to invest in ourselves—and that has been an absolute priority of this government since it came to office; and, fourth, that the enormous benefits of open trade should accrue ultimately to the Australian economy. That is why, based on those four principles, we are not going to allow ISDS clauses in future trade agreements. They are not transparent, they threaten to impinge sovereignty and they hamper legitimate public policy in a number of instances which can be pointed to around the world.</para>
<para>We need to preserve this government's ability to govern in the national interest. Minister Farrell has already incorporated this new approach in negotiations in a number of free trade agreements, including the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and, as the previous speaker on this side indicated, the European Union free trade agreement. That is going to be a significant agreement that will benefit our economy and our community more broadly, but it is with a party that has itself said it will not accept ISDS provisions in the future.</para>
<para>It's absolutely critical at this point to point out that the international community is moving away from ISDS clauses to more sustainable, sensible and holistic ways in which to protect the national interest in relation to international investment agreements. One example is to look back to the 2015 European Commission establishment of a multilateral investment court as a permanent body to decide investment disputes, which was one of its first steps in moving away from ISDS clauses. In November 2016 the European Commission signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, between the EU and Canada. This agreement included an investment court system. It was a very important step for both those economies in moving away from bilateral ad hoc arrangements in which, as the previous speaker on this side indicated, companies can take governments to court in ways that hamper their ability to deal with important public policy initiatives. The European Commissioner for Trade at the time noted that establishing CETA is a clear break from the ad hoc system of private arbitration known as ISDS which exists in many investment bilateral treaties. This is a move towards a system that I believe and that the Labor government believes will set up a much more comprehensive, sensible and appropriate way in which to govern disputes moving forward.</para>
<para>We've even seen this shift taking place in the United States. In May 2020, then presidential candidate Joe Biden committed that his administration would end the inclusion of ISDS clauses in future deals. We see the same with South Africa. We see the same with Brazil. What we see is a whole range of countries moving towards a desire to see investor disputes dealt with in a more rules based, multilateral system, rather than allowing individual corporations to take governments to court where they're trying to govern for the interests of their people. We remain committed to free, open, inclusive growth, but it has to be done in a way that is in the interests of the Australian people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can't commence a discussion on free trade today without mentioning the late, great Bert Kelly, a former member for Wakefield, who fought for free trade back in the days when it wasn't fashionable. I'm talking about the 1960s and 1970s, when he was a member of this place, and then, post his parliamentary career, with a column in the <inline font-style="italic">Financial Review</inline> known as 'Modest Member', which was required reading in my household. His son Tony has moved to Mount Barker, in Western Australia, and his family are great supporters and great friends of mine. So that's just a quick shout-out to Bert Kelly, who understood the importance of free trade, and the free flow of goods and services and capital as the most efficient form of return on that capital.</para>
<para>Australia has been a massive beneficiary, and I'll give a shout-out to the Hawke-Keating governments, who led on free trade and dismantling the tariff arrangements that this country had and that held us back for so many years, through to the most recent coalition government, who inked 10 of our 16 free trade agreements. Thirteen of the 16 free trade agreements have been implemented under coalition governments. I'm very proud of that record and look forward to, in the future, the coalition being part of the constructive discussions around many more free trade agreements—although there's not a lot of room left. Under the coalition government from 2013 to 2022, we lifted the amount of trade covered by free trade agreements from 27 per cent in 2013 to over 70 per cent in 2022. Of course, if you include the UK and India free trade agreements, that takes that number to over 80 per cent.</para>
<para>For those watching today who might wonder what an ISDS is, I have, for their convenience, a definition provided by the Parliamentary Library. Investor state dispute settlement is a mechanism included in some free trade agreements and investment agreements. ISDS provides foreign investors, including Australian investors investing overseas, with recourse to an independent tribunal if they believe their investments have been unfairly treated by the government of the host country. The aim of ISDS provisions is to protect foreign investors and thereby encourage increased investment flows between the signatory countries.</para>
<para>Why is this important? Some of the significant businesses across my home state of Western Australia, which is pretty representative of Australia both in the ag sector and in the mining sector, see diversification and investment overseas as a critical part of their business plans and the security of their businesses, going forward.</para>
<para>For example, Co-operative Bulk Handling, the largest grain handler in the country—handling a 26-million-tonne record crop this year—has significant investments in flour mills and maltsters in both Indonesia and Vietnam. These are strategic investments. They are very important not only to that particular business but to the Western Australian farmers who supply grain to those businesses and own it via the cooperative structure. The ISDS provisions provide security on those investments in terms of governments changing the rules midstream. That is why we include ISDS provisions in our free trade agreements.</para>
<para>The mining industry, which are currently paying the bulk of the bills in this country at the moment, once again, see divestment and investment in overseas mining projects as a key part of their business plan. Of course, investing in overseas countries in high-capital-intensive businesses like mining can be very risky when governments change the rules midstream, so that is why ISDS provisions are critically important for not only the free flow of trade but also the free flow of investments, and not only for countries investing in Australia but for Australian companies investing overseas.</para>
<para>As has been pointed out previously in the debate, there has been one example of a case being brought against the Australian government. That was the Philip Morris case. Yes, on a technicality it was jurisdictional, but I will note that that company has not tried, since that case was thrown out on a jurisdictional basis, to bring a case through the ISDS mechanisms.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a classic case of those opposite just trying to rewrite history on what has happened in relation to ISDS clauses. They're just trying to have a kick at the Labor Party and the union movement at the same time. For some time, Labor has held a position against having ISDS clauses in future trade and investment agreements. The reason we should not be opposed to this change comes out of exactly what those opposite are saying. The previous Labor government, under Julia Gillard, adopted this policy, and it's been our policy ever since. It came out of the fact that, for the first time in a very long time, a company—which those in this debate have cited, Philip Morris Australia, a tobacco giant—decided to sue Australia, over plain packaging for tobacco. The previous Labor government had made huge strides in terms of plain packaging for tobacco. That court case alone cost the Australian government $40 million—to defend our right to make decisions around plain packaging in the health interests of Australians. The Australian government received back only $12 million in costs. It was after that point that our party took a very different position on and approach to ISDS clauses.</para>
<para>It is our position currently that we do not support the inclusion of ISDS clauses in future trade agreements or investment agreements. Where they already exist and have evolved over time, we are saying that we will ensure that the government is able to preserve the right to regulate in the public interest of the Australian people, including for the environment and public health. The case with Philip Morris proved to us that we needed a change in policy. It wasn't just the unions calling for it. It was our own rank and file and a number of peak not-for-profit organisations and health organisations, all of whom believed that the Australian government should be governing in the interests of Australians and not be subjected to court cases from a foreign country like we saw with Philip Morris.</para>
<para>We in Australia have to do something about the previous government's free trade agreements. It isn't just in the area of ISDS clauses that they have failed the Australian people. There was their overpromising on the China free trade agreement. You have to say, in retrospect, that what we're seeing through that agreement is failure in a number of areas that they were saying were a success. For example, they said that we should support this agreement because of the support it would give our wine industry. That alone was a clear example of deliberate overpromising. They promised that it would be more attractive for the industry to invest in the China market. They said that, five years after the agreement came into action, there would be zero tariffs for Australian wine exporters. This is true, but, right on the eve of those zero tariffs kicking in, China shut the door to Australian wine. The trade was stuck on pause. Small producers in my electorate lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, with wine stuck in ports. The previous government failed to address those classic non-tariff barriers that free trade agreements don't deal with.</para>
<para>The wine industry was not the only one to be burnt by the China free trade agreement failing to deliver what it promised. Beef, coal and other major exports to China suffered the same. What did we get in return? The loss of more jobs. Economic modelling proved that the gains under the China free trade agreement were grossly overestimated by the previous government. It's not just the China free trade agreement; other free trade agreements have failed to deliver the jobs that they promised. Yes, we need to do better when it comes to free trade agreements, but we also need to do better when it comes to the non-tariff barriers. We need to do better when we're talking about engaging with countries and how they treat our imported products.</para>
<para>Increasingly, under the previous government, free trade agreements also included a number of side agreements around visas and labour mobility—again bringing in workers only for them to be exploited here in this country because of the unscrupulous nature of the treatment of migrant workers. These are all failures of the previous government. I am proud to be part of a team that is trying to address one area in which the previous government failed and trying to improve the existing ISDS clauses that we have. We stand strong in saying future trade agreements will not have these clauses. We need to modernise and have modern agreements that do not involve these clauses.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in favour of this motion. I actually agree with the previous speaker's critique of elements of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. One might proffer that a robust investor-state dispute mechanism would be helpful to address some of those criticisms that were made around the way in which our producers and our companies have been appallingly treated through non-tariff activities at the border.</para>
<para>In my electorate and indeed in yours, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, many industries have been impacted seriously by that. That's why I embrace, and we in the coalition embrace, the most comprehensive rules-based system to assist us to engage with the rest of the world, particularly in economics and in trade. The concept of investor-state dispute mechanisms within these agreements enhances that. It gives an opportunity for Australian businesses, through an agreed mediation process in those agreements, to deal with instances where they feel unfairly treated by a particular government in a way that is outside the spirit of a free trade agreement that we might have. If the position of the now government is that they want to weaken the standing of Australian exporters in their dealings with foreign governments in their export markets, then we will absolutely stand up against that.</para>
<para>I've had a lot of experience, not just in China but in many countries, in dealing with governments at a border level and with circumstances where a business has very diminished influence or power against, say, a customs agency or against measures that a government might put in place. We have to be honest: everyone loves free trade agreements in principle, but all nations work to limit the benefit for the other nation within that free trade agreement against their own domestic producers.</para>
<para>The World Trade Organization dispute resolution process is littered with examples of measures that many, if not most, nations within the WTO framework take to try and disadvantage someone exporting into that country versus a domestic producer, despite the fact that they want the access for their own export industries into other markets. That's why the dispute resolution process is in place under the WTO framework—because it is almost always a situation of a country putting measures in place that disadvantage businesses, including investors.</para>
<para>At the moment it's usually at the nation-to-nation level. Australia, on behalf of our businesses and our industries, very regularly takes actions through the WTO, and, in the examples related to China, we did that with barley, wine and other things. There are many examples where our businesses that are investing in other markets appreciate the added protection of having an avenue to litigate a dispute that they might have with another government.</para>
<para>Let's not forget that the sort of investment we're really talking about is supply chain investment. Our exporters investing in supply chains in other countries want protection over those investments, and it's actually enhancing and expanding the export capability and potential for producers in our nation. The government's attitude is, 'We want to make it harder for people to export, and we want to reduce the confidence that our businesses have to undertake investments and have a proper resolution process in place.' If the rules and the goalposts are moved on them by the government in situ that they're investing with, that is only going to disadvantage production and export from our own country.</para>
<para>I won't relitigate points that have been made about why the unions want this, and I don't dispute that, obviously, like any judicial process, there are examples you can cherry-pick where most of us would agree there has been a disappointing outcome through that system. That's like saying, if someone we think is guilty of murder is acquitted, we should junk the whole judicial system because it didn't achieve the outcome we wanted in that one particular case. That's obviously completely ridiculous. The coalition are going to stand up for exporters and growing our economy through export at every opportunity.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia's trade and investment relationships are, of course, critical, and they're something that our government takes very seriously as we work to further Australia's prosperity, both here and abroad. As this motion notes, investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, clauses have been a part of investment treaties and free trade agreements in recent decades. But, like many things, over years and decades there are changes in how we do things. This is a good thing. As we practice, as we learn from experience, we necessarily update the way we operate, and this is absolutely the case with ISDS clauses.</para>
<para>ISDS is a mechanism that is outdated. It gives power to foreign investors over communities and over governments here in Australia. In fact, it gives foreign companies the right to sue Australian governments—federal, state and local—for introducing laws that they argue have harmed their interests. These clauses can put taxpayers at risk of significant payouts. They can be used, in fact, against legitimate government policy. It is entirely possible for us to negotiate trade agreements that are beneficial to Australian businesses, that are beneficial to our country, without needing to include ISDS clauses. So our government does not support the inclusion of ISDS clauses in future trade and investment agreements. This place here, our parliament, is the law-making body of this land, and we should be free here in this parliament to respond to the needs and the views of Australians as they arise and as they change. That is exactly what is happening here.</para>
<para>This parliament should not be swayed on the basis of threats of being sued if changes are made to laws that affect foreign investors. When, for example, our parliament wants to legislate to protect the environment, we should not have a concern about being stopped in our tracks because an ISDS clause may mean we have to pay compensation to a foreign company who believes that their interest may be damaged by that case.</para>
<para>As I said, we've been really clear that trade agreements can be successfully negotiated without these clauses and in our interests. If we look at the two most recent free trade agreements that our country struck, with the United Kingdom and with India, we see these do not include ISDS clauses. In fact, the beginning of those negotiations were undertaken by those opposite while they were in government; these negotiations do take some years to conclude. It does seem strange that we're now here debating a motion where the opposition are in fact saying these clauses are essential when, while they were in government, they negotiated trade agreements that support our country without including these clauses. I shouldn't be surprised that the opposition are once again backflipping on what they did while they were in government. It does seem to be a current theme of what they're doing. But it is worth noting that that is what they're doing.</para>
<para>This focus that the opposition are bringing to ISDS just doesn't make sense. Both the ACCC and the Productivity Commission have highlighted their concerns with ISDS clauses, suggesting that they risk impeding domestic reforms that are actually in the public interest. The Productivity Commission has said that evidence shows that ISDS provisions do not have a 'significant impact on investment flows.' The Productivity Commission went on to say that Australia seeking to insert ISDS clauses through trade negotiations and in doing so also trying to seek rights that might be held over foreign governments is just not worth our while and that, instead, there are other avenues that Australian investors could make use of or have in their back pocket rather than ISDS.</para>
<para>We know where clauses like this have been used in the past. It is important that those opposite and those on this side remember the case that Philip Morris brought against Australia over plain packaging of cigarettes. It was a four-year case that, thankfully, ended with that company being put back in its place. But it is a demonstration of how ISDS clauses can be used to interfere with the work of parliament and the intentions of parliament. The disruption that ISDS enabled Philip Morris to cause to a health measure that was supported by experts, was nondiscriminatory and was based on substantial research goes to show how these clauses can be used against the interests of government, parliament and, in fact, our country. We shouldn't see further actions in this vein.</para>
<para>This government is absolutely committed to supporting Australian businesses and trade. It is vital to our national interest. We will continue to do that while also working to avoid empowering foreign companies who might try, just as Philip Morris tried, to get in their way to the detriment of Australians and the public good.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Teachers</title>
          <page.no>132</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the extraordinary contribution teachers, principals and school support staff make to our students and the future of Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises we face a critical and unprecedented teacher shortage that will have consequences across our society; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes the measures the Government has already taken to attract, train and retain teachers.</para></quote>
<para>In my first speech to parliament I paid tribute to the teachers who helped shape me. Teachers like my history teacher, Frank Frederico, taught me about the role individuals can make in reshaping our society. He, like so many of our teachers, demonstrates the power of education to change lives. It's the most powerful tool for good that we have.</para>
<para>Teachers make extraordinary contributions to our society. They are educators, role models and mentors for our kids. But over the last few years it's clear we have failed them. After years of stagnating wages, increasing administrative workloads and a pandemic, our teachers are exhausted. Up to 50 per cent of teachers are quitting within the first five years and many experienced teachers are leaving the field. We've seen a 16 per cent fall in the number of people starting teaching degrees, with a further 50 per cent not completing their degrees. There is a projected nationwide shortfall of about 4,100 high-school teachers by 2025. That's the projected shortfall in two years, but the shortfall is already here. Last year, in just one week in one school in my electorate, there were 43 classes that did not have a dedicated teacher. That meant the students were not receiving the education they needed.</para>
<para>This is not a new crisis. While the COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated the issues, the problems have been growing for years. Last December the federal education minister and I held a principals' forum in my electorate. I wanted him to hear directly from local principals about the challenges they were facing with staff shortages. I thank all the principals who attended for their engagement and honest feedback. They said teachers were leaving the profession for two main reasons: pay and condition. They also spoke about the ever-increasing workloads and administrative duties and the public perception of the profession. Fixing this crisis won't be easy; it will take time. But I'm proud to be part of a government that respects teachers and the important work they do. I'm proud to be part of a government that is committed to fixing this crisis.</para>
<para>We are listening to those who know our education system best—teachers, principals and support staff. We are investing $328 million through the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan to attract, train and retain teachers. We are investing in more university places for teachers, incentivising mid-career professionals to transition into teaching and building the teacher workload reduction fund. We are working closely and collaboratively with the state and territory governments, and I'm pleased to hear that in my home state of New South Wales the opposition Labor leader, Chris Minns, has announced a suite of policies to fix this crisis.</para>
<para>Since the federal election, it's been clear that there has been a marked change in the tone. The work our government is doing is about restoring respect for teachers. I think it speaks volumes that the first action the member for Blaxland, the federal Minister for Education, took was to return to his primary school to thank Mrs Fry, his former primary school teacher. He has launched a campaign to nominate more teachers for Order of Australia awards, so they are recognised for their service to our community.</para>
<para>On the weekend, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to catch up with Alice Leung, the president of the Inner West Teachers Association. We had a frank discussion about the challenges for teachers at the moment. As we wrapped up our coffee and catch-up, she reminded me that people get into teaching because they are passionate about educating young people.</para>
<para>While there is more work to do, I think the steps the Albanese government is taking are the first crucial steps towards offering teachers fair pay and conditions and the respect that they deserve—and, most importantly, making sure that they can get back to what they love doing: teaching.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member. Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Fernando</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Reid for this very important motion. Alongside her, I stand here to give my utmost respect and gratitude to the teachers who walk amongst us right across this nation.</para>
<para>Teachers in regional, rural and remote Australia are critical to giving our kids the best education, as they deserve. We know that people living in rural and regional Australia have much lower educational outcomes than our city cousins. We are less likely to complete year 12, less likely to gain a certificate, for, or above, qualification, and less likely to apply for and then to accept a university offer. That's not because we don't have the capacity. We're missing out on the opportunity.</para>
<para>This educational inequality between metropolitan and regional Australia simply must be addressed. Tackling the unprecedented teacher shortage is, indeed, one step.</para>
<para>In Indi, we are, sadly, at the forefront of this severe teacher shortage. Wodonga senior and middle years colleges and the North East Flexible Learning Network combined are the largest public schools in Indi. When the member for Reid talks about the critical and unprecedented teacher shortages, I hope it doesn't get worse than it is in Wodonga right now. The executive principal of the colleges, Vern Hilditch, a Wodonga school principal for over 30 years, says that finding and keeping qualified teachers in Wodonga has never been harder. The school has been advertising 11 positions since the end of last year and so far has received zero applications—not one. On top of this, last week, they lost three much-needed casual relief teachers from Ireland, who were here on the first year of working-holiday visas. Because their first year is over, they now need to complete three months working in agriculture to qualify for working a second year in Australia. So this means they can no longer teach in Wodonga, where they are loved and needed most.</para>
<para>The effects of these shortages on students are profound. This includes a cohort of kids who are still recovering from the isolation and stress of remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. We know these students are resilient, but, without continuity of teachers, their wellbeing is impacted. Kids are missing out, and the teachers that we already have are under enormous stress as their workloads increase.</para>
<para>The government says it's taking measures to attract, train and retain teachers, but unfortunately, in Wodonga, we're not seeing any of these measures working right now. I want to work with the government on finding long-term, sustainable solutions to addressing educational disadvantage in Indi, including ways that we can attract and retain the highest quality teachers. In the interim, I offer some simple ways the government can address the teacher shortage, right now.</para>
<para>Firstly, regional teaching should be added to the list of approved agricultural industries and work areas for visas. Like we see in Wodonga, there are teachers from across the world who are keen to live and work in regional Australia. Let's make the most of this. I've contacted the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister for Education and I look forward to engaging with them on this immediate solution.</para>
<para>Secondly, the government must expand La Trobe University's Nexus program, which receives federal government funding. Participants in the program must have completed an undergraduate degree and then study a Master of Teaching (Secondary) while gaining practical skills working as education support workers in a school. The key driver of this program is to address the challenge, especially in regional and rural areas, of attracting, preparing and retaining high-quality teachers in schools that are often hard to staff and in schools in low socioeconomic communities. The Nexus program has been running since 2020. This year Wodonga has taken on six new students, and Vern Hilditch, the principal, tells me they could take on 10 students. The government should increase the funding to this valuable program. Also, Nexus should be expanded to the VET programs. There's currently only one teacher at Wodonga Senior Secondary College training almost 100 students in their Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care. So let's expand Nexus so we can train many more needed childcare, disability, and building and construction workers.</para>
<para>Thirdly, the government must add teachers to the list of professions eligible to have their HELP debts partially or completely forgiven if they work in regional, rural or remote areas. Already under this scheme, doctors and nurse practitioners are incentivised. We need to add teachers to this list as well. They are some of the most important members of our society. They equip our children. We need to protect them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia faces a teacher shortage 10 years in the making. Teacher shortage is a complex issue, with a number of factors contributing to the problem. While school enrolments have grown considerably, the number of students who study teaching is on a constant decline. Over this period, enrolments in teaching degrees have fallen by 16 per cent, and only half of the students who enrol are actually completing their degree. As a result, the demand for secondary teachers is forecast to exceed the supply of graduates by around 4,100 between 2021 and 2025.</para>
<para>Demand surpassing supply means teachers currently engaged in the profession are overworked and underappreciated. Nearly one-third to one-half of teachers leave the profession within the first five years, often due to low pay and poor public image of the profession. A whopping 71 per cent of those employed consider leaving the profession due to the high workload, particularly being required to do far more hours than they are paid for. My sister-in-law, a primary school teacher in Melbourne's south-east suburbs, is one of them. The Productivity Commission found full-time teachers usually work 50 per cent more than their paid working hours and work more hours than their international counterparts do according to the OECD. As a result, 61 per cent of teachers find the profession too stressful, which in turn has an enormous impact on their mental health and wellbeing.</para>
<para>It is important to remember that the effect of this shortage is systematic, affecting everyone from newly employed graduates to even principals, two-thirds of whom identify heavy workload as a factor limiting their effectiveness. This not only leads to a significant burden on existing staff, who are often required to take on additional responsibilities, but is also detrimental to the quality of education that students are receiving. Furthermore, the shortage of teachers is having a particularly substantial impact on disadvantaged areas like my electorate of Holt. These areas are already facing a range of challenges, including a lack of infrastructure and services, and the shortage of teachers only serves to compound these issues.</para>
<para>Urgent action is required to address the teacher shortage in Australia, and I'm proud the Albanese Labor government is leading the way in doing so. The government is investing in Australia's teachers, with $328 million in targeted funding through the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan to turn the situation around. It sets out 27 actions that Commonwealth, state and territory governments will implement. This includes $159 million to train more teachers, with more additional Commonwealth supported places offered in 2023-24 for bachelor's degrees and other courses in early childhood, primary and secondary education. There's $56 million for scholarships worth $40,000 each to encourage the best and brightest to become teachers. There's $68 million to triple the number of mid-career professionals shifting into teaching, $10 million to boost professional development and $10 million for a campaign to raise the status of the teaching profession. It's instituting a $30 million teacher workload reduction fund to trial new ways to reduce the workload on teachers and maximise the time they must teach. This plan will boost the number of students choosing to study teaching. It will provide the support they need to finish their studies and will invest in programs that will reduce workload and increase the status of the profession in the community.</para>
<para>Our children's education is too important to ignore, and we cannot afford to let this problem continue to go unaddressed. I am confident we can build a nation where teachers are respected, supported and encouraged. I would like to thank all teachers across Australia. We in this House appreciate the hard work that you do to educate the leaders of tomorrow.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to commend the member for Reid for this motion. All of us have great memories of our teachers, and we understand how important education is not just for the current generation but for future generations as well. I was at my old high school, Mount Lilydale Mercy College, for their graduation ceremony in December. Mr Rogers, who was my year 9 homeroom teacher, was there, and I couldn't bring myself to call him John. I still had to call him Mr Rogers, 25 years later, which he thought was a little bit weird! But it was a reminder to me of the impact that he'd had on my life as a young man. I know everyone in this House has stories about the important work that teachers do—and not just teachers but teachers aides and the administrative staff. Everyone within a primary school or a high school comes together.</para>
<para>So I want to start by thanking all the teachers and all the teachers aides, and I've got family who are teachers and teachers aides. I want to thank not just those in Casey but those across the country. Thank you all for everything you do. Many of us know firsthand—I've got a seven-year-old and a nine-year-old—that the last three years have been extremely tough for all families and all students, but teachers have really been on the front line in schools and for learning from home. They are overworked. They are stressed. There are a lot of factors that bring this all together, and I just want to thank them for all the work they've done in our community to make sure the students were able to get through the last three years.</para>
<para>But it's also really important that we acknowledge and understand that we're not through the challenges. Last week, I was at Healesville Primary School and Healesville High School, and Warowa college, which is a boarding school for Indigenous female students. From talking to the principals and the teachers, there are many students that are struggling because of the isolation and some the challenges they had through COVID and the lockdowns. So it's an ongoing challenge. It's really important that we recognise that, while we're back out and about in the community, schools are still feeling the impact. That's why it is so important that we continue to support schools. It's not always just about the money; it's about supporting those teachers.</para>
<para>There are some initiatives we can look at. The coalition government linked federal university funding for teacher education to course quality. We initiated the Quality Initial Teacher Education Review, which was delivered in February 2022, and it made 17 recommendations. So there's a strong blueprint for meaningful reform, and it's sitting there, ready to go. In December 2022, the education ministers agreed on the National Teacher Action Workforce Plan, and this is a step in the right direction. The 28 recommendations largely mirror the coalition's teacher education review. We really can't have these delays. We need to initiate them straightaway. A lot of them are being pushed back to mid to late 2023, and that's too late for a lot of these schools. We need to look at rolling out these initiatives as soon as possible.</para>
<para>But we also need to look at other opportunities to make it easier for teachers. My mum is a teacher, and I know that there is a lot of administration and a lot of paperwork outside of school hours that teachers do that they don't get paid for. How do we unlock technology and allow systems where they can have more uniform class lessons? How can they use things—dare I ask it? It's a bit controversial in education at the moment!—like ChatGPT and artificial intelligence to actually help them prepare their work plans? It would not be to do the work for them but to give them a baseload, so that a lot of that administrative workload would be taken off them. And that's what we need to do.</para>
<para>We know teachers face challenges. They're overworked. They're stressed.</para>
<para>There is a bipartisan initiative to support education—to support our teachers and our teachers aides—because, once we invest in those future generations, they deliver returns today but also returns for the future. It's important that we acknowledge and recognise that, for teachers, it's not just the education that they deliver. There's a lot of care that teachers and teachers aides provide, whether that's through breakfast programs, or providing lunch, or buying gifts to give to students whose families just aren't able to provide them for those students. So teachers and teachers aides do amazing work. It's important that we continue to support them. It's important that we recognise that action needs to be delivered at a systemic level. It's important for the federal government to work with state governments, to make sure we're addressing these shortages and keeping the teachers that are in the system there as long as possible. I commend the motion to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Reid for bringing this important motion forward. Education is one of the most important parts of any society. It should be one of the highest priorities of any government. It certainly is one of the highest priorities for this Labor government.</para>
<para>Young people are the future of our country and our world. They will be our future doctors, lawyers, accountants, architects, builders, electricians, plumbers, boilermakers, fitters, plasterers—</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
<para>An honourable member: Neurosurgeons.</para>
<para>An honourable member: Farmers.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Neurosurgeons, farmers—so many options we have here of what they will be. So it is vital that these young people have access to and receive the best education in the world, to make sure that our country continues to punch above its weight and thrive into the future.</para>
<para>But, in order for this to happen, our students need teachers. Sadly, this country is facing a shortage of teachers, and it's not only the students who will pay the price for this. It will also impact the future of our nation.</para>
<para>This is a shortage that's been 10 years in the making in this country. We have falling enrolments in teaching degrees, and the demand was forecast to exceed the supply of secondary teachers by 4,100 teachers between 2021 and 2025. Not only are fewer students enrolling in teaching, but those who study teaching are less likely to complete their studies than other students, with only 50 per cent of teaching students completing their degree. This is just not good enough. So there are fewer and fewer people enrolling in teaching, and even fewer completing their degrees. But the figures also show that, once those who do complete their degrees become teachers, between 30 and 50 per cent of them will leave within their first five years of being in a classroom.</para>
<para>As with many of the problems created by those opposite, it is electorates like mine that are even more affected, with this shortage of teachers being more severe in rural and remote areas. This has been highlighted recently, with two schools in the Hunter facing chronic shortages. Muswellbrook High School has eight permanent teacher vacancies, and 221 lessons a fortnight are being taught by teachers outside their expertise. Merriwa Central School has five permanent vacancies, and, according to a New South Wales parliamentary inquiry, had 3,800 split or merged classes during 2021 and the first half of 2022. Once again, regional Australia was forgotten about by those who love to throw their slogans on every telegraph pole they can find.</para>
<para>These issues are complex and have developed over a long period of time, but we do have an idea of some of the reasons for these issues. The most commonly cited reason for leaving the profession is high and increased workloads. The Productivity Commission has found that teachers work about 50 per cent more than their paid hours each week, and, according to the OECD, our teachers are working more hours than teachers in other countries. One may think that teachers working so hard is great for our students and great for education in Australia, but this is not the case. Teachers are too often caught up in administrative tasks, and only 40 per cent of their time is actually spent in the classroom, face to face with their students.</para>
<para>This is a government that actually cares about education and the future of young Australians. We're implementing measures to address the teacher shortage, like investing in Australia's teachers with $328 million in targeted funding through the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan. This plan will provide $159 million to train more teachers; $56 million for scholarships, worth up to $40,000 each, to encourage the best and brightest to become teachers; $68 million to triple the number of mid-career professionals shifting into teaching; and $10 million to boost professional development and make sure that our teachers continue to improve.</para>
<para>This plan will also see $10 million go towards a campaign to raise the status of the teaching profession, and the $30 million Teacher Workload Reduction Fund will look at ways to reduce their workload and maximise their time spent in the classroom with students. This plan will increase the number of people studying teaching and will also help them finish their degree. This plan will reduce workloads and give teachers the recognition they deserve in the community. This is a solid plan from a solid government with a strong focus on education. I want to say thank you to all the teachers out there. They put up with me as a student, and they put up with many students who are different and challenging. I thank them for all they do.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge the member for Reid and her important motion to the House. I acknowledge the member for Lalor and her important contribution to the teaching ranks and what she did to help students, because teachers can be transformational. I remember my schooling years well, and I remember teachers such as John Egan, my year 7 form master, who still contacts me regularly and tells me what I should be doing and how I should be doing it. Yes, he did wield the strap once or twice—thank you, member for Forrest—and I deserved every one of them! Brother Felix Augustine O'Connor, John Zoglmann, Bob Stampton and Lyn Kensey were all wonderful educators who put themselves out to ensure that they went above and beyond the call of duty to get the students of St Michael's Regional High School at Wagga Wagga where they should be, ready for society.</para>
<para>WB Yeats said, 'Education is not the filling of a pot but the lighting of a fire,' and Robert Frost said, 'I am not a teacher, but an awakener'—and how true those words are. I'm very proud that my daughter Georgina—Georgina Bell, she was married recently—is a teacher and is making sure that English, the English language and drama are the focus of her teaching. From reading some of the things that she has shown me, I know that she's making great strides in her profession and in teaching the kids down in Melbourne how to be their best selves.</para>
<para>When it comes to teaching—and those opposite probably didn't mention this—Sarah Mitchell is doing some great things as the education minister in New South Wales. I know there's an election on, but the sorts of the things that this motion talks about, like the unprecedented teacher shortage having consequences across our society, are being addressed by the New South Wales coalition and have been for the 12 years they have been in government. As we go into this 25 March poll, there's a new cash incentive of $4,000 for public school teachers who obtain nationally Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher accreditation, and there's a $10,000 incentive as part of a push to address shortages outside cities.</para>
<para>My daughter, Georgina, won one of those scholarships to teach in a remote location. She could have easily, once she'd graduated, taught at Wagga Wagga, and schools there would have actually paid the equivalent of that incentive for her HECS debt and whatever else. But she still chose to go out to Griffith, where the NSW education department had assigned her. I was so proud of her for doing that, because, as I said, she could have quite easily continued to live at home—and probably saved more money—but she said, 'No, I'm going to do this because that's what I signed up to do.' And she fulfilled that obligation to the department and to the children in that remote area—Griffith was seen to be remote, even though it's a city of 27½ thousand, or was at the time. Those three years at Griffith High School made her as a teacher. I can remember her very first day at school was difficult. She had a very difficult student who was quite aggressive towards her, but, by the end of the year, as I understand it, he was in the school play wearing a pink tutu and really getting involved because of the education that he'd been given and the part that he'd then played in making sure that teamwork was first and foremost. That's what teaching is about. It's about inspiring kids and transforming them to be their best selves.</para>
<para>I compliment Minister Mitchell for the work that she is doing. She is a regional person herself. No matter what sector it is, right across every endeavour of society, there are 80,000 full-time vacancies in regional Australia at the moment that we need to fill—you'd know that yourself, Deputy Speaker Sharkie—and education is certainly one of those sectors. We know that teachers do not work school hours. I know teachers who routinely get to work very early, just a bit after seven in the morning, and are still there at 5.30 at night. They take their work home with them. I have to say, during COVID, it was so difficult not having that face-to-face interaction with students—particularly boys, I'm told, anecdotally, of course. Now that school is back in the classroom and it's face-to-face learning again, teachers are quickly trying to make up the gap between those students, particularly the year 8s and 9s who lost those years of education. It's all right for the primary school kids; they adapt and get on with things. But, for the high school children, it was very, very difficult and, like the member for Hunter, I commend teachers and thank them very much, earnestly and honestly, for the job they do.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is an absolute pleasure to rise to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Reid, and I thank her for doing so. I acknowledge the member for Hunter's contribution today. I also acknowledge the member for Riverina, and I thank him for his words about my contribution to education in my time as a teacher and as a principal. The member for Hunter thanked the teachers who had taught him. I'd echo that and thank the teachers who taught the member for Hunter. Having been a teacher, I can imagine the member for Hunter in a classroom. He would have been, obviously, one of my favourite students sitting in the back row of year 9 at a school in Melton.</para>
<para>I spent my 27 years in state education in the state of Victoria, and I want to use this five minutes to nut down to what it is that teachers do. One of the issues we have with teaching, in terms of lifting people's thoughts and the way they think about teachers and elevating them in the community, is that, of course, everyone was a student and, therefore, everyone's an expert in education. Everyone knows the teacher that inspired them or the teacher that got them to nail down to task, or just the teacher that opened the world to them or challenged them. But people don't understand the complexity of this work.</para>
<para>As an English teacher, or a maths teacher, I would have, on average, most years, 100 students in a secondary school. That's 100 students that I am intrinsically working with across a year—five classes if I'm teaching English. If I'm teaching sociology, science or phys ed, I've only got them, potentially, for three classes a week, so I've got more students. I'm likely to have 150 to 175 students. Teaching is not about delivering a lesson plan. You can't reduce the workload by creating lesson plans and assuming that teachers can then pick up this generic lesson plan and walk in and deliver the information—because that's not what teaching is. Yes, teachers teach to a curriculum, but the lesson plan isn't the lesson. The lesson plan has to be created with the 25 students that are going to be involved in this lesson at the forefront of your mind. That is the complex nature of the work. We can know the curriculum, but you need to know the students to shape that curriculum, so that you get maximum benefit, maximum uptake, if you like, maximum engagement in the material and, therefore, maximum learning.</para>
<para>There are other factors that are in play. Of those 100 children that I'm working with across the week, as an English teacher in a secondary school, every single one comes through the door with their own background, their own ideas and their own experiences. If two of those children across the week are having a particularly rough time, it doesn't matter how well I've planned my curriculum for those two children if I don't get in there and make them feel connected. So there's the complexity of the work around the human-to-human element, and we've heard lots of it here about teachers spending all of this time not in face-to-face teaching. There's an assumption that it's all paperwork. It isn't! It's going and finding the students you teach during the week when you're not teaching another class and connecting to them that way. It's being the year-level coordinator who is following up on students across that week. So lots of it is face-to-face human work, but not necessarily face-to-face teaching. It takes hours and hours.</para>
<para>Then there's that third element, around assessment and reporting, that has become, if you talk to teachers, one of the most onerous parts. That is being driven by our governments, driving us to perform better. We've found new ways to ensure that our assessment and reporting regimes are measuring student achievement. This is two-pronged. First it tells the teacher where that child is, so they can take the next steps to the next place. I repeat: 100 students across the week, 100 pieces of assessment and reporting. In a normal week, I'm trying to touch base three times in assessment with every one of those children. The assessments aren't all written, and they've got to be creative. But I'm trying to create that scenario where I know that child's learning and I know how to get them to the next step.</para>
<para>This is incredibly complex work, and it needs governments to stand up and take notice and make sure we're remunerating our teachers properly.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do thank the member for Reid for this motion and acknowledge the work of the member for Lalor, who just spoke, as well. I also want to acknowledge and thank our teachers, our school support staff and our principals right around Australia for the extraordinary work that they do. As we know, at times the true value of the teacher's commitment in educating their students and being part of a community can be undervalued. In addition, we see an increasing number of children presenting with a range of special needs in schools, and this is something else that teachers have to deal with.</para>
<para>Teachers have had an extraordinary impact on most of us in our time at school. Most of us can pick out one or two teachers who really made a difference to us. Even for the students who had great difficulties or challenges at school for different reasons in their time, there was possibly one teacher that cut through and made a difference to that individual student.</para>
<para>I remember an amazing teacher by the name of Fiore Rando, at the Harvey High School. Fiore was a teacher of what in those days was called social studies, but he provoked a great interest, in those of us attending his classes, in broader affairs—not just locally but also statewide, nationally and globally. But the measure of the man was not only his great personal values but also the effort he put into each student. I particularly remember one paper of mine in an exam where he'd marked it three times—82 per cent, 83 and then 84. He'd made the effort, which teachers do, to try to make sure the student got the best encouragement they could get to perform at their best.</para>
<para>I see that all of the time in the schools that I visit and in the teachers that are so dedicated to their students. But it's not only their students. Often it's the family behind that they are dealing with, and they also have a great involvement in the community. In regional, rural and remote communities in particular, teachers are really such a strong part of our community, and they have a special respect because of what they do for our kids. We really need them and we really value them being in our part of the world because often it isn't the first place of choice for those seeking a career.</para>
<para>I really want to offer a special thankyou to the teachers who make the effort to understand those who are having great challenges, whether it's with a particular subject or another issue. Maybe they don't fit that strictly academic box. They may not be the top students or the best students. They're the kids who need someone to make an effort to understand them, to know that each one has something that they can do very well and to encourage that to give those students so much more confidence in what it is that they are good at or the skill they have. I also want to acknowledge those who work in our agricultural colleges.</para>
<para>There is an offering in Bunbury called Shedworks. This is a fantastic opportunity for some of the students who have a range of challenges in their schooling, family or lives. Perhaps they don't fit the traditional model of education. They go to Shedworks where they learn all sorts of new skills that they find they're very good at. It could be in woodwork or making a range of new products and then marketing them. They are exposed to a whole lot of other people who are creative in different ways. At times they sell these items at the markets and they learn about how to market. So many of them have gone on to other education or training beyond Shedworks.</para>
<para>When I've been to their relatively small graduations, I've seen the parents and the families so grateful that the teachers in that Shedworks environment have encouraged and inspired these young people, who potentially thought they didn't have the same opportunities as others, to make the very best of themselves, which they do once they leave Shedworks. Often there's a job beyond that as well for those students. What an amazing outcome when you're working with kids who need that extra help to find themselves. I've met many teachers who are working countless hours, not just in formal education but in the support and encouragement of young people. They make sure they check in with these kids with the wonderful words—'Are you okay? If you're not, how can I help you?' That's what our teachers do best.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Child Sexual Abuse</title>
          <page.no>139</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes with great distress that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) there were 18,925 victim-survivors of child sexual assault reported in Australia in 2021;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) this accounts for almost two-thirds (61 per cent) of reported victim-survivors of all ages that year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) 67 per cent of sexual assaults occurred at residential locations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) applauds the work of the former Government to implement mandatory minimum sentencing and other measures for child sex offenders through the passing of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to implement, in conjunction with state and territory governments, a National Child Sex Offender Register to be a single point of truth to make public the identities, offences and postcodes of convicted child sex offenders for the purpose of keeping Australian children safe.</para></quote>
<para>Some of the most disgusting, heinous crimes are committed against our children. Young boys and girls, who are growing up and who have their whole lives ahead of them, are innocent victims of crimes that rob them of their innocence. Child sex offenders are the lowest of the low. They are vile scum. They are putrid. They are despicable. They deserve nothing more than to be removed from our society. They should be stripped of the privileges and freedoms that law-abiding citizens of Australia enjoy and they should be kept as far away from our children as possible.</para>
<para>While some of us might like to see child sex offenders locked up and the key thrown away, we know that some are released back into our community. In some states they live largely anonymously among us. Sometimes they're monitored, but no-one can be watched 24/7. That's why we and our communities deserve to have the information we need to be able to stay aware—not to be vigilantes but to be vigilant. That is why we need to have a national child sex offender register. This register must be a single point of truth—no matter what the state or territory—that makes public the identity, offences and postcodes of convicted child sex offenders to keep our kids safe.</para>
<para>In Townsville we have a large number of child sex offenders living in our community. It was revealed in 2020 that 180 of them live at large across the Townsville police district—a number that is constantly on the increase. At the same time it was revealed that there were only 22 police officers across Queensland with the task of monitoring 3,000 offenders.</para>
<para>We can't afford to let more innocent children fall victim to these predators. Too many of these offenders get out of jail and reoffend, which is why we need to know where they are. You have to have a sign on your fence if you have a dangerous dog, but these people who've snatched the innocence away from young children get to walk freely among the community.</para>
<para>In this age of the internet, we have too many stories of mothers on dating apps meeting men who are interested not in them but in getting to their children. A recent Australian Institute of Criminology report found that more than one in 10 on these apps had received a request to facilitate child sexual exploitation. That is absolutely disgusting. Another study by the AIC found that recidivist child sexual assault offenders comprise a small group of motivated persistent offenders who are willing to adapt their offending to target new and different victims in different contexts. To that end, we need to apply situational prevention strategies which aim to restrict the opportunity to effect.</para>
<para>There are other statistics mentioned in this motion before us today which demonstrate how tragic the situation has become. There were 18,925 victim-survivors of child sexual assault reported in 2021. This is almost two-thirds of reported victim-survivors of all ages that year. That means the majority of victims of sexual assault in our communities are children.</para>
<para>A national child sex offender register is not a new idea. This is something the former coalition government did a lot of work on. In fact, it was the coalition that implemented mandatory minimum sentences for child sex offenders. We created the world's first eSafety Commissioner to tackle child exploitation online and we launched the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse, a 10-year whole-of-nation framework targeting child sex abuse in all settings, with the funding to implement it. We also began the important work to implement a register for the Council of Attorneys-General and the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management. This work must be progressed and followed through, and I urge the government to take it up.</para>
<para>We must always do everything we can to protect the most vulnerable members of our community. A child sex offender register is not just something we should do; it is something we must do for the safety of our children.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pike</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>PERRETT () (): Discussions about child sexual abuse and the perpetrators are always emotive. Only the survivors of child sexual abuse can truly understand the lifelong damage and the burden they carry from such cruel, evil, cold-hearted events. You only have to read some of the testimony from the royal commission into child sexual abuse detailing the horrors inflicted on them and how that can affect people for the rest of their lives—sometimes lives that end all too early. This is why this is such an emotive issue.</para>
<para>The natural inclination of civilised society is to protect children. They are our hope distilled. If society fails to protect them, we feel we have failed them as a society. I hope this urge to protect is what has motivated the member for Herbert, who has submitted this motion, rather than any political opportunism. However, when we look clinically at the facts, it's hard to see how a publicly available national child sex offender register would contribute to keeping our children safe. Just having a quick look through some of the data from the Australian Institute of Criminology outlines some of the facts around child sexual assault that weren't mentioned in his introduction.</para>
<para>The Personal Safety Survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics highlighted that only 11.1 per cent of abusers were strangers—that is, people not known to the child. Most monsters are family monsters. Sadly, the highest percentage of perpetrators are male relatives. It showed almost 45 per cent of victims were abused by a male relative—an uncle, a brother, a father or a stepfather—and around 40 per cent of abusers were a male family friend or acquaintance of the family. These abusers were not just known to the child but were responsible for the care and protection of these children.</para>
<para>It was only last sitting that I spoke about Chris, my constituent who was abused by his school counsellor at Brisbane boys grammar—a person who was supposed to be caring for him, not some stranger on the street. If the member for Herbert or anyone points out how a publicly available register would have helped people like Chris, then I could support it. But we know the best place for this information about paedophiles and perpetrators is for it to be held by law enforcement and the courts. The statistics show that the vast majority of offenders are those who have not previously been identified or convicted of these crimes. As I mentioned before, they will be a male family member or close family friend who's probably known the child since birth. So strangers lurking in the shadows aren't the major perpetrators of child abuse. They're more likely to be sharing the same roof or the same meal with the child.</para>
<para>Data shows that the recidivism rates of those who have been convicted of child sexual assault are actually relatively low when they're monitored by law enforcement and restrictions are placed upon them by the courts. The member for Herbert's plan would drive such people underground. At the moment, they must report where they live. They must report who lives in their household, what internet accounts they have, what they do for a living—all that can be investigated by the police. If they don't provide the information, they can return to prison for a breach. The member for Herbert's ill-thought-out plan would actually drive such perpetrators underground. There is absolutely no data to support the notion that vigilantism makes children safer, despite what is claimed by people on the airwaves.</para>
<para>What will make our kids safer is if people who are told or are aware of abuse happening don't move these people on to another parish or another school or another church or another mosque so they can then abuse other children. We need to educate children from a young age about safe and respectful relationships. I mean a very young age, and in an age-appropriate way. We should talk to children about consent and about bodily autonomy. A phrase such as 'Come and give me a kiss,' which I heard as a kid, which children hear from their older relatives, should be considered carefully. What are we telling the child who doesn't wish to give that person the hug or the kiss? What should they do accordingly?</para>
<para>Lastly, we must believe children when they tell us about what happened. Too often in the past, as we heard again and again during the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, children weren't believed. Adults either didn't believe them or refused to deal with it. Let us never make that mistake again. But, also, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that a flashing warning sign placed publicly out the front of every paedophile's home will make us safe from the boogiemen designed by the Liberal and National parties. Life is a little bit more complicated, more fraught, more nuanced. Let's leave the vigilante work to the 1890s. Let's leave the public lynchings to the 1800s.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation are Australia's great and silent shame. The harm inflicted upon our kids at home, at school, in the community and, importantly, online often goes unreported. Bravehearts estimates that eight per cent of boys and one in five girls are sexual abuse survivors in this country. Just think about those stats again, in particular for young girls: one in five. These are vulnerable, dependent, innocent children.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge the work of the AFP and the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, launched by the coalition government. Since its inception in 2018, the ACCCE, as it is commonly referred to, has supported the AFP to rescue 517 children from harm. Tragically, with nearly 37,000 reports of online child abuse in 2021-22, the problem is only getting worse. In the past four years, the number of reports received by the ACCCE has more than doubled.</para>
<para>The scourge of child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation is heinous and hidden. It requires a whole-of-nation response. I want to pay tribute to the bold organisations in my electorate of Fisher doing vital work in this space. Rachel Downie and her team at Stymie are employing digital technology to support schools in stamping out bullying and child abuse. Conrad and his team at IFYS Project Paradigm are leading the way when it comes to countering child sexual exploitation. Annie, Tracey, Jeanette and the team at No More Fake Smiles are supporting victims-survivors in their fight for justice and bringing light to the issue. Paul Mergard and his team at Destiny Rescue are working across the world to free people, especially children, trapped in sexual slavery.</para>
<para>On that note, I was watching a television program the other day that showed that Australian men are the second greatest cohort of people anywhere in the world—second only to the United States—that go to Asia, in particular, to sexually exploit children. This is an unbelievable blight on this nation. Australian men, the second-worst recidivists, are travelling to Asia, in particular, to sexually exploit children. That is just unbelievable. I want to commend the now opposition leader, who, when he was in the relevant portfolio, put in place the ability to block some of these individuals if we suspect that they are travelling overseas to commit these sorts of heinous crimes.</para>
<para>We know that there are many instances—hundreds of thousands of incidents—where children are exploited online for the sexual gratification of, let's face it, men. I can't remember the last time I heard a story of a woman—well, I can think of one, but I won't go there. It is absolutely, overwhelmingly men that are the perpetrators. This is not beating up on men, but we, men of good character, have got to call this out. If we don't, who will?</para>
<para>I want to send a very big shout-out also to Bruce and Denise Morcombe of the Daniel Morcombe Foundation. My eldest daughter went to school with Daniel Morcombe. We were in the same area in Palmwoods. I vividly remember the day when Daniel was taken. I want to thank Bruce and Denise for their absolutely tireless work in protecting young children from sexual exploitation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Child abuse is an abhorrent and a pervasive crime in Australia. I think it's important that we remember that it is, indeed, a crime. The impact on child sexual abuse survivors, over their lifetime, can be really extreme—as I say, lifelong, and debilitating. The effects include post-traumatic stress, the inability to form lasting relationships, identity difficulties, parenting difficulties, alcohol and substance abuse, depression, anxiety and suicide ideation, just to name some.</para>
<para>Sadly, child sexual abuse is not a new issue; it's been around a long time. We've had an entire royal commission into the types of sexual abuse that occurred in institutions that should have been our most trusted, but which failed, on every level, those children in their care. I'm from Newcastle, and we have an entire volume, and more, from the royal commission, attached to the sorts of horrific abuse that took place in those institutions over decades.</para>
<para>But this is not something of the past, either. It's an issue that, sadly and shockingly, seems to be seeing some increase in the Australian community. According to the ABS, more than one million women have experienced sexual abuse by the age of 15. Just let that sink in for a moment. Of those one million women who had experienced sexual abuse by the age of 15, 90 per cent knew the perpetrator. And 55 per cent of those perpetrators were relatives. So let's not assume that home is a safe place for everyone. With those stats in mind, I would say to the member for Herbert, who moved this motion, that this is no time to be self-congratulatory about the performance of the previous government. Any policy changes must be supported by robust evidence and prevent unintended risks to victims, survivors and the wider community.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is deeply committed to protecting children from sexual abuse in all settings and to ensure criminal justice responses adequately reflect the profound harm that is caused to victims, survivors and communities. This includes working with all Australian jurisdictions under the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse, a plan that spans from 2021 through to 2030, in order to combat all forms of child sexual abuse in all settings. The national strategy is underpinned by an investment from the Australian government of more than $160 million over four years in offender prevention and intervention measures—a critical part of addressing this issue. We've also launched a National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children and committed $30 million in the 2022-23 budget to support this national framework. Safe and Supported is an ambitious 10-year strategy, focused on making significant and sustained progress in reducing the rates of child abuse and neglect, and its profound intergenerational impacts. The first action plan from 2023 to 2026 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander first action plan for the same period put the voices of children right at the centre of policymaking, and that's where they should be. The action plan sets out how governments, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and the non-government sector must work together to help children, young people and families in need of support.</para>
<para>All governments agree that all children and young people in Australia have the right to grow up in safe, connected and supported environments in their families, communities and cultures. Decisions about child safety, whether through the courts, government or the community sector should always be evidence based and in the best interests of the child. That has to be the defining principle for lawmaking and decision-making in this country. To be very clear, this government will not tolerate the sexual abuse of children in any form. Our children deserve our protection and support, and we will continue to do everything we can to protect children here and overseas from exploitation and abuse.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today in support of this excellent motion, moved by my good friend the member for Herbert. It should be the first job of any Australian government to protect its citizens, and paramount in that objective needs to be the protection of our most vulnerable citizens, particularly our nation's children. It is an unfortunate fact that we live in a society where our children are under threat from criminals who seek to do them harm. As the motion states, there were a staggering 18,925 victims-survivors of child sexual assault reported in Australia in 2021. Federal and state governments have been engaged for many decades in the fight to bring these predators to justice and in undertaking other initiatives aimed at minimising this threat. However, when we are faced with these confronting statistics, and in recognising that behind every number is an innocent young life that has been horrendously violated, we must ask an important question: what else can we do to empower Australians with the information that they need to protect their families?</para>
<para>The member for Fisher mentioned the horrific case of Daniel Morcombe, and the parents of Daniel Morcombe know this nightmare all too well. They have long campaigned for a national register for sex offenders to be established, to provide the community with greater protection against these heinous offenders. We aren't suggesting that a national register will prevent all offending. A lot of the previous speakers have mentioned that most of the offending that takes place in Australia is done by individuals who are known to the victim. But it will give families some information on known local offenders that could be utilised to minimise risk. It will give schools, community groups and sporting organisations the information that they need to better ensure the safety of the children entrusted to their care. By having the identities, offences and postcodes of convicted child sex offenders publicly available, parents could determine if anyone who interacts with their child is a convicted offender and so make informed decisions on their children's movements and have a heightened vigilance as to the known threats that may be present in their daily lives and routines. As the father of young children, I see this as a concept that has considerable merit, and I know that a vast, vast majority of the Redlands community that I represent in this building share my enthusiasm for it. Anything that can be done to help shine a light on those who seek to dwell in the shadows is worthy of strong consideration from government.</para>
<para>Where it related to child sex offences committed against federal law, the former coalition government made the tough calls. The coalition implemented mandatory minimum sentencing and other measures for child sex offenders, through the passing of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill, back in 2019. The motion rightfully acknowledges this as a move worthy of the House's praise. In 2021, the coalition also launched the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse, a 10-year, whole-of-nation, first-of-its-kind framework which targets sexual abuse. This included an initial $307 million investment to implement that strategy. The first phase of the strategy saw funding for the first national action plan, which included important initiatives, such as $18 million to implement the National Victim Identification Framework, $22.3 million to deliver national awareness-raising campaigns and $24 million to strengthen the Commonwealth's capacity to prosecute child sexual abuse offenders. It was the now opposition leader who established the AFP-led Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, which has made a real difference, with almost 700 arrests and more than 6,000 charges laid since 2018.</para>
<para>This motion calls on the federal government to take this good work to the next level. It calls on the government to implement, in conjunction with state and territory governments, a national child sex-offender register. The federal coalition committed $8 million in 2019 to advance a national register but encountered strong opposition from the states and territories. To establish a national register, of course, the Commonwealth needs law and policy reforms from all jurisdictions. I should give a shout out to Western Australia, which is the only jurisdiction where people can apply to access information on their child sex offender register. If a national register could save one child from being offended against, I think it's something worthy of consideration.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBRIDE</name>
    <name.id>248353</name.id>
    <electorate>Dobell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge the member for Herbert for moving this motion today. Every day, in my role as Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, I'm presented with hard facts and realities about suicide in Australia. The strongest point is this. Over the last two decades, child abuse and neglect have consistently been the leading risk factors contributing to the years of healthy life lost due to suicide and self-inflicted injuries—more than mental ill-health; more than relationship breakdown; more than a lack of housing, a lack of employment or a lack of financial security. The highest contributors to years of healthy life lost are child abuse and neglect. They are associated with 24 per cent of the years of healthy life lost in males and 33 per cent of the years of healthy life lost in females. That's absolutely unacceptable.</para>
<para>We also know that 1.4 million Australians—or about one in every dozen—have experienced childhood sexual abuse. Given the sensitivities, we are cognisant that that figure is likely far higher.</para>
<para>Child sexual abuse is confronting. It is also devastating for victims-survivors and those who are vicariously impacted: parents, teachers, siblings and friends. As such, our response must be robust. It must be evidence based.</para>
<para>Firstly, we are addressing childhood sexual abuse at the source, by stopping abuse before it happens. This work is being led by the Attorney-General's Department, through the National Office for Child Safety. The work of the office is underpinned by the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse, a first-of-its-kind, whole-of-nation policy approach that was created in response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse that the member for Newcastle has just spoken of.</para>
<para>Secondly, we are determined to support victims-survivors. In January we brought together Australia's leading advocates for mental health and suicide prevention. We also brought to that same group those with lived and living experience of mental ill health. Their voice has for too long been missing from this conversation. We often talk about person-centred care while not properly including those with lived and living experience. We're changing that.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is investing $8.5 million to support those with lived experience of mental health to shape the policies and programs that affect them. We're establishing two independent national mental health lived experience peak bodies—one representing consumers and the other representing carers, families and kin. This investment puts the voices of people with lived and living experience of mental ill health and suicide at the centre of decision-making as we work together to create a fairer, improved system that meets the needs of all Australians, young and old, wherever they live.</para>
<para>These bodies will also inform how we support victims of child sexual abuse, because we will only see real change when we put the voices of those who are impacted at the centre and when we amplify the voices of those with lived and living experience in decision-making and leadership. It will make robust sexual abuse policy, and robust policy will inform effective care for those in distress. It will make significant progress in suicide prevention by addressing the drivers of distress and reducing the likelihood that individuals experience suicidal ideation.</para>
<para>It is not just good suicide prevention policy. It will significantly reduce costs to and pressure on and will build capacity in our health care, particularly our mental health care system. This conversation is difficult and confronting, but it must be had. I look forward to continuing to progress this work and to work with genuine cooperation with all members of parliament and senators while keeping focus on who this work is for—our young people.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ukraine</title>
          <page.no>143</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) observes it is one year since Russia's 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) deplores the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which continues a pattern of illegal and immoral aggression against Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, which has resulted in a toll of destruction, many thousands of human casualties, and the displacement of over 14 million Ukrainians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) acts by Russia aimed at destroying the national, cultural, religious, and democratic institutions of the Ukrainian people and Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Russia for violating international law, noting the clear evidence of war crimes being committed against the Ukrainian people;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) notes Australia continues to stand with Ukraine against Russian aggression and has provided Ukraine with military and humanitarian support, as well as refuge for displaced people, and will continue to do so; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) reaffirms the 11th Emergency Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which also condemned, deplored, and expressed grave concern over attacks on civilian populations and infrastructure, and reiterates its demand that Russia withdraw from Ukraine's recognised sovereign territory.</para></quote>
<para>I'm very grateful for the opportunity to have moved this motion. Friday the 24th marked one year since the full-scale unlawful invasion of the Ukraine by Russia. On that day the lives of 40 million Ukrainians changed forever. The invasion has resulted in a toll of destruction, many thousands of human casualties and the displacement of over 14 million Ukrainians. Ukrainian families were torn apart as they were forced to make the difficult decision whether to stay or to go.</para>
<para>On that day the world order changed as well. Suddenly there was a war in Europe, a war that could spread to other territories, a war that threatens to escalate and threatens democratic values, and a war that impacts on the availability of basic essentials for people around the world. On 24 February the world became more dangerous and precarious for everyone. The stability that we had come to take for granted over the years was over.</para>
<para>Yet, through all the ways this war has impacted people in countries around the world, it is the Ukrainian people who are truly suffering. I say to the people of Ukraine: 'Our thoughts and our prayers are with you.' I commend their strength, courage and resilience in the face of this aggression. We will continue to support the people of Ukraine. We will continue to support them and stand with them.</para>
<para>Russia's invasion of Ukraine was an unprovoked attack. It was in blatant disregard for the intention of the rule of law and it is a direct violation of the UN Charter, which protects everyone's sovereignty. We must continue to speak loudly and clearly against such acts. This invasion continues a pattern of illegal and immoral aggression against Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Australia continues to stand with Ukraine against Russian aggression.</para>
<para>This immoral and illegal invasion is something that the whole of the Australian parliament stands in unity against. I was proud to stand with my parliamentary colleagues and the members of the opposition—everyone in the chamber—in the House of Representatives in solidarity with the Ukrainian people. We have provided Ukraine with military and humanitarian support, as well as refuge for displaced people, and will continue to do so.</para>
<para>On 24 February this year, one year since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the government reaffirmed its support for the people of Ukraine. We announced additional support in the form of uncrewed aerial systems, or drones. In February, 200 Ukrainian soldiers graduated from the Australian based training that's occurring in the UK under Operation Kudu. I want to take the opportunity to thank the Australian armed forces for the vital role that they have played and are playing. We also announced additional sanctions against a further 90 people and organisations who are involved in the Russian war machine. Our sanctions have hit more than 1,000 parties, and we will continue to act in coalition with other democratic forces around the world to impose these sanctions.</para>
<para>This war is causing damage not just to the people of Ukraine but also to the Russian soldiers and to the people of Russia, who have no idea of what the future holds. This is especially so for the soldiers who are being sent to the front line. This war will only result in death and destruction on both sides. The people of Ukraine, led by President Zelenskyy, have shown incredible resolve during what they've been through in the last 12 months. It's taken incredible resolve and courage to withstand an invasion by a much larger and more powerful country.</para>
<para>But this has come with enormous sacrifice, of course. In the face of this sacrifice and the constant pressure from air raids, attack and atrocities committed by the invading forces in Ukraine, the Ukrainian people have stood tall. Not only are the Ukrainian people fighting for their country and their sovereignty and protecting themselves; they are also fighting for every person and country who cares about democratic values, the rule of law and the rule of international law. That's why we here in Australia, in this parliament and in this place will continue to stand with the people and government of Ukraine.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there a seconder for the motion?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burnell</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I commend the member for Adelaide for his fine words. On this issue, all of us stand as one. What is happening in the Ukraine is beyond despicable. It's beyond deplorable. It is absolutely devastating, and all of us know and agree that Russia should immediately cease its hostilities and withdraw from all Ukrainian territory. That is the only way that this abhorrent war can be brought to an end. I'm sure all of us call on Russia and, in particular, President Putin, to cease, withdraw and take the responsible action that he needs to take at this time, because the suffering is too great. Not only are we seeing suffering in Ukraine; as a consequence, we're also seeing it in Russia as well, through the loss of life of Russian soldiers and the harm that it's doing to the Russian economy and to the very fabric of Russian society. So there is very good self-interest for Putin himself to act in the morally, ethically and responsible way.</para>
<para>To the people of Ukraine: our hearts and thoughts and prayers go out to you for what you are bearing at the moment. All of us in this parliament and right across our nation stand with you in the bravery and extraordinary courage that you have shown in tackling the current war that you are fighting. I think all of us have been absolutely taken to a place we never thought we could be taken to when it comes to such courage and when it comes to an extraordinary ability to defend one's sovereignty, to defend one's liberty, in a way we often wondered we all had in us. But the Ukrainians have shown that they have it in them, and the way they have fought has been nothing but inspirational.</para>
<para>Many of us were worried that the war could have been over in one week or two weeks, but the way the Ukrainians have fought has been quite remarkable. But it is not over. As we've read recently, just in the last couple of days Russian forces are continuing to advance in some territories in the Ukraine. That is why the rest of the world has to stand with Ukraine in its fight. We have to make sure that we continue to provide military aid. Australia has gone beyond what most countries have and I think it's time all countries stepped up and followed our lead, led by the immediate response by the Morrison government, followed by the response we've seen from the Albanese government. We have to ensure that the rest of the world continues to provide that military aid and, in particular, military hardware to enable the Ukrainians to respond, and respond in a way that will see the Russians defeated.</para>
<para>We've also got to make sure we continue to look after the Ukrainian people. We've done that here in Australia. We've taken thousands of Ukrainians and given them the option to spend some time here, to settle here, while the war continues. We've got to make sure we continue to provide that sanctuary for the Ukrainian people while they deal with this abhorrent war with Russia.</para>
<para>Can I end by acknowledging the contribution that has been made by the Ukrainian ambassador here in Australia and also by the leaders of the Ukrainian community here in Australia. Vasyl and Stefan have done an extraordinary job in rallying the Ukrainian people here in Australia and making sure their interests are incredibly well represented. I had the great honour of going to the Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral in Melbourne to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the war starting, and to see the Ukrainian community still with that strong spirit, of the need to make sure they defeat this adversary and protect their sovereignty, was extraordinarily special.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The anniversary of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine was a sad realisation that many had made in recent times: it's difficult to believe this war began just over a year ago. For some of us, this realisation occurred upon the visit by Ukraine's ambassador to Australia to this building just a few weeks ago. It certainly would not feel like yesterday to him. It certainly doesn't feel like yesterday to the thousands of brave men and women fighting against the Russian troops across their home soil. It certainly does not feel like just yesterday to the thousands of Ukrainian Australians, many with family who have come under harm's way or have, like millions of Ukrainians, become displaced by this senseless war of aggression.</para>
<para>The day was spent in many ways across this country, from a vigil held on the steps of Parliament House in my home state of South Australia to protests in front of the Russian Embassy right here in Canberra. Some may say that Russia would take little notice of such things, but we cannot sit idly by and let the world see, or let Russia see, that day pass without any reaction on our part. We must maintain this vigil with our words and with our actions until peace is restored again to the region. Without such vigilance, we play right into the hands of Vladimir Putin. I am sure he is banking on the West to have a short attention span or an empathy deficit due to the conflict being far enough away to be merely a spectator sport. We cannot allow this to happen. This is why we stand up in places like this, the parliament of our nation, in order to amplify and deliver messages such as this.</para>
<para>I thank my South Australian colleague the member for Adelaide for moving this motion today. It gives me the opportunity to speak out in support of Ukraine, in support of our local Ukrainian diaspora and in support of scores of Russian Australians out there who are equally as horrified by the actions of Putin and of the Russian government. It gives me the opportunity to speak in support of the hopes of all of us for the restoration of peace and the return of Ukraine's sovereign territory so they can take care of their wounded and rebuild the many shattered cities and critical infrastructure across ever-changing front lines over the course of this conflict.</para>
<para>The admonishment of Vladimir Putin and Russia's government is not admonishment of Russia's people. After all, we're not all tarred and feathered by the actions of our governments, whether those actions are policy failures or, in this case, vaulting well over the bar of what we would define as an atrocity and an affront to peace and decency.</para>
<para>In Australia we can all speak up and speak out on the decisions made by our governments and elected officials. But, as we know, this is not the case everywhere in the world. It is certainly not the case in Russia. Speaking out against Putin, the Kremlin or other senior government officials often puts one in as much peril as the soldiers on the front line. Many have attempted to escape, but Putin has made it difficult to evade his wrath. Though, for many deaths, what exactly happened remains inconclusive—or who was ultimately responsible—it is a common theme that speaking out against Putin is a very dangerous endeavour.</para>
<para>Australia's place in the world is that of a peacekeeper. We were a founding member of the United Nations after its establishment at the conclusion of World War II. We, along with 50 other nations, ratified the Charter of the United Nations. We were the first president of the United Nations Security Council, all the way back in 1946, back in the days when the West and the East joined together to stamp out evil and to stamp out the hubris of petty despots and tyrants. But, though peacekeepers we may be, we play our part well and in lock step with the rest of the free world in this ever-changing global paradigm. Dr Geoff Raby put it quite well in <inline font-style="italic">Australian Foreign Affairs</inline> issue16, published late last year:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… upon the election of our Government … you would expect many countries to have received a visit before venturing into Eastern Europe … it doesn't signify a lack of importance that we place in the region.</para></quote>
<para>But the fact that our Prime Minister chose to visit Ukraine within months of taking office shows a shift in our view and in the world's view—for, if we divert our gaze for a moment, we run the risk of atrocities going unchecked and a proud people suffering further. I stand with the Ukrainian people. We cannot give up or halt our efforts until peace exists. Slava Ukraini.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One year on from the illegal invasion of Ukraine, the toll on the world stands very, very high. It's appropriate that this parliament mark solemnly the deaths of 7,000 people that we know of, the displacement of 14 million people in Ukraine and a world torn apart by the consequences of Vladimir Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Australia, of course, as a nation dedicated to individual freedoms, human rights and individual rights, stands very firmly with our allies in Europe and around the world to stand up for Ukraine, the citizens that are fighting this war and the people that have banded together to stand up to this great evil. It's a situation that we've seen on repeat in recent years, and there's an investment that we have made as a country far away, on the other side of the world, in a people who are fighting for their liberty and fighting for their basic individual and human rights.</para>
<para>Vladimir Putin, in recent times, has been responsible for atrocities around the world. Whether it started in Chechnya, in Syria, in Georgia, in Ossetia, in Crimea or, now, in Ukraine, the pattern is clear. The tyrant that is Vladimir Putin has publicly stated that he intends to re-establish the Soviet empire, an empire that was responsible for the deaths of 60 million people. He seems to think that that is a worthy objective, and he has certainly made a good fist of it with that horrible list of atrocities through all of those countries, and his wrecking ball that he is now applying to Europe and to the world.</para>
<para>So it's only right that Australia is sending our military aid. There's $655 million in total aid, but $475 million in military assistance—with of course our humanitarian aid and compassion—to aid the Ukraine people in their defence. It has allowed Ukraine to recapture 54 per cent of the territory that Russia initially seized. Given the awful surprise attack and the overwhelming odds against the Ukrainian people, this is a stunning achievement, but it's been bought at the cost of the lives of several thousand people already and 14 million people without a home.</para>
<para>At the beginning of this conflict we welcomed here people from Ukraine, and we continue to welcome those who need safe harbour, who need temporary protection and who need to flee. Of course, people who have come from Ukraine want to return to a safe and secure country that is protected from Russia, so we continue to support the effort—the war that is being waged—on behalf of free peoples all around the world.</para>
<para>I commend very much our partners in Europe for the leadership they've shown. In recent times, Europe has faced economic strife, social strife and a refugee crisis that is the greatest displacement of people that we've seen in Europe since World War II. At every turn, Vladimir Putin has sought not to be a good partner or friend to the countries of Europe but to take advantage of each of these crises, whether it be through economic unrest, with his unconscionable actions in cutting off power and controlling the power supply through the gas to Europe; whether it be through his deliberate manipulation of refugees and the greatest refugee crisis since World War II in Europe; or whether it be through his illegal invasions and activities in countries in the Middle East and throughout Europe. When we think about our partners and friends in this regard—the countries of Poland, Lithuania, Romania and Hungary—we remember that migrants from these great countries came to Australia after World War II, fleeing a great evil in Europe, and established homes here and built communities. Many of us are here because of that great evil. Many Ukrainians will come here again, and we welcome them.</para>
<para>One year on, we must not give up on the people of Ukraine or the nation that Ukraine has shown itself to be, forging itself in the fire of an illegal invasion led by a hideous despot—a new tyrant of our age and one of the world's worst dictators, who has no regard for individual rights, human rights or human life. The people of Ukraine are fighting a war for freedom in the world today. They're fighting a war for their families, they're fighting a war for Europe and they're doing so at their own expense. It's right and proper that the Australian government continues to support it. It's right and proper that we have a united and bipartisan commitment to support Ukraine through this period.</para>
<para>I know that Australia, being the nation that it is with the carefree, happy-go-lucky people that we are, will never forget the downing of MH17 or the people who died from the Netherlands and from Australia. We'll never forget our citizens shot down by Russian tyranny. We'll never forget our friends in Europe. We'll never forget the people of Ukraine. One year on, we fully support everything that Ukraine is doing to defend itself and establish itself as a country of freedom in Europe.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Friday 24 February marked one year since Russia launched its illegal and immoral full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The war raging as we speak is an unlawful attack against Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. It has now resulted, according to US estimates, in 200,000 dead and many injured. At least 40,000 civilians have likely died in the conflict, and 140,000 buildings have been destroyed, costing around US$350 billion. Fourteen million Ukrainians fled the country when war broke out, and seven million are internally displaced. These are mainly women.</para>
<para>The Russian invasion is not a limited war bound by the laws of armed conflict in the UN Charter. The images of civilian bodies lying in the streets of Bucha with their arms tied, shot after being tortured—which are clear war crimes—are too fresh in our minds for any of us to fall for that. Russia is pursuing a total war that aims at nothing less than the destruction of the national, cultural, religious and democratic institutions of the Ukrainian people.</para>
<para>The initial Russian war aim was not what Moscow's propaganda machine parroted to its own population: a clinical intervention to de-Nazify a country led by a Jewish leader. It was not. The goal was regime change. The initial Russian war plan was to storm Kyiv, kill President Zelenskyy and install a puppet regime. This plan failed because it met with the irresistible force of the heroic and effective resistance of the Ukrainian armed forces which, frankly, stunned the world. Russia's plan also failed because it met with the awe-inspiring reaction of a genuine people's war. Within days, Ukrainian society mobilised en masse. Many young and old Ukrainians joined the armed forces and territorial defence units by the thousands, not simply because they had to but because they wanted to. Compare that, if you will, with the 700,000 young people who fled the country during mass mobilisation in Russia. Countless Ukrainian civilians also joined the war effort by flying reconnaissance drones, raising funds, and even, in the case of Ukrainian farmers, literally towing away enemy tanks.</para>
<para>The Russians have greatly underestimated the Ukrainian people. They also dramatically underestimated the sympathy and solidarity that their resistance would kindle for Ukraine around the world. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy estimates that 46 countries gave the equivalent of $168 billion in financial, humanitarian and military aid from the start of the war. That's immense when you consider that Ukraine's GDP was $290 billion in 2021.</para>
<para>I wish to acknowledge local advocates in Darwin, including the Northern Territory Ukrainian Society president, Tatiana Hoffmann, for their leadership on this issue. With Tatiana and supporters, we gathered in front of the NT parliament to mark a year of the war. Last week in Melbourne, I caught up with the ambassador, Vasyl, and reiterated our solidarity with Ukraine. Slava Ukraini.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When His Excellency Vasyl Myroshnychenko pitched to be Ukraine's ambassador to Australia he felt, given his background, it would be a role about commerce, economic development and trade. Building business links between his nation and ours was to be a priority for this Chevening scholar, who has a master's in sciences in politics of the world economy from the London School of Economics and Political Science.</para>
<para>Mr Myroshnychenko arrived in Australia directly from the Ukraine capital, Kyiv, on 26 March 2022. Russia had invaded his homeland little more than a month earlier. As Mr Myroshnychenko told the National Press Club in Canberra on 24 February 2023, marking 12 months since the invasion began, his work here has been chiefly in military matters, not in enhancing trade opportunities as originally intended. In fact, he's had to be more of an arms dealer than an ambassador—so much so that he has earned the nickname 'Vasyl the Bushmaster' for his advocacy to obtain the world-renowned, Bendigo-built infantry mobility vehicle. Australia has delivered upwards of 90 Bushmasters to Ukraine, to help in the fight against Russia. Describing the Bushmaster as 'handy and hardy', Mr Myroshnychenko went even further, saying: 'It is the Anzac spirit on wheels.' He added: 'Ukraine is lucky that Australia is in our blue and gold corner.' That said, 140 other countries are also on Ukraine's side. Mr Myroshnychenko said Russia's actions were 'not only a war on Ukraine but a war on democracy'. How very true. He said Ukraine was being hit with—wait for it— 20,000 Russian bombs a day. That's about 15 every minute; you can just imagine.</para>
<para>'The goal for Ukraine,' he told the Press Club, 'is to win in 2023, for the world's sake. It will be won by all on the side of democracy being beyond brave.' Earlier in his address, Mr Myroshnychenko said thousands of Ukrainian citizens had been killed during the 'illegal' and immoral' invasion. We've all seen those images of the maternity wards of hospitals being bombed beyond repair. This is an outrage. This is disgraceful. The world needs to unite even further, to do all we can, to help those Ukrainians.</para>
<para>Ukraine is a major supplier of grain and food for countries in the Horn of Africa, and they are now facing starvation. They are facing famine. The member for Moreton knows this. He and I have had a number of discussions about this. This is because of the disruption to supplies and supply chains because of the Russian invasion. 'Russia has compromised the food and energy security of so many countries,' Mr Myroshnychenko said. 'Australia has been a real mate to Ukraine, standing up to a bully.'</para>
<para>Closer to home, we have a Ukrainian musician in my home town of Wagga Wagga. Her name is Larissa Burack. She is a beautiful human being. She continues to raise funds and awareness, through concerts. She can play the traditional Ukrainian instruments. She can sing. Her version of the Ukrainian anthem has to be heard to be believed. It makes the hairs stand up on the back of your neck. She has been speaking at many events about the plight of her beloved country. While she is a long, long way from home, being in Wagga Wagga, her heart is still very much with her homeland. I understand that. It must be so difficult for her. She said she believed that Ukraine would ultimately prevail, 'But we need a lot of help.' And she is right.</para>
<para>The Ukrainian embassy's charge d'affaires, Volodymyr Shalkivskyi, was given a civic reception by Wagga Wagga City Council on 16 September last year, and he returned to town on 21 December to catch up with Uranquinty veteran Damien Nye. Damien is doing a fantastic job to provide humanitarian aid to those in Ukraine, and he is being supported in that cause by Wagga Wagga Rotary clubs, and particularly the Rotary Club of Wagga Wagga.</para>
<para>On 3 March last year Wagga Wagga held a prayer vigil in the Victory Memorial Gardens for those in Ukraine. The number of people who came out, from all backgrounds, all sides of politics, young and old, was, quite frankly, astonishing—but not really, when you think about it, because Wagga Wagga is a very peace-loving community, a diverse, multicultural community, and, when our friends get the treatment that they've been receiving from Russia, we stand as one. That's Wagga Wagga did, and we'll continue to help the national efforts to help Ukraine.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to speak on this motion and commend my good friend the member for Adelaide for moving it. The 24th of February marked a year since Russia launched its illegal invasion of Ukraine. This is a sombre occasion for the people of Ukraine. We mourn the incalculable losses that this country has endured. It is a scale of war we have not seen in Europe since 1945, and we're deeply saddened by the human suffering and the global crisis in food and energy security that is affecting Europe and Africa, as the previous speaker said, caused by Russia's action. We honour the unwavering resolve and strength of the Ukrainian people as they stand up to Russia's continual aggression. We're proud to stand with Ukraine as it defends its people, its territory and its sovereignty.</para>
<para>At its core, this is an unwillingness of the Putin regime in Russia to accept the independence of Ukraine. Russia's attack on Ukraine was an attack on all countries and on the fundamental norm of territorial integrity and sovereignty. It's not new. Just under a decade ago, the aggression in Crimea was on full display and, sadly, without significant international condemnation or response.</para>
<para>The Russian President, in an act of real doublespeak that George Orwell would have been proud of, signed the treaty of accession on 18 March 2014. That act of accession actually was an act of annexation—illegally taking Crimea into the Russian orbit. It's got nothing to do with de-Nazification, it's got nothing to do with Christianity and it's got everything to do with what Simon Sebag Montefiore, in his brilliant books <inline font-style="italic">The Romanovs</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar</inline>, talks about. The act of Putin could be anything that Peter the Great or Catherine the Great did during the Romanov era, which lasted from 1613 to 1917, or indeed the affliction and oppression perpetrated by Joseph Stalin on the people of Ukraine in the 1930s, when he forced the dispossession, dislocation and starvation of millions in Ukraine.</para>
<para>This has got zero, nothing, to do with democracy. It's got everything to do with a dictatorial regime that cannot understand, and cannot accept, international rules or liberal democracy. The attacks on the family and religion—this so-called defence—by Vladimir Putin offends me and offends people who call Christianity their faith and who believe in family values. This has got nothing to do with that. The international community must take, and has taken, collective action in relation to this. For our part, as an Australian government, we've imposed costs on Russia. We're proud of being partners in contributing to the defence, and to economic and humanitarian assistance.</para>
<para>Recently, when I was in Belgium and France, meeting with politicians and people in the EU, it was quite clear they recognise Australia's contribution to the support—humanitarian as well as military. In addition to the Bushmasters, we have provided additional military assistance. We have provided, for example, uncrewed aerial systems to the Ukrainian government. This support has provided battlefield intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance capability to the Ukrainian armed forces as they continue to fight against Russia. The announcement coincides with the first graduation of about 200 Australian-trained Ukrainian soldiers, as part of the UK-led multinational training effort to the Ukrainian armed forces. They leave with skills and knowledge that will save lives.</para>
<para>Just think of the damage done to the economy. We've seen an assault. The number of bombs being dropped on the Ukrainian people is like Verdun or the Somme. They're suffering is as if they're having the battle of Kursk or Stalingrad inflicted upon them.</para>
<para>We've joined 140 other nations to support a resolution calling for a just peace in Ukraine. A just peace involves Russia leaving Ukraine and, I think, paying reparations to the Ukrainian people for what the Russians have inflicted upon them. It's an utter disgrace. What they've done is not only unethical but also immoral. Children are being taken from their families. There are sexual assaults and the rape of women and children, and it is utterly offensive for those people who claim that they're doing it in the face of what they think is a country that's opposing them. It's not about faith; it's about war.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Adelaide for moving this motion. It's a motion that I support, along with all of my parliamentary colleagues. There has not been one dissenting voice in this Chamber, and that's a good thing for Ukraine, for Australia and for democracy.</para>
<para>Just over a year ago, Russia unlawfully invaded Ukraine. The decision was illegal. It was immoral. It is the invasion of another democratic state. It is, in this case, absolutely illegal, immoral and unethical. It is an assault on democracy. It's an assault on decency, brought by a man who—and I don't use this term lightly—I believe to be evil. It's right that we continue to call out Vladimir Putin for his war crimes, his hate and aggression, and I'm glad to see that a bipartisan international effort on the part of the west is supporting the Ukrainian people.</para>
<para>When I was Speaker in the last parliament, it was one of my proudest days when President Zelenskyy was given the honour of addressing a joint parliamentary sitting. It's something that I believe that Australia should press for, to show the world and the people of Ukraine that Australia stands with Ukraine. I want to send a shout-out to the Ukrainian ambassador to Australia. He has done an absolutely sensational job in defending the rights of his countrymen and countrywomen. Vasyl Myroshnychenko is a remarkable human being, and he really deserves all the praise that we can give him.</para>
<para>I'm very pleased see that the Labor government has continued to provide, as a nation, the same sort of assistance to the people of Ukraine that we provided when we were in power. Currently, 70 ADF personnel are training Ukrainian armed forces in England as part of Operation Interflex. We've provided $655 million in direct support, including $475 million in military aid. Australia is the largest non-NATO-member provider of support to Ukraine, and that's something that Australians should be very proud of.</para>
<para>Australia has sanctioned some 1,000 Russian oligarchs, defence members and politicians, and I'm very proud to say that every single one of the members and senators who sit in the House of Representatives and the Senate has had the same so-called honour bestowed upon them. We have been sanctioned by the Russian government, and I'm very proud to be sanctioned by the Russian government.</para>
<para>We've provided 90 Bushmasters, and I'm proud to say a local company in my electorate, Eniquest, provides the generators for those Bushmaster vehicles. At the same time, we continue to raise international pressure on Russia to do the right thing, with a coalition of 140 United Nations member states calling for a just peace.</para>
<para>I want to also send a shout-out to a local business. Whilst it is not in my electorate, it's on the Sunshine Coast. It is the efforts of this local business which have heartened me most, and I know that they've been of encouragement to the Ukrainian-Australian population as well. From church services and vigils, protests and flash mobs to school projects and street art, Australians have shown solidarity with the people of Ukraine and with international democratic values. Just last week, an organisation called Sunshine & Sons donated money from the sale of their gin to the war effort and the people of Ukraine. It's a good cause, and we stand with the people of Ukraine. Slava Ukraine!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 13:32 to 16:01</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>150</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Suicide Prevention</title>
          <page.no>150</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise this afternoon to speak on an extremely difficult issue, but one which has brought out incredible bravery and courage from a mother in my electorate, Tash Lambert. Tash lost her daughter, who was 17 years old. Sadly, Josie took her own life. This has, obviously, caused devastation to Tash and her family. But Tash is absolutely determined that something good comes out of this absolute tragedy, and so she's doing what she can to raise awareness around suicide prevention and making sure, especially in regional communities, that we can get the services that we need and the support to young people in our community so that young people do not take their lives. We all know that we have to continue to act and continue to make sure that we're doing all that we can when it comes to suicide prevention. Tash Lambert is leading the charge in south-west Victoria, and I commend her for everything that she's doing.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bennelong Electorate: Babies of Bennelong</title>
          <page.no>150</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Saturday I was proud to host the first ever Babies of Bennelong family fun day. Over a hundred families from across Bennelong gathered together at North Ryde School of Arts Community Centre to celebrate babies born across our community in the last 18 months. Families and kids from across the electorate had their faces painted, connected with local playgroups and health organisations, and visited stalls from community small businesses. As part of the festivities, we hosted a welcoming of babies ceremony, where we formally welcomed the newest and littlest members of our community. Some of them were really very, very little. We had babies as young as five weeks old that we welcomed to Bennelong with loud applause. Each family went home with a special certificate to commemorate the day, a gift bag full of goodies and a commemorative photo.</para>
<para>I'd like to thank Lyndal Howison, the state candidate for Ryde in the upcoming election, for her enormous efforts and help on the day. She emceed the event; she ran the reading event, where we read out little stories to the children; and she used her skills as a teacher really well. I'd love to thank Ryde District Mums, the Northern Centre, Johnson & Johnson, the Pharmacy Guild, My Gym at Top Ryde, Karitane, St John's Anglican church in North Ryde, Beyond The Book, ONE Smart Piano, Wu Kong, Bricks 4 Kidz, Globalart and of course all the families and lovely little children who joined us on the day. I look forward to making this an annual tradition and to celebrating many more babies and many more families in Bennelong.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Artarmon Public School</title>
          <page.no>150</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Artarmon Public School is a large primary school located in the heart of my electorate. It's community is typical of North Sydney, with many students having at least one parent who was not born in Australia and many others speaking a language other than English at home. In years 5 and 6 alone, there are 440 students whom I recently had the pleasure of meeting when I spent an hour talking to them about all things federal politics. At the end of my time with them, I left them with some homework. I asked them to let me know: if you were me for a day, what would you prioritise? I received thoughtful and articulate responses from over 100 students because, as it turns out, these guys know exactly what to prioritise.</para>
<para>These young Australians are concerned about climate change and its impact on sea levels, wildlife and the increasing frequency and cost of natural disasters. They are concerned about pollution, plastics in our oceans, waste management and recycling. They are concerned about local infrastructure and getting the right balance between development and housing needs and public green spaces. They are particularly concerned about the plight of refugees and about racism. Given their backgrounds, many of them relate strongly to experiences of others and they are openly perplexed about our country's detention policies and what they say about our sense of humanity.</para>
<para>I feel heartened to know that students so young are so engaged with their community, and I thank everyone at Artarmon Public School. You are truly among the best of us. and I am proud to speak for you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sydney WorldPride 2023</title>
          <page.no>150</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday the iconic Sydney Harbour Bridge became a sea of vibrant colour as 50,000 people walked together, marking the final day of WorldPride. From mid-summer to Mardi Gras, the last few weeks have been a celebration of equality and love. But we must never forget that these celebrations have a dark past—one of protest and brutality. Despite significant achievements like decriminalisation, antidiscrimination protections and marriage equality, there is still more work to do.</para>
<para>LGBTQI+ people have had the poorest mental health outcomes of any single cohort in Australia. Sadly, nearly half of all transgender people have attempted suicide in their lifetimes. LGBTQI+ people are also less likely to access healthcare services, due to barriers such as discrimination. This is why I'm proud that our government, under the leadership of my friend and colleague Ged Kearney, will deliver a 10-year national action plan for the health and wellbeing of the LGBTIQ community. This plan will be developed in consultation with the community because this is a government committed to listening to people and centring their lived experience and expertise.</para>
<para>Celebrating diversity and striving for equality is not something reserved for Mardi Gras; it is something that must be at the heart of what we do all year round.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gun Control</title>
          <page.no>151</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Mareeba pistol and rifle club raised the issue that it has taken 40 weeks to get a gun licence. Clearly the state government wants to eliminate guns altogether in the state of Queensland. These intellectual giants pit themselves against Archbishop Stephen Langton who wrote the Magna Carta and who put the right to bear arms in the Magna Carta. These intellectual giants that run Queensland pit themselves against Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the American constitution and the Declaration of Independence. And it may be more than passing strange that we have had a 1,000 per cent increase in crime in the state of Queensland. It is hopeless. The police are not turning up—not because the police are not good guys but because there are just not enough of them to handle the crime problem that is skyrocketing out of control. At least give the person the right to protect and defend his own home and his own family. That right is sacred, and it has been recognised by every single group of intelligent people who have ever sat down to write a document. So the right to bear arms—and I don't hesitate to say 'the right' to bear arms—is a fundamental right. The people opposed to that are people who will never be happy until the only people with guns are the people in uniform. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>healthAbility</title>
          <page.no>151</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently I had the privilege of meeting with representatives of healthAbility, a terrific not-for-profit organisation based in Box Hill in my electorate of Chisholm, which is committed to providing integrated quality, person focused health and wellbeing services. As we know, prevention is far better than cure, and enjoying good health is far more than just being physically healthy or without disease.</para>
<para>Helping to prevent illness and providing a holistic approach to care are two core objectives of healthAbility. Their broad range of services include helping empower people with disabilities to achieve their goals and get the best possible value from their NDIS package, and assisting people to navigate the My Aged Care system. They offer a comprehensive range of therapies, groups and programs, and mental health and dental services for children, youth and families. More broadly, they enable access to friendly local dental care, and they provide a mental health service that is person-centred, focused on moving with people as their needs change.</para>
<para>During our meeting, I was also briefed on Baby Makes 3, an innovative, evidence based, mental-health-promotion, social-change and family-violence-prevention initiative. It works to improve the mental health and wellbeing of first-time parents and their kids, by fostering equal and respectful relationships and collaborative co-parenting.</para>
<para>To the CEO, Agata, and the team: thanks for all the great work you do supporting our community, and I look forward to meeting again soon.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Live Animal Exports</title>
          <page.no>151</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Since the ALP announced their live export policy—or, rather, Australian Alliance for Animals announced their live export policy—last May, the live export trade in Western Australia, and particularly in my electorate, has been in absolute turmoil. The uncertainty that it has created has already created significant negative economic impacts.</para>
<para>Last week, the minister announced a panel to consult with the industry on closing itself down—effectively, a condemned man being invited to plan his own execution. As a result of that, I've received a copy of a letter written to the Hon. Murray Watt, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, from 25 peak industry groups. I was in agricultural politics for 20 years before I came to this place, and I've been here for another 10 years. I've never seen such a coordinated group come together to protest against this terrible policy. I will quote from their letter:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The policy represents a red line that cannot be crossed. We will never support legitimate agricultural industries being closed for political reasons, or to suit activist agendas.</para></quote>
<para>They go on to say, in relation to the extremely good results the industry is getting:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This reform has been recognised by the Western Australian Premier and his Agricultural Minister. We note that you have also acknowledged the improvements the industry has made.</para></quote>
<para>And yet the minister is still pressing ahead, closing down this legal and effective industry that is so important to Western Australia. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Backpacks 4 VIC Kids</title>
          <page.no>152</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week, I was proud to visit Backpacks 4 VIC Kids, a wonderful charity headquartered around the corner from my office in Cranbourne West. I loved the tour of their warehouse with the founder, Sally Beard, and a team member, Shion. They support Victorian kids in need of material aid, such as those in emergency accommodation, kinship care and foster care. Often, when they are placed into these services, these children have nothing but the clothes on them. Backpacks 4 VIC Kids ensure they receive backpacks with crucial supplies, for their age and gender, so they know that someone, somewhere, cares about them.</para>
<para>I am so proud to have charities like Backpacks 4 VIC Kids in my electorate of Holt. It is a symbol of our community's kindness and desire to help those who need it the most. While Backpacks 4 VIC Kids is proud to call Holt their home, I am confident that each and every one of my Victorian colleagues have at least one constituent who is thankful for their work. Kudos to you, Sally and the team. I am confident that Australia is a better place because of the support that you provide.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Grey Electorate: Balaklava Swimming Pool, Building Better Regions Fund</title>
          <page.no>152</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week, I was very pleased to attend the opening of the new Balaklava pool. It was the first time that the kids in Balaklava had been able to have a swim for three years. It was funded under the BBRF—50 per cent funding, of about $1.58 million. I congratulate Mayor Rodney Reid and his team for putting it together. It's now eight lanes instead of six. There is a splash pad and disability entry into the pool. It's a fantastic facility.</para>
<para>However, the scheme it was funded by, the BBRF, has now been scrapped by the current government. They scrapped round 6, though all the assessments had been done. Now, here we are, nine months later, and, despite the government telling us they were going to have a new funding program, we are yet to see anything of it or hear how my community, or any local community in Australia, may apply to it. I'm urging the government to get on with the job. I'm also giving the government the advice that this scheme, whatever it may look like, should not be reclassifying suburban metropolitan seats as regional, as they did with their previous effort in this area.</para>
<para>In closing—it's a bit of a gripe, I must say—I was pretty disappointed, after being invited to speak on the opening agenda, that the government, through the department, leaned on the council and told them, with 24 hours notice, to scratch me off the list, which they had to do. I spoke at the end, in any case. But let me say: that's petty politics. <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Greece: Train Disaster</title>
          <page.no>152</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tuesday, 28 February, will be remembered as a black day for the nation of Greece. A serious and tragic train disaster has left at least 57 people dead and dozens more injured, some of them extremely seriously. We've all seen the scenes on our TVs and in the media in the last week or so. Our deepest condolences go to the families and friends of the people killed but also to all Greeks in Greece and all Greek Australians here in the Australian community who are mourning this terrible incident, which many say was an avoidable tragedy. There are still many bodies that haven't been recovered. Many people have relatives over there. I haven't heard of any Australian victims thus far, but there are still many bodies being recovered. Rescue workers are still going through burnt and buckled carriages, still searching for victims. The accident happened as the passenger train, travelling from Athens to Thessaloniki, emerged from a tunnel in the area of Tempi. At the same time a freight train was travelling in the opposite direction.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">A </inline> <inline font-style="italic">division ha</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ving</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> been called in the </inline> <inline font-style="italic">H</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ouse</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 16:16 to 16:29</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jack Beasley Foundation</title>
          <page.no>152</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Friday the Jack Beasley Foundation held its annual fundraiser, Legends Lunch. I'd like to take the opportunity to commend the tireless advocacy by Brett and Belinda Beasley to make Gold Coast streets safer. Since its inception, the foundation has advocated for wanding, and a 12-month police wanding trial commenced in the Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach safe night precincts from 30 April 2021, with great success. In late 2022 the Queensland Premier announced that the wanding trial will continue for a further two years and be rolled out into all the safe night precincts and on all Queensland public transport, and this will be known as Jack's law.</para>
<para>Years on from the tragic loss of their son, Brett and Belinda continue to channel their grief into an inspirational passion to ensure no other parent goes through what they have. Their motto, 'Detect knives, save lives,' is being realised, and young people's lives are now being saved right across the state of Queensland. I praise Brett and Belinda Beasley for their courage and determination to create this lasting legacy in honour of their son, Jack Beasley. What they've done is simply extraordinary, and it's important that the House take note of this wonderful family and the legacy they're leaving.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>153</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week 90-plus people came out to Belair National Park to hear about the Voice to Parliament. We were welcomed to country by emerging Kaurna elder Tamaru, who conducted a smoking ceremony, and South Australian Attorney-General Kyam Maher spoke about the South Australian government's legislation, currently before that parliament, to legislate a South Australian Voice. Then I spoke about the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Voice to Parliament.</para>
<para>In public health there is a well-known saying: 'Nothing about me without me'. This basic principle can be applied to a wide range of situations. For me, this is the principle behind the Voice. The Closing the Gap campaign, set up in 2007, aims to address the significant disparity in health and social outcomes experienced by First Nations people in this country. Sixteen years later, only four of the 18 targets are on track, and some are going backwards. First Nations Australians still have a life expectancy almost a decade less than that of other Australians. This is not to say that there has been no effort and resources put towards closing the gap; however, it's clear that we aren't making a difference. Maybe it's time to ask First Nations people what will work, and that's what the Voice is about. At Belair we had a number of people asking questions, many identifying themselves as undecided. This was a great opportunity to ask those questions and understand more about the proposal and the process in a relaxed setting. Many thanks to those who came out. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation: Taxation</title>
          <page.no>153</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to thank the tens of thousands of my constituents and millions of Australians who are self-funded retirees. I thank them so much for what they have done to work hard, save and provision for their retirement. We need to be ever grateful for the contribution they're making to this country through their economic independence and the burden they take off the taxpayer for services they are absolutely entitled to. But, equally, through their hard work and savings, they have done the work to be self-sufficient. We need to always acknowledge them for that hard work and stand by them and stand up for them.</para>
<para>I want to send them a particular message. If you feel that there are some in politics that are treating you like you've done the wrong thing or that there's something wrong with working hard, saving and provisioning for your retirement, you need to know that the coalition stands behind you and will absolutely fight to protect the savings that you've worked hard for to provision for your own retirement. It is a big decision to leave the workforce, and it is very stressful to make a decision about whether or not you've saved enough to live the retirement that you hope to. The worst thing that can happen to people is to have the rules changed on them, to have the goal posts shifted. On this side of the House, we will fight against those disgraceful changes at any and every opportunity. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dunkley Electorate: Environment</title>
          <page.no>153</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently I made a submission on behalf of my community to the Treasury consultation about how the government should measure what matters. I was thinking about this on the weekend, when so many members of my community took part in Clean Up Australia Day. The health of our environment is so important to the people of Dunkley, with our beautiful coastline, our fauna and flora parks and our creeks. A wellbeing budget, or measuring what matters, is designed to help us monitor things like the health of our environment. Whenever people talk about how you should measure what matters or what should be in a wellbeing budget, the environment always features because spending time in nature, we know, decreases stress, anxiety and depression and has positive effects on cognitive function, physical activity and creativity.</para>
<para>Natural spaces need to be available to all Australians no matter where we live, and we know that climate change is impacting that and that any government that cares about the future of its citizens needs to act urgently not just to reduce global warming but to protect precious species, flora and fauna. If we position economic growth and wellbeing alongside each other but as indivisible, we can enable more integrated problem-solving. If we measure how our environment is faring, we can bring in policies that will protect it now and into the future. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Casey Electorate: Roads</title>
          <page.no>153</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was insightful last week to join so many community minded residents from Kallista who are fighting for improvements to local roads and drains. Gleghorn Road, Emberson Street and Rivington Avenue in Kallista were due to be sealed under the roads for community program, which had funding cut by the Albanese Labor government despite them committing to this funding previously. This would have drastically improved the flooding situation faced by the Kallista township and reduced the amount of gravel ending up in local waterways. Thank you to Sam, from the Kallista Tea Rooms, for hosting the community forum, and to Karen and Mark, from the Kallista Flood Watch Group, for their ongoing advocacy.</para>
<para>I will keep advocating to the Albanese Labor government to fund these works in the upcoming budget, and I will continue to call on the Albanese Labor government to reinstate the roads for community program in the upcoming budget to ensure hundreds of dirt roads across our Yarra Ranges community are sealed. From Healesville to Warburton, from Coldstream to Wandin, from Mount Evelyn to Monbulk, out to Belgrave and Tecoma and every other township in between, I will keep working hard to ensure this funding is restored to seal our local roads and improve the safety of our community. This funding had bipartisan support. It's another broken promise from this tricky Prime Minister.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>United Nations High Seas Treaty</title>
          <page.no>154</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Saturday evening in New York, after two decades of negotiations, the global community achieved a very significant milestone. The United Nations High Seas Treaty is an historic global agreement which will place 30 per cent of the world's oceans into protected areas by 2030. It will help protect and sustain marine biodiversity outside our national jurisdictions and will extend legally binding protection into international waters. There's no question overfishing and pollution threaten the health and sustainability of our oceans. This treaty will put in place measures to protect marine life, establish new ocean sanctuaries and help deliver nature positive outcomes through stronger impact assessments. It will safeguard food security and all the livelihoods that depend on the high seas.</para>
<para>We should take some pride in the fact that Australia worked hard to achieve this ambitious treaty and also supported the participation of our friends in the Pacific. Of course, it was Labor that created Australia's national network of marine parks, and I congratulate the Minister for the Environment and Water for announcing the effective tripling of the Macquarie Island Marine Park just the other day. I also commend the work of civil society groups and all those who have campaigned for this long-sought-after high-seas agreement. It demonstrates not only how the Albanese Labor government recognises the need for stronger environmental protection but also what the international community can achieve through focused negotiation when it's guided by the science.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Barker Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>154</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Summer and autumn in Barker is show season. It's one of my favourite times of the year. In fact, with over 25 shows across the electorate, we also have spring shows. It's just winter when we don't have shows. It's my favourite time of the year not because I am the first person to line up at the Lions Club for doughnuts or at the Rotary Club for a sausage sizzle but because I get to take my electorate office on the road. Like I said, there are 25 or so shows across 12 months in my electorate. Recently I had the pleasure of being at the 126th Angaston Show. I was also, on the weekend, at the Mannum Show. The Mundulla Show was taking place at the same time, and my office was set up there. I'm looking forward, in coming weeks, to being at the Tanunda Show and the Lucindale South East Field Days. I'll have staff at the Mount Pleasant Show as well.</para>
<para>Why are these mobile offices important? They're important because constituents can come right up to you, have a chat and talk about things that matter to them. Shows are important because they allow regional communities to showcase the best of what they have and they're about communities coming together. I want to give huge thanks and congratulations to the volunteers across all of the communities that deliver these shows, and I want to thank everyone for stopping and having a yarn to me about the things that matter to them. There's nothing more grassroots than a conversation with a constituent at a show.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Corrections Day</title>
          <page.no>154</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In January of this year, I attended the National Corrections Day celebrations at Shortland Correctional Centre in Cessnock. On this day, I joined with custodial officers, community officers, industry workers, psychologists and programs officers, security and intelligence staff and dedicated administrative support teams to recognise the amazing work and, importantly, the amazing staff at the Shortland Correctional Centre in Cessnock. What an eye-opening experience it was for me. I was amazed at how big this complex was, with three jails on site, ranging from minimum through to maximum security.</para>
<para>Our corrections staff do a great deal of work with offenders, for very little recognition, but National Corrections Day is an opportunity to acknowledge the great work the staff do. I was honoured to have the chance to present awards to staff and congratulate them on their hard work and the achievements they have made. I was then lucky enough to take a tour of the facility before sampling some of the bread that was made that day on site. I would like to take the opportunity to say thank you to all the custodial officers, community corrections staff, industry workers, psychologists and programs officers, and security and intelligence staff for all the work they do within our community. We are very lucky to have you as part of it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>155</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The cost-of-living and inflation crisis is being driven by corporate profiteering and price gouging. This has been confirmed by a recent Australia Institute report, which has found that corporations in Australia increased prices by $160 billion above the cost of wages, taxes and other inputs. Without those excess profits, inflation would have actually been within or near the Reserve Bank's targets. In other words, the higher prices you're paying on grocery bills, fuel, energy and even your mortgage are going almost entirely into the coffers of multinational corporations.</para>
<para>Recent profit announcements from some of Australia's biggest corporations are stark. With food prices up over 11 per cent since 2020, Coles and Woolworths recorded a combined $1.5 billion profit, up 17 and 14 per cent respectively. After a record set of consecutive interest rate increases, mortgages are up over $1,000 extra a month for the average mortgage. Meanwhile, the Commonwealth Bank just recorded a $5.5 billion profit, up nine per cent. With household gas costs going through the roof, Santos and Woodside both announced a tripling of their profits. It's an absolute disgrace.</para>
<para>There is a solution to this, though, and the first of it is that the government should finally come to the table and agree to freeze rent increases, use the existing powers they have to stop interest rate increases and instead introduce a superprofits tax on multinational corporations, scrap the stage 3 tax cuts and raise that $600 billion that we know could provide real cost-of-living relief to Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rugby Union</title>
          <page.no>155</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are connected by our deep love of sport and shared values and history. Australia's rugby relations with the Pacific are increasingly important. Australia's presence in the Pacific sporting landscape creates a very successful vehicle for soft power, through sports diplomacy. Australia's Sports Diplomacy 2030 strategy highlights the role that sport plays in building Australia's ties with our neighbours. In 2021 the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Rugby Australia entered the Australian Pacific Rugby Union Partnership, under DFAT's multimillion-dollar PacificAus Sports program. Last year the Australian government, backed by Rugby Australia, was a key player in enabling Fiji's entry into the Southern Hemisphere's premier professional rugby tournament.</para>
<para>Australia is now embarking on a decade at the centre of world sport. Australia will host the men's 2027 Rugby World Cup and the women's 2029 Rugby World Cup. Rugby sevens will also be played at the 2026 Melbourne Commonwealth Games and at the 2032 Brisbane Olympics. This once-in-a-generation opportunity will leave a lasting legacy for Australian diplomacy, rugby and PacificAus Sports in the Pacific. That is why rugby is the game they play in heaven.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>155</page.no>
        <type>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Parliament Sports Club</title>
          <page.no>155</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises the role that the Australian Parliament House Sports Club, under the stewardship of Andy Turnbull, plays in promoting sport and fostering international relations development and friendship as part of a worldwide movement;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australian Parliament House Sports Club is part of a global network which connects with like-minded democracies and unites the world through sport, such as the cricket team visiting the United Kingdom and the rugby team visiting France this year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) combined health benefits, both physical and mental, that sport supports, especially in the workplace, by encouraging participation in sport for people of all abilities with a view to improving fitness, health and enjoyment; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) professional and bi-partisan manner, in which the Australian Parliament House Sports Club conducts itself; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that sport is a true global unifier and a successful vehicle for diplomacy, through inclusiveness, gender equity and the participation of people of all abilities.</para></quote>
<para>It gives me great pleasure to get to my feet and acknowledge the amazing work conducted not only in this place but on the international scene by a gentlemen who's little known to the Australian public but well known to members and senators in this House. Andy Turnbull, of the Australian Parliamentary Sports Club program, is worthy of acclamation and worthy of the great affirmation and praise that I am about to bestow on him.</para>
<para>Andy is the coordinator of the parliamentary sports program, and we, in this place, know all too well the role that sport plays on the international scene in uniting nations not only in the Commonwealth but also on the global scene, particularly through the examples of Olympic sportsmanship. Sport has the capacity to merge cultures. There's no greater 100-metre race than seeing the Americans, Chinese and Russians all competing, with athletes taking the victorious gold, silver and bronze medals but coming together, united under the platform of sport. Not only does it unite the world; it unites our parliament. The bipartisan environment that exists in this parliament around a number of sports is worthy of note. It doesn't only exist in this House. We also have members of the parliamentary sports program that travel from the different state jurisdictions around this great nation.</para>
<para>We just heard from the previous speaker, the member for Solomon, that rugby is the game played in heaven, and we'll be taking a rugby squad to France to play curtain-raisers for the World Cup. That squad will consist of men and women from state and federal parliaments—both sides of the House and senators. We'll travel to France, and we'll probably tag team with our Australian cricket team, who'll be there a few months before us, playing cricket against an English squad. But I'll get back to the rugby. There are seven squads in the competition: the Australian government; the New Zealand government; the French government, who, of course, will be hosting; a Lions squad, which is the Irish government and the UK House of Commons and Senate; the South African government; the Argentinian government; and the Japanese government.</para>
<para>The relationships that exist in that environment, where you get to meet parliamentarians from around the world from both sides of politics, are nothing short of inspiring. This is not a phenomenon that exists only in Australia, but the parliamentary sports club exists to foster international relationships and develop those friendships as part of a worldwide movement. Members participate in a number of sporting events throughout the year, including cricket, football, golf, rugby, netball, tennis and many other sports.</para>
<para>I also want to acknowledge the amazing work that Andy does with the women in sports program. For the last 10 years, Andy has showcased women in sport. He has brought the Diamonds to the parliament, and, if the women haven't been here, they've been down at the Hyatt, where he has run functions. We've seen the female rowers who brought back gold from the Olympics. He has promoted the Australian female soccer team. He was at the forefront well before it was sexy to be doing that. Andy Turnbull was a pioneer in this place. The other thing it does—and the member for Solomon touched on it—is foster wonderful relationships with our Pacific islanders. I should have always been the Pacific islanders minister because not only do I speak rugby but I'm also their size.</para>
<para>Andy Turnbull, thank you for the amazing work that you do for the parliamentary sports program. May you always have strength in your arm to continue to conduct this well-received initiative, notwithstanding the amount of money that you give to charities around the world. Andy Turnbull, you are worthy of notoriety and affirmation. Keep up the great work.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there a seconder of the motion?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr van Manen</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a privilege to speak on this motion and to follow the member for Wright. I commend his contribution and his action in bringing this to the attention of the House. The value of the Australian Parliament House sports club is no better seen than in the lithe movements of the member across the football field. Gazelle-like is a description that comes to mind. I note too the contribution made by the member for Solomon about the power of sport to do good, even though he seems to get injured in most of the sports that he plays here too.</para>
<para>The Australian Parliament House sports club does a great job bringing so many of us here together in a friendly and non-partisan way. I did say 'non-partisan way', although that wouldn't be strictly true with our parliamentary state-of-origin matches. On that point alone it is worth noting the strong correlation between my appearances for the New South Wales side and its victories. I also note that my two appearances for the parliamentary cricket team have resulted in victories over the Press Gallery. However, as we all know too well, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. That's pretty clear for those who've witnessed my efforts.</para>
<para>Whether it be netball, tennis, touch football, soccer, basketball or cricket, the sports club provides ways to bring parliamentarians and staff together in a way that can foster broader cooperation, understanding and unity—elements that can never be in short supply in this place. It does more than that though. Underpinned by the great work of Andy Turnbull, the sports club plays a deeper role in promoting sport and healthy activity and in fostering international relations development and friendship as part of a worldwide movement not just in our region but across the world. As the member for Wright and the member for Solomon have put so well, it makes us part of a broader movement that brings together like-minded democracies that unite the world through sports, such as the cricket and tennis teams visiting the United Kingdom later this year and the rugby team visiting France later this year as well.</para>
<para>The sports supported by the club provide both physical and mental benefits and encourage participation in sport for people of all abilities, including me, with a view to improving both fitness and enjoyment. In this sense the work of the club is a microcosm of the work of community sport not just across Bean but across all electorates. Community sport through participation at all levels, including as a volunteer in the roles that make sport work, is a critical part of our social fabric. For me it has been a real joy to be involved with sports clubs across Bean, whether it be football, tennis, cricket, bowls, netball, bocce or Bhutanese archery, which has a particular focus in Bean. My time is always enriched. It has been a particular privilege for me to have been able to bring the Brumbies W team and the Capitals here to the parliament as well.</para>
<para>As I stated before, the parliament sports club exists to foster local and international relations, development and friendship as part of a worldwide movement. It's progressive, open minded and inclusive, providing opportunities for all in a positive and vibrant way. The club advocates diplomacy and development through connection and collaboration, and it operates in a professional and bipartisan manner, with membership comprising not just federal members and senators of all parties and who are Independent but also members of state parliaments.</para>
<para>Since the club was established in 2005, over 500 politicians have taken to the sports fields and courts. In the last 15 years the club has raised over three-quarters of a million dollars for charitable causes through the efforts of members and the generosity of their many corporate partners. Much of that work is down to the extraordinary organisation of Andy Turnbull and his whole team. Again, I'd like to pay tribute to the work that they do and encourage more of our colleagues to get involved in sports here at parliament.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to align myself with the comments of the member for Wright and thank him particularly for bringing this motion to the House as we look at the activity of the Australian parliamentary sports club. Just this morning, for example, we had Graham Arnold, the recently re-signed Australian football coach, come down and give us some tips and tricks. It was a very worthwhile and enjoyable morning. Along with football, we've got basketball, netball, cricket, golf—wherever your sporting passions lie, I think it's fair to say that Andy Turnbull, as the driving force behind the Australian Parliament House sports club, has got you covered, hosting a range of matches, events and coaching sessions, as we saw this morning, and connecting the world of sport with politics.</para>
<para>Sport is a fantastic way to bring us together, as other people have said, connecting people of different cultures, backgrounds and beliefs. Usually we're all in furious and unanimous agreement with one thing in any sport—our disagreement with the referees when they make decisions, as happened this morning. There was a completely uncalled-for penalty call against the parliamentary team's goalkeeper. It was completely untoward. There was no contact whatsoever. But what better example can you have of this connectedness than the parliamentary sports club?</para>
<para>As others have mentioned, the club has a number of events this year in both cricket and tennis in the UK as well as a rugby trip to France. There will also be a number of football games this year, particularly one in Brisbane in July, which I'm looking forward to, but hopefully we organise some others as well. The club brings all of us together. Whilst we mentioned the numbers of MPs and senators that come down and play, I think one of the other valuable aspects of the sporting club is the fact that staff come down and play and are part of it as well and that they can come and enjoy being part of the sporting environment in this parliament.</para>
<para>The vision statement of the club says it exists to foster local and international relations, development and friendship as part of a worldwide movement. Its foundation is built around three central themes, which are encouraging participation in sport for people of all abilities with a view to improving fitness, health and enjoyment. As I said, the sports club's membership covers federal members and senators, importantly, from all parties and across state and federal parliaments, as others have mentioned previously. Established in August 2005, it has gone from strength to strength, and I would say that it's probably in the best shape I've seen it for a number of years in my time here, and it's fantastic to see.</para>
<para>Some of our community partners—because all of this is done in partnership—are the A-Leagues, the Australian Sports Foundation, Basketball Australia, ACT Brumbies rugby, Football Australia, Golf Australia, the National Rugby League, Paralympics Australia and Tennis Australia. These community partners and our corporate sponsors are vital to ensuring the club continues to succeed and thrive, along with, as the member for Wright mentioned in his contribution, the terrific program for women in sport that Andy has run over the years. Sport's ability to connect different communities and groups together extends to international diplomacy. We've already touched on the international trips that will occur this year.</para>
<para>But it's also about community development and, as a number of speakers have mentioned, the ability of the club to fundraise very significant amounts of money over the years that go into a variety of programs and charities right around Australia, with longstanding relationships with foundations supporting causes focused on areas such as health, young people, veterans, homelessness and natural disasters. I know one of the events that we all enjoy every year is the soccer tournament for <inline font-style="italic">The Big Issue</inline>. We all get to play on the small side fields, as if we're playing indoor soccer, and it's a great tournament, thoroughly enjoyable, and a great opportunity to see what they're doing in the world, supporting those less fortunate.</para>
<para>So congratulations to Andy and the whole team for the fabulous job you do. Thank you for your vision to create this club in the first place.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't know how long the member for Forde is going to be in the chamber, but I wanted to point out to all honourable members that we are launching Parliamentary Friends of Australian Motorsports tomorrow morning, out front, with a barbecue-and-coffee breakfast. We'll see you there. There are going to be heaps of cars and motorbikes to have your photo taken with. But I digress!</para>
<para>I do rise to join members in recognising the really valuable role that sport plays in this place. The Parliament House Sports Club, under the stewardship of Andy Turnbull, helps to promote sport, and fosters international linkages and friendships as part of a worldwide movement, particularly when it comes to connectedness with like-minded democracies. Sport really unites.</para>
<para>We see this in the cricket team that will be visiting the United Kingdom from our parliament, and then our rugby team will visit France this year to, hopefully, knock the Kiwis off, who may or may not have cheated in the final in Japan four years ago! For the record, I've no evidence of that! But we very much look forward to it. It's going to be held in Paris, a week before the actual Rugby World Cup. Teams from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Africa, the UK, Ireland, France, Georgia, the European Parliament and, hopefully, the Pacific will be represented. Participants should include a prime minister, a foreign secretary, trade and defence ministers and many more—hard-hitting people, whether it's on or off the rugby field. Parliamentary rugby is just one example, among many other codes, of the power of sports diplomacy.</para>
<para>The first Parliamentary Rugby World Cup took place in 1995 in Cape Town, in South Africa. The tournament included an economic conference to discuss the inbound investment South Africa needed at the time. These games occurred only one year after Nelson Mandela's release. It was such an important event that the New Zealanders delayed the opening of their parliament by one week to attend. That is a great example to all of us. Most of South Africa's cabinet attended each event, it was seen as that important. The functions were hosted by former presidents Mandela and Mbeki. It was so popular because, as Nelson Mandela later said, 'Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. It has the power to unite people in a way that little else does.' From those games in 1995 alone, 200 parliaments forged friendships on the pitch and in the conference room.</para>
<para>This is a very significant competition, and it will be no different in Paris this year, alongside the member for Wright and the member for Moreton. Also, in Japan a few years ago, we had the member for Hinkler. But many other MPs and senators have felt as I did in Japan: very, very proud to wear the uniform of our parliament. It's an incredible feeling to represent your country, even if it's the parliament, and to represent it in such a noble sport. In a previous contribution in this place, I noted that rugby is indeed the game that they play in heaven. I know that all our parliamentarians who play netball, golf, touch football, cricket, tennis or that other football, soccer, feel the same. For all people, there are huge benefits, both physical and mental, of playing sports, particularly in the workplace. I'm proud of everything that our government is doing in terms of sports diplomacy. It is a truly bipartisan effort—sports diplomacy and the parliamentary sports club.</para>
<para>Finally, I acknowledge the work of the parliamentary sports club with the veterans in Invictus Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I must commend the member for Wright and all speakers on this motion. It is a very important one. I will talk briefly about sport and the importance it plays in the workplace for health and mental health, and in my community in Casey. But first, I do have to commend the member for Forde for his words. It was a truly outrageous decision on the penalty today. He is modest. His efforts in goal during the penalty shootout, to lead the yellow team, our team, to victory at the end were heroic and brought back memories of the Australian World Cup qualifiers. Congratulations to the member for Forde for that amazing effort.</para>
<para>That is one of the reasons I want to talk about Andy Turnbull and the Australian Parliament House sports club, and the important role that it plays here. For a new member of this parliament, it's a big place. There's a lot that happens, there's a lot to learn, but sport and the parliamentary club has been a great way to get to know my colleagues on this side of the House and, importantly, my colleagues on the other side of the House, and that leads to better decision-making and better collaboration. Yes, we're going to have disagreements on policy, and question time is always very robust, but it's important that we're representing our constituents and maintaining strong relationships across the aisle and with our colleagues. I've found sport has been a great way to make new friends and meet new people in this new workplace.</para>
<para>We spend a lot of hours in this House talking, debating and making decisions, and it has been very important to have that release from a physical and mental health perspective. I've found it to be a great part of my routine here in Canberra. It's a reminder not just for parliamentarians but for all Australians to make sure that you are spending time getting your exercise, spending time with sport, running or whatever exercise you need to look after your mental and physical health.</para>
<para>In Casey, sport is a big part of our electorate. It's been a big part of my life—as I talked about in my maiden speech—playing for many soccer clubs, football clubs and cricket clubs, and making lifelong friendships. I'll always make sure that I back the sporting clubs in Casey. We had the first week of cricket finals this week in Casey, so tensions are high. Some local teams beat other local teams, so I'm being very bipartisan. I'm not supporting anyone, although I do have to give one very special shout-out to a good friend of mine, a former premiership teammate. A man who is a legend, in many ways, in Yarra Valley cricket, the great Matthew Tilney is still rolling the arm over and still batting. He made 53 not out and got two for 21 on the weekend, to lead the Seville Burras to their grand final next weekend. It's great to see that Matty is still making runs and taking wickets—maybe not terrorising batsmen like he used to but relying on the guile that comes with old age and wisdom to get those wickets.</para>
<para>We've also got football, soccer and netball about to start. I know the players are deep in preseason preparations for all those sports. Practice matches have started. It's exciting to see the optimism that all local clubs have at this time of year. Recruits are going to be superstars. Everyone gets excited. But, most importantly, when I go to clubs and talk to them, it's about that community spirit of seeing their friends and spending time with their community. The bit of banter, again, is so important for their mental and physical health, especially after the challenges we've had in sport in the last few years.</para>
<para>The third part of sport that has played a big role in our communities is within our ethnic community. As a third generation Italian resident of Casey, I speak to my uncles and my dad a lot about how soccer played such a big part in their lives. Now it's just part of our community. We're really fortunate in Casey to have the wonderful Chin community, who are creating their own home in our electorate and in the neighbouring electorate of Deakin. The Chin and the Karen communities have come from Burma, and I was excited to be at the 17th anniversary of the Karen Baptist church on the weekend, talking to them about soccer at the Mooroolbark Soccer Club, where I spent 10 years playing. I'm fortunate that my son is following in my footsteps, and I think he'll be a lot better than me, which is good for his teammates. It's nice to see the Chin community creating their own legacy at the Mooroolbark Soccer Club and other sports clubs as well because that's what sport does; it brings us together here in parliament and it brings us together in our communities in Casey and across the nation. I commend the member for Wright for this wonderful motion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Andy Turnbull and his Australian Parliament House sports club usually bring out the best—and only occasionally the worst—in the people who work in this building. As other speakers have said, the best is a time when political rivalries are put aside to enjoy a game of touch football down on the Senate oval, or a game of soccer, basketball, netball or tennis—or even a brilliant catch by the wicketkeeper, the member for Casey, playing against the press gallery. The worst is when one of us tries to emulate Lionel Messi down on the football field but ends up falling on their backside or breaking their leg, as Senator Watt did. We all need a good laugh first thing in the morning and should never take ourselves too seriously in this place, as touched on by the member for Wright and other speakers.</para>
<para>Sport is so much more than organising a bit of exercise. Under the leadership of Andy Turnbull, over the years the club has become all about fostering relationships and friendships through sport—and that bit of early morning exercise, which obviously gets people to bed nice and early. Some people say nothing good happens in Canberra after midnight. My wife says nothing good happens after 8 pm, but that's another story I won't go into. As my wife can attest, sport isn't just limited to Canberra. She joined me in Japan a few years ago when we attended the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup just before the real World Cup. As Andy Turnbull well knows, sport is a type of diplomacy that connects the globe and transcends language and cultural barriers. We can use sport to build soft diplomatic bridges and stronger relationships, particularly in the Pacific.</para>
<para>Later this year, a number of politicians from all around the world will again pack their boots and head off to participate in the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup in France. Unlike the professional rugby players, who will be competing in the real World Cup, our standard of play—except for maybe a certain senator from the ACT, if he is fortunate enough to join us—will be a lot slower and less skilful, but the real importance will be in the connections that will be made with other countries' parliamentarians and the opportunities that will come from building those stronger bonds between countries.</para>
<para>As part of the trip, we're working with some of our Pacific island neighbours to help them either join and become members of our team or put in their own team. Rugby is a language that all of the Pacific understands, and we speak that language. I note that Prime Minister Albanese and Minister Conroy, like me and many of us, are also happy to talk rugby league to our Pacific neighbours. Similar tales can be told when it comes to netball, cricket and other sports. As politicians, we reach out a sporting hand not just for some Pacific wizardry—though that would be a big part of it, and I hope to see some six foot seven, very fast Pacific islander MPs—but also to build long-lasting bridges between our nations through rugby and other sports.</para>
<para>That's why I'm always a little bit confused when people say: 'Take the politics out of sport.' Sport can actually be a great driver of change and acceptance. Sport played its part in ending apartheid in South Africa, when countries refused to play against South Africa. On a more local level, it can be an opportunity to open your eyes to different people and cultures, where sport can be the common language, as touched on by earlier speakers. You get to hang around with people you may not normally meet—people from different towns, states and other countries. They may speak a different language and have a different religion or culture, but you play the same sport. It's a way to break down barriers by being part of a team, irrespective of your background or your ability. That is the great power of sport.</para>
<para>Something that I look forward to is working with the member for Forde as part of the Parliamentary Friends of the Olympic Movement in Australia. I am also a member of the organising committee, and we know that that Olympic unifying opportunity will come to Brisbane in 10 years time. We also know that the Pacific probably won't host the Olympics, so this can be a great opportunity for Brisbane to reach out to our Pacific neighbours and make sure that we've got a strong Pacific flavour.</para>
<para>Obviously, people of all sorts of political stripes get involved in parliamentary sport—and the member for Wright and I have had some fun travels together, playing on the same side—as we see, out on the Senate oval in the morning, or on the basketball courts, the netball courts or the tennis courts or other places around this building. Sport is a great unifier.</para>
<para>Sport is a language that we can speak in the Pacific which other countries that are trying to insert their influence cannot speak. There are a few projects that I'd like sporting diplomacy to attempt, and I look forward to those. One is an attempt to take an Australian parliamentary cricket team to India. That would be something that I would like to take on, and I'm sure that Senator Canavan and other cricketers would be keen to get on board with that cricketing sporting endeavour.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance</title>
          <page.no>160</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the 6.9 per cent increase in Australian antisemitic incidents logged in the Australian community in the reporting year ending in 2022, on top of the 35 per cent increase over the 2020-2021 reporting period, and recognises:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the broad commitment to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), holocaust remembrance and combatting antisemitism;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the embrace of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism by governments and institutions around the world;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that governments and institutions have also embraced parallel definitions of islamophobia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) that the IHRA definition is about framing what constitutes antisemitism, and not about singling out one form of discrimination over another; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) reaffirms its commitment to the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.</para></quote>
<para>I thank the member for Wentworth for seconding this motion before the House—I also thank and acknowledge the member for Berowra, for his co-chairmanship, along with the member for Wentworth, on our parliamentary committee—on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, by the beautiful shoreline in my community in Macnamara, we witnessed an ugly display of hate. A group of neo-Nazis in my electorate, in Elwood, gave a Nazi salute while posing for a photo. It was an awful contradiction, set against the welcoming, inclusive and quiet suburb of Elwood.</para>
<para>We know from our security agencies that more and more resources are now devoted to addressing the threats posed by far-right fringe groups. Unfortunately, antisemitism is on the rise again, occurring far too frequently and increasing in hostility. It's why the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance came up with a definition of antisemitism. The University of Melbourne recently adopted this definition of antisemitism, and, alongside it, they adopted a definition of Islamophobia, another form of discrimination that has no place in our great country.</para>
<para>The IHRA definition is not legislation. It is simply a framework to help identify and combat this particular form of racism. Just as the British parliament formulated a definition of Islamophobia, IHRA created a definition of antisemitism. The IHRA definition of antisemitism was created by international holocaust and genocide scholars to academically understand what antisemitism is.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, the Greens are opposed to recognising the IHRA working definition, and they cite the contemporary examples that accompany the working definition as their justification. So what are the contemporary examples—that are, frankly, pretty straightforward—that the Greens are unwilling to support? Let's go through them, so we can better understand exact what the Greens are opposing.</para>
<para>According to IHRA, one cannot call for aiding or justifying the killing or harming of Jews. That seems pretty straightforward—but, apparently, not for the Greens. You cannot make mendacious, dehumanising, demonising or stereotypical allegations about Jews, such as the power of Jews as a collective. It seems straightforward—apparently, not for the Greens. You cannot mention a myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal issues. It seems pretty straightforward. You cannot accuse the Jews, as a people, or Israel, as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. Are the Greens really trying to argue that they want to engage in Holocaust denial? IHRA also states that you cannot accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide than to the interests of their own nations. I am an Australian, and proudly so. This is a clear definition to better understand what antisemitism is.</para>
<para>Now, some people try and argue that a few of the working examples try to shut down criticism of Israel, but this is not true. Let me read clearly from the IHRA website:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.</para></quote>
<para>In other words, as clearly set out in the IHRA definition, you can be critical of Israel. Being critical of Israel is not antisemitic, nor does this definition shut down debate or limit freedom of speech. It simply creates a framework about how to engage in free and robust debate without descending into bigotry. There are more working examples that people can and should read, and then you can make up your own mind.</para>
<para>But let me say this. It sits extremely uncomfortably with me that the Greens presume to know more about the manifestations of antisemitism than the Jewish community themselves. By opposing the IHRA definition, what message does that send when one examines the examples of what the Greens are actually opposing? After all, it is unfathomable to imagine the Greens, or anyone else, imposing their own definition of racism on any other minority in this country, yet they do this to the Jewish community. I sincerely hope the Greens reconsider their position on this matter and I hope that all of us, across this parliament, work together to oppose all forms of bigotry and racism.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there a seconder for the motion?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank my friends the member for Macnamara and the member for Wentworth for moving this motion. With the two of them, I'm pleased to be one of the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. I also want to acknowledge the outstanding work of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, led by their president, Jillian Segal; and their co-CEOs, Peter Wertheim and Alex Ryvchin.</para>
<para>The ECAJ monitors instances of racial hatred and racial abuse directed at the Jewish community. For 10 years, Julie Nathan has produced the ECAJ's annual <inline font-style="italic">R</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport on </inline><inline font-style="italic">antisemitism </inline><inline font-style="italic">in Australia</inline>. The 2022 report found that antisemitic incidents had increased by more than 40 per cent over the last two years. Many of those incidents involve the growth in politically motivated extremism from neo-Nazi groups, like the National Socialist Network and the European Australian Movement. But there was another sort of antisemitism that Julie Nathan identified: 'Ostensibly left-leaning, progressive groups including so-called antiracism activists are mainstreaming antisemitism and are actively undermining the fight against antisemitism. Some perceive Jews as wealthy and powerful and, therefore, excuse any attacks on Jews as 'punching up' and not racism. Some ignore anti-Israel discourse which crosses the line into hateful conceptualisations of Jews.</para>
<para>In 2019 David Baddiel, a British author on the political left, wrote a book called <inline font-style="italic">Jew</inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">D</inline><inline font-style="italic">on't </inline><inline font-style="italic">C</inline><inline font-style="italic">ount</inline>. His book chronicles the blind eye that is turned to antisemitism on the Left and the double standards of progressives, including minimising antisemitism as a form of racism. Most often, it's hidden behind double standards and a demonisation of the State of Israel.</para>
<para>In 2019, Australia became the 33rd member of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. I'm proud that Australia has joined this movement. This union of nations underscores the importance of confronting evil and educating the next generation of Australians. The Parliamentary Friends of IHRA is encouraging the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism in all aspects of government and acknowledged by institutions across the public and private sector. That definition of antisemitism includes examples such as making mendacious, dehumanising demonising or stereotypical allegations about the Jews; accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their own nations; and holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel.</para>
<para>Sadly, today the epicentre of antisemitic activity is our universities. The situation on campus for Jews is particularly bad. In 2022, SRCs at Sydney, Melbourne, ANU, Adelaide and Wollongong passed motions supporting the antisemitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. At Sydney university, when Jewish students spoke out against the motion, they were shouted down.</para>
<para>In Adelaide, the student publication <inline font-style="italic">On</inline><inline font-style="italic"> D</inline><inline font-style="italic">it</inline> published multiple articles calling for 'death to Israel' and 'glory to the Intifada, may it be merciless'. Jewish students expressed concern to the university and were told that it was 'a student issue'. One student was told they were just 'more sensitive' because they were Jewish. At an SRC meeting at Adelaide university there was a motion put forward condemning <inline font-style="italic">On</inline><inline font-style="italic"> D</inline><inline font-style="italic">it</inline>. Jewish students attended the meeting to express their concerns. They were not treated with respect. Instead, several students shouted them down with the words 'death to Israel'. In response, on social media Jewish students were accused of old antisemitic tropes of divided loyalties, creating 'an unnecessary holocaust industry', and having sinister money, power and influence.</para>
<para>At QUT an academic posted comments on Facebook, with respect to a student, that included references to 'Nazi Jews' and 'your lies and propaganda make you even more hated in the world'. Those examples, from 2022, which are by no means an exhaustive list of disturbing antisemitic incidents, are the reason why the first step of the Parliamentary Friends of IHRA has been to write to all university vice-chancellors encouraging them to adopt the IHRA definition. Already, the University of Melbourne has agreed to adopt the definition, and I commend and thank them. We're calling on other universities to follow suit.</para>
<para>I was on university campus in the 1990s, and while there was some antisemitism in those days, it was certainly a minority view. You could be publicly Jewish on campus and feel a sense of belonging. But all that has changed now. As the national President of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, Alissa Foster, told me:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Many students don't feel safe being identifiably Jewish on campus, and part of that is because our experiences of antisemitism aren't yet recognised by our Universities. Adopting the IHRA definition is not only a way for University's to show their Jewish students that they are listening but it's a way for them to tangibly work with us to address these concerns.</para></quote>
<para>Alissa Foster is right: Jewish students should not have to put up with this sort of behaviour on campus. All too often, universities speak the words of diversity, inclusion and acceptance, but they don't live it. When confronted by their failures, these same universities continue to hide behind banal bureaucratic language.</para>
<para>There should be no place for antisemitism on Australian campuses. It's time for Australian universities to live their values again. That's why we need all universities to follow the lead of Melbourne university and adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, call out antisemitism where it occurs, take action against it and send it back to the dark place from whence it came.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in favour of the motion moved by my good friend the member for Macnamara. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Berowra's fine contribution. Most importantly, I rise to speak in favour of a motion that seeks to stamp out hate. Hate is something that we should abhor, whether it exists as a flashpoint or festers, whether it occurs in the hearts of our communities or abroad. Antisemitism has existed throughout the centuries in varying forms, though with many common similarities and themes. Antisemitism is something that exists right here in Australia, and its prevalence is increasing in a number of ways.</para>
<para>Speaking against antisemitism in a place like this is important. It is important that the community sees its leaders, its elected representatives, condemn discrimination and hatred. It goes to the heart of who we purport to be as Australians. At our best, we are a people who go out of our way to be inclusive. At our best, our society is one that looks to eliminate negative forms of discrimination wherever it takes place, whether it be due to someone's race, their sexual orientation, their gender, the colour of their skin, their ethnic origins, their religion or lack thereof. We as a people, at our core, hate hatred in all of the insidious forms it can manifest in.</para>
<para>Sadly, antisemitism is not something of the past. It is not something happening in a faraway place. It is something that happens every day. It happens in our backyards, in our communities and on our doorsteps. With the prevalence of antisemitism rising at home, it beggars belief that we should be importing it from abroad. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry is keeping score on this. We cannot stand idly by while the number of antisemitic incidents here continue to rise.</para>
<para>I look towards a recent example, straight from my home state of South Australia, at the Adelaide Writers Week. Adelaide Writers Week is a regular fixture amongst what is affectionately known as 'Mad March'. In this case, that name could not be more spot on. In short, the festival organisers decided to bring in two international authors who are well known for their antisemitic views. This has had wide media coverage. I will not name them, as doing so in this place provides them with the notoriety that they crave. As such, I have no intention of validating their business model, which is one of outrage merchantry. It is not a business model that I intend to reward, not here, not now. Quite plainly, I wish the organisers of Adelaide Writers Week had the cognisance to have the same level of good judgement. They may say that they have zero tolerance for hate speech, and I most definitely believe their sincerity in this, but this explains the importance of maintaining an established definition of what antisemitism is. This is what the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, IHRA, has endeavoured to do across several countries and jurisdictions across the globe. Whilst it may not be as simple as it's set out, a number of examples are provided to encompass a number of different circumstances where this definition would apply. Some who are against the IHRA definition point to the broad based nature of this, almost as if 'includes but is not limited to' is not regularly incorporated in some form or another in laws we make.</para>
<para>I wish there was more time permitted to speak to the contention used by many that the IHRA definition is an affront to academic freedom and an affront to free speech. To that point I'd ask them a simple question, one which I hope is seen as being about animus without rancour: what is it that, when looking at this definition of what antisemitism is, you would like to say? What is it that they would condone being said that would otherwise be prescribed as antisemitic by the IHRA definition? I'd like to think we have moved on from saying, 'Everyone has a right to be bigots.' We are a little bit better than that, or at least I'd like to think so.</para>
<para>You will find me standing up to speak out against this form of hatred every time it rears its ugly head. You will find me standing up against any form of hatred where it exists, in plain sight or in the bowels of Telegram channels by people who we would walk past on the street without thinking anything insidious about what values they hold in their hearts. Hatred, if left unchecked, undermines our values as Australians and undermines the success we have in being such a successful multicultural nation of so many different cultures and creeds, which is what makes us special. Most importantly, if we don't stand boldly against hate we run the ever-present risk that we normalise it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank the member for Macnamara for moving this motion and offering me the opportunity to second it, and to speak as to why I believe the work of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, is so important. I also want to acknowledge the member for Berowra for also speaking on this motion and for being co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of IHRA.</para>
<para>Australia's society has come a long way in my lifetime in many ways but not in this. Certain behaviours and views which were once considered acceptable are now increasingly considered unacceptable as they perpetuate attitudes and stereotypes which are not just wrong but harmful. Australians should be proud our community is more open, tolerant and respectful in so many ways now than it was historically. But that is not the case in terms of antisemitism. The member for Berowra spoke personally about his time and experience at university 20-odd years ago and how, as a Jewish student, he felt there were elements of antisemitism but he felt broadly accepted. Sadly, talking to Jewish students in my community of Wentworth, that is not the case. Many of them that spoke to me talked about some of the horrors of trying to live with expressions of antisemitism, of money being thrown at their feet, of abusive notes being put into their pockets, of hiding their identity or jewellery or other things that might give away that they are Jewish because they do not feel welcome, most particularly on our Australian campuses. This is most concerning because universities have always been at the forefront of social progress, but on this particular issue, of antisemitism, it seems we have gone backwards, particularly at universities.</para>
<para>This is why the work of IHRA is so important. By proposing a working definition of antisemitism, it provides a tool for organisations, including government and universities, to frame what constitutes antisemitism, to set clear expectations and to help ensure the behaviour of individuals in these organisations is appropriate and respectful. I note there has been some criticism of the IHRA definition both in the other place and from members of the community, including the Jewish community, but I believe this criticism is misplaced. The strongest criticism against IHRA has been that the definition is there to stifle reasonable debate, and I really take issue with that. You can't have a conversation about IHRA without talking about the state of Israel, and criticism around the state of Israel goes to the heart of this because many say the IHRA definition stops criticism of Israel. However, the IHRA definition explicitly notes that any criticism against Israel that is similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be described as antisemitic. So if Israel is seen and judged on the same conditions as other countries, then it cannot be described as antisemitic. But I will say—thinking of the example from the member for Berowra—that if somebody in a university screams, 'Death to Israel,' you can see that that would be deeply disturbing to Jewish students, because Israel has been the home of the Jews for over 3,000 years and is the one place in the world where the land, name and language are essentially the same as they were 3,000 years ago.</para>
<para>I commend the University of Melbourne for adopting the IHRA definition, alongside the definition of 'Islamophobia', as part of its four-part antiracism commitment, because individuals who are subject to racism should be listened to as we try to define what racism is in relation to these people. My vision, and the vision of other people, is for universities to continue to be places where everybody feels welcome, safe and that they belong. This is a goal I think that every university and institution in Australia shares. The University of Melbourne should continue to commit to embedding this value throughout their work, their actions and their words, and other universities should follow their guidance.</para>
<para>I also commend the Executive Council of Australian Jewry for the work they have done on this, particularly the work they are doing in measuring antisemitism, because it has had significant rises in the last two years. It is through this continuous vigilance, through examining these issues and through seeking change at universities that we will make the greatest difference.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to speak on this important motion on antisemitism. I thank the member for Macnamara for moving it. I want to say first and foremost that all of us in this place should think—I certainly do and my colleagues do—that any form of racism or discrimination based on race, religion, gender or sexuality, including antisemitism, is bad. We need to call it out. We shouldn't stand for it, ever. But it is a problem that persists. We've seen a very worrying trend in recent years. Just in the past year there has been a 6.9 per cent—nearly seven per cent—increase in antisemitic incidents logged in the Australian community. This comes on top of the 35 per cent increase over the 2020-21 reporting period. This is extremely worrying, and it should be inexcusable.</para>
<para>What can we do? As a government and a parliament we can take every opportunity to raise this, as we're doing today, and have good legislation that prevents it. We can also work together with other parliaments, international groups, international bodies and organisations—for example, Australia became a member of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the IHRA, in 2019.</para>
<para>We can also take a clear stand against antisemitism and any form of racism, just as the EU did last year when it outlawed the Greek political party Golden Dawn, a neofascist political party that used its status to legitimise its own aggressive antisemitic, anti-immigrant, xenophobic and anti human rights agendas. I was vocal at the time, in particular, because there was a branch of this particular party operating right here in Australia. This party had been deemed illegal overseas and it actually had a branch here in Australia.</para>
<para>As a government we can also take steps to protect Australia's strong social cohesion. It is the cornerstone of what makes us one of the most successful liberal democracies and multicultural societies in the world. This is why the Australian government has committed $7.5 million to fund the Australian Human Rights Commission to complete its national antiracism framework and implement a comprehensive national antiracism strategy.</para>
<para>As members of parliament, we can also support our local groups and institutions that promote understanding and counter discrimination. For example, in South Australia, my own home state, we have the Adelaide Holocaust Museum and Steiner Education Centre. It is a fantastic centre. It has schoolchildren coming through learning about what took place during the Holocaust, the Second World War et cetera. The South Australian Jewish community, particularly Andrew Steiner, fought long and hard for the establishment of this museum and education centre. They do amazing and valuable work in South Australia. Its mission is to tell the story, as I said, of the Holocaust to inspire and educate South Australians to stand up against antisemitism and racism.</para>
<para>It's important to remember that Holocaust denial and distortion are also forms of antisemitism. Holocaust denial and distortion generally claim that the Holocaust was invented or exaggerated as part of a plot to advance Jewish interests. This is why places like the Adelaide Holocaust Museum and Steiner Education Centre plays such an important role in fighting antisemitism and those sorts of notions.</para>
<para>I sincerely commend the centre's supporters, staff and volunteers for their dedication and commitment. I support them at every opportunity. As individual members of society we also have a role to condemn antisemitism and every form of racism and discrimination. We must do this whenever and wherever we witness it. It's never funny. It's not a joke. It's not just somebody throwing a line at you. It should never be tolerated.</para>
<para>In addition we can ensure that we educate ourselves, and we can do this by visiting the museums and centres and speaking to people who have been directly affected by antisemitism. This can help us recognise antisemitism and racism and call it out when we see it. It can also help dispel unhelpful and potentially dangerous stereotypes that we may not even know that we hold. Antisemitism, and indeed any form of racism, is possible because people or a group become dehumanised to it and accept it. History has taught us that this is so much harder to do if we meet and get to know people and hear their stories. Standing up to and condemning antisemitism and any form of racism and discrimination is something we can and must all play a part in.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you remember reading a book in high school that had a specific impact on you? I do. It was in year 12. It was called <inline font-style="italic">Schindler's Ark</inline>. It is the story of Oskar Schindler, who was a German industrialist, and how he saved hundreds, if not thousands, of Jews from concentration camps. I would have been 17 when I read that book. Then the book was made into a movie. I think I would have been in my late 20s when it came out as <inline font-style="italic">Schindler's </inline><inline font-style="italic">List</inline><inline font-style="italic">. </inline>It starred Liam Neeson as Oskar Schindler. I remember sitting in the cinema watching that movie, having read the book. I'll never forget that I sat in the cinema crying like a baby. To this day it still has an impact on me when I think about the horrible things that we humans do to other human beings.</para>
<para>On several occasions in this job I have had the fortune of going to Israel. I visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum in Jerusalem. That was a very emotional time for me as well. I'm not Jewish; I'm Catholic. I think people of the Judaeo-Christian faith all share the horror of what happened to the Jews in World War II.</para>
<para>On a brighter note, only a few months ago I joined the Jewish community on the Sunshine Coast for a fantastic celebration in Mooloolaba. Families from across the world converged on the wharf to celebrate the completion and consecration of the Sunshine Coast's very own torah.</para>
<para>The Judaeo-Christian ethic of community mindedness, of service above self and of truth in love is one which is deeply ingrained in Australia's culture and our institutions. That's why the idea of antisemitism is so repugnant to our Australian egalitarian way of life. It is an assault on who we are as Australian people, and yet antisemitism is rife within our community. I've been shocked by some of the reports from even within my own electorate and from schools across the country that students are being recruited and radicalised by Neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups through social media, where they're often disguised as recreational clubs. I reported one such group in 2021, and, at the time, I said that there's no place in Australia for hate groups, whether they be ideologically or religiously based.</para>
<para>Reporting matters, and our words matter. In reaffirming our commitment to the IHRA working definition of 'antisemitism', we reiterate that antisemitism has no place in Australia or in the global rules based order. But we must do more than define and delineate. We must act to counter antisemitism. In September last year, I was proud to join with my PJCIS colleagues from across the aisle in listing Hamas and the National Socialist Order as terrorist groups. Just last week, I was pleased to see the New South Wales Liberal-National government announce that it will take steps to eradicate hate and antisemitism from schools, as part of a landmark 10-year partnership between faith communities, government agencies and schools. We all have a role to play in calling out and uprooting antisemitism.</para>
<para>We also have a duty to defend the state of Israel, the world's only Jewish state and our friend and ally. The people of Australia and Israel have a long and enduring relationship which was forged in moments throughout the Second World War, like the liberation of Be'er Sheva. Our nations are innovators. Together, we're pioneers, researchers and entrepreneurs. We are democratic partners and egalitarian people, and we owe much of our way of life to founders of great faith. Every hour of every day, there are nations and non-state actors intent on destroying the Jewish people and their homeland, often with worldwide reach on social media and at UN lecterns.</para>
<para>We can't tolerate antisemitism in our schools or our community, nor can we tolerate antisemitism in our parliaments and UN agencies. As Henry Kissinger once said, 'The security of Israel is a moral imperative for all free peoples.'</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>165</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government's plan for $254 billion Stage 3 tax cuts for billionaires and politicians while flagging austerity measures in the upcoming Budget; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to scrap their unfair Stage 3 tax cuts in the upcoming Budget and instead deliver real cost of living relief by getting dental and mental health into Medicare, making childcare free, and addressing the housing and rental crisis, including by doubling rent assistance.</para></quote>
<para>It's a sad fact, with the way things are set up now in Australia, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and tragically, in times of crisis, this intensifies—the gap widens and the pain increases. And we are in crisis. Right now, renters in Brisbane are paying around 24 per cent more than 12 months ago, while real wages have dropped back to 2010 levels and the share of national income going to wages is the lowest ever recorded. Mortgage holders in Ryan are paying about $300 per week more—that's per week, not per month—on their mortgages since last year. Even the price of groceries has gone up more than inflation, rising by about 10 per cent in the last year. That's not to mention the exponential rise in energy costs. This is causing untold pain for so many.</para>
<para>But how's the other the end of town doing? We've just learned that 2022 was the best year on record for corporate profits—an absolute profit bonanza. There was more than $5 billion profit in six months for the Commonwealth Bank, courtesy of much higher interest rates for mortgage holders. Coles and Woolies have also been doing quite well. Woolworths posted almost $1 billion in profit last year, up 14 per cent. Coles's profits went up by 17 per cent. Santos's profits increased by an eye-watering 221 per cent in 2022, profiteering from both a war and the climate crisis. Woodside tripled their profits. This is not okay. This is simply outrageous while so many Australians are struggling to put food on the table, to pay their bills and to pay their rent or mortgage.</para>
<para>Qantas just posted a record half-yearly profit of $1.43 billion. Are they going to use that money to help workers—the ones that they illegally fired—or to perhaps payback some of the JobKeeper money they took during the pandemic? Of course not. They're planning to spend that money on stock buybacks to pump up their own share price. What's the government doing about this, you might ask? The government is choosing to spend our money on $250 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy. Does Clive Palmer really need an extra $9,000 a year or should that money go towards tackling this cost-of-living crisis? The government is choosing to continue to give $12 billion per year in fossil fuel tax concessions. The government is choosing to continue to give $12 billion per year in tax concessions to property investors instead of tackling the housing crisis. The government is apparently happy to see ordinary Australians exploited so these companies can post record profits. Interestingly, most of these companies are major donors to the Labor Party. In the last financial year alone, Labor got nearly $1 million from the fossil fuel industry, nearly $1.2 million from the property industry and $5.2 million from the banks—not okay.</para>
<para>While people are sacrificing meals to pay for their rising rents and mortgages, this government, instead of actually addressing the housing crisis, wants to gamble $10 billion on the stock market, paying fund managers millions of dollars in the process, to maybe build a few thousand homes per year if that gamble pays off. This is completely inadequate. This response will make the housing crisis substantially worse. Their plan does absolutely nothing to address rising rents in the private market, absolutely nothing to address rising rates for mortgage holders and absolutely nothing for hundreds of thousands of Australians stuck on the social housing waitlist and at extreme risk of homelessness. Is this good policy? Is this good economic management? Is this looking after ordinary Australians? I say no. It's making things worse. So how did we get here, Australia? How did we get to this point where our government is preferencing huge for-profit corporations over ordinary Australians? We got here from decades of policies that reinforced this divide, and that has poisoned the well.</para>
<para>Obviously a major overhaul is needed for our very survival, and it needs to start with demolishing the corporate capture of our government.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chandler-Mather</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Ryan for bringing forward this motion. She is quite right. It is time to have a look at our taxation system, and I've certainly called for that. I do, however, believe in trust in government. We went to the last election promising that the stage 3 tax cuts would go ahead. We actively campaigned on it, and people should be able to trust us in that commitment. I do agree with you that those tax cuts are poorly targeted—absolutely. They're targeted to the wealthy. Although many people on those sorts of incomes are not necessarily what I would call wealthy. If you live in Sydney, many people have mortgages of a million dollars or more, transport costs are huge and education costs are huge, so I think we need to be very careful about some of the language that's used around aspiration and people's want to improve themselves and the tax cuts.</para>
<para>The member for Ryan is quite right. The previous decade has seen complete negligence in governance by successive coalition governments with stagnant wages, flattening productivity, weak business investment, skills shortages and complete energy policy chaos—thanks to the Greens—all deeply affecting the economy and Australian households. It's important to note that the rise of inflation and interest rates began well before our government came to power, and we are working now to provide the relief and assistance that we can to Australian households. Access to things like cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, cheaper education and vocational education—in many cases, free—is thanks to our government and our new policies.</para>
<para>Whilst we stick to our promises, I fully support review of the entire taxation system and I can tell you that housing is at the centre of that. I still believe in the Australian dream, but it's a dream that is slowly fading into the distance. It breaks my heart every weekend to see young people going to property auctions and being outbid by property investors and wealthy people. Good on them—they've got money to spend—but we have given outrageous advantages to property investors. I see my own children go to auctions every weekend and lose out to investors, and that is disgraceful.</para>
<para>We have walked away from the Australian dream of homeownership, which I think is incredibly important for social stability and for people to provide for themselves in their old age. We know that the biggest increase in homelessness and in difficulties in paying rent and mortgages is among older women. It must be absolutely tragic to reach your 60s knowing that you have no stable roof over your head. As a paediatrician I see many families whose children have to change schools all the time, as they have to move from one rental property to another.</para>
<para>Governments have walked away from providing housing for the Australian population, and whatever we are doing now is tinkering at the edges unless we change the taxation system. It is my unwavering belief that that system has to change. The $25 billion to $30 billion every year given to property investors, giving them an advantage over first home buyers and poorer people trying to get a roof over their heads, has to change. There is absolutely no question about it.</para>
<para>The superannuation changes that we mooted recently have led to squeals of opposition from, in particular, the shadow Treasurer—the favoured son of the bunyip aristocracy screaming about those minor changes to superannuation. It just shows you that it's almost impossible to have a sensible discussion about taxation in this country. No-one's happy to pay tax, but tax pays for the things that I've called for: increases in Medicare funding, better aged care, a better public education system. It really is time we had a sensible debate in this country about taxation; fiddling at the edges is not going to cut it. We need to change the system. I fully support discussions about our taxation system. I also support trust in government. And, whatever we do, we should have a discussion with the Australian people about it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of probably the greatest untruths the Labor Party tell about themselves when it comes to taxing big multinational corporations or repealing the stage 3 tax cuts is that, somehow, doing any of that would be electorally unpopular. But I can guarantee that the vast majority of Australians, when given the choice of making big multinational corporations pay their fair share in tax to fund the essential services we all need, or repealing the $254 billion stage 3 tax cuts to put that money towards dental into Medicare or universal free child care or more mental health into Medicare—that would be overwhelmingly supported by the Australian people.</para>
<para>Let's not forget that, coming into this election, the Labor Party's national primary vote went backwards on one of the most mediocre, milquetoast platforms we've seen. And, frankly, the Labor Party has already abandoned many of the principles it once represented.</para>
<para>Let's be clear, again, about the stage 3 tax cuts, because the last time I spoke in parliament about them I talked about the massive cost-of-living crisis facing Australia, and it has only gotten worse. How governments allocate resources ultimately declares to the public their priorities about where they think money needs to go and who deserves it. Right now we have pensioners in this country choosing between paying the rent or paying the grocery bills, and this government thinks that, rather than increasing the pension to above the poverty line, Gina Rinehart needs an extra $9,000 a year off her tax. There are single parents right now who are on the brink of homelessness, including in my electorate, because they can't afford the rent, and this government thinks Clive Palmer needs an extra $9,000 a year off his tax. There are 640,000 people right now, households, who are in desperate need of social and affordable housing, and this government thinks that we should spend $254 billion, a quarter of a trillion dollars, on handing every politician in this place an extra $9,000 a year off their tax rather than make the investment we actually need to tackle the housing crisis. Those are the priorities that the government have put to the electorate. That's where they think the money needs to go.</para>
<para>Let's be clear about tackling the housing crisis. Earlier the Prime Minister said in the parliament that the $5 billion figure the Greens have proposed as an amendment to the government's housing bill was plucked out of thin air—except that he had failed to contemplate that even his own government body, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, had said that we need at least $15 billion of investment every year in social and affordable housing to tackle the housing crisis. To put that into context, the federal government want to cap housing spending at $500 million per year at most, at the same time as wanting to spend over $20 billion a year on tax cuts for people earning over $200,000 a year. There are people in my electorate right now who come every day to the free food pantry we've set up out the front of my office to get canned tuna, chickpeas and tomatoes. Some will come occasionally. One lady, having collected every day for two weeks, came back with some tea and said, 'I've taken from it so much these last two weeks that I thought I should give a little bit back.' When I compare the solidarity, kindness and generosity of people like her with the decisions that are made in this place to take from people like that and to put it into the hands of people who do not need that money, it makes my blood boil. The frustration is that the only meek response we hear from the government is, 'We promised we wouldn't repeal the stage 3 tax cuts.'</para>
<para>Let's consider that in the context of this super tax debate. We welcome the decision to lower the threshold on tax concessions for super, but it is true that the government, prior to the election, said that they wouldn't touch super. When circumstances change, governments also need to change their decisions. It makes sense, in the context of a historic world cost-of-living and inflation crisis, that we don't give $9,000 a year to people earning over $200,000 a year, and instead, put that money towards lifting the millions of people right now who are doing it tough out of poverty and financial stress. The Senate has the numbers to do that. The government could bring a bill right now to repeal the stage three tax cuts, and the Greens would support it. You have the numbers. The only thing holding back this country from unleashing a quarter of a trillion dollars and putting it towards building public and social housing, bringing dental into Medicare and introducing universal free child care is the fact that the Labor Party don't have the guts to make the sort of proposal that we know will release millions of people out of unnecessary financial stress.</para>
<para>That is the proposal that the Greens will put to the government today: bring a proposal to the Senate, we'll vote for it and we'll unleash $254 billion for the people who actually need it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Ryan for bringing this motion forward for discussion. It's always worth having a conversation about how we manage our budget in a fair and responsible way. It allows us to fulfil the role of good government. Good government is focused on the things we all share, like public health and education, community infrastructure, defence and our environment. Good government is focused on the wellbeing of people who experience disadvantage and exclusion because that is core to our egalitarian values and our humanity. Good government is definitely serious about sustainability, which is both a matter of planning for the future and of delivering intergenerational fairness.</para>
<para>This motion talks about the need to improve the universal public health system, early childhood education and access to affordable housing. The Albanese Labor government has already taken some key steps in all of these areas. We've delivered the largest cut to the maximum price of medicines on the PBS in its history, we're making child care cheaper for 96 per cent of families and we've dedicated $10 billion to support affordable housing through the Housing Australia Future Fund. The motion also argues in favour of a tax system that is fairly calibrated to support those kinds of investments in our shared wellbeing, and on that I absolutely agree. That's why the Albanese Labor government is acting to ensure multinational corporations pay a fair share of tax in Australia, as they should, and we're making some commonsense changes to the unsustainable tax concessions that have applied to the earnings derived from superannuation accounts in excess of $3 million.</para>
<para>In substance, the government is achieving what the member for Ryan believes should occur. We're providing new investment in public health, child care and affordable housing. We've been prepared to identify fair and responsible sources of revenue to fund the things we share, to reduce disadvantage and to create a better future. But I say respectfully to the member for Ryan is that genuine and constructive conversations don't proceed in the way that we heard from the member just previously, and they don't start with a proposition that is intentionally narrow and selective in order to fit a specific political story. The terms of the motion include a vague and, I presume, intentionally scary reference to austerity measures, which is based on nothing as far as what's detailed in the motion. There's no acknowledgement of government initiatives that are aimed precisely at areas of health, child care and housing, which is what this government's done. It's clear that what is intended here—and we saw it most clearly from the member who just spoke—is a finger-wagging exercise, not a conversation—a finger-wagging exercise dripping in righteousness, a holier-than-thou finger-wagging exercise. That's politics. The Greens have a line to run. The line has always been and will be that whatever Labor does is not good enough, and this motion runs that line. There's some political good sense in that, but it's not necessarily in the name of a constructive conversation.</para>
<para>I come back to the question of how we deliver what the Australian community is entitled to expect: government that is open, focused, responsive and stable and that gets on with the task of addressing present and future challenges in a way that's driven by the twin principles of fairness and sustainability. We've just emerged from nine years characterised by incompetence and dishonesty. We've just emerged from nine years of inaction that's taken us in completely the opposite direction from fairness and sustainability.</para>
<para>Until recently, people under the age of 27 had only experienced, as voters, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government—a government that saw wages fall to the lowest share of national income in our history while company profits rose to the highest share of national income in our history; a government that was in denial about climate change and didn't deliver a single energy policy; a government that was only interested in budget repair if the burden of that task could be placed on the backs of the poor through unlawful measures like robodebt. All Australians deserve a much better standard of public service and policy leadership than that, especially young Australians.</para>
<para>In nine months, this government has already delivered a number of key commitments: legislating a carbon emission reduction target; creating a National Anti-Corruption Commission; providing 10 days of family and domestic violence leave; achieving an increase in the minimum wage that benefited 2.7 million workers; delivering the largest reduction in the maximum price of medicines on the PBS; and giving certainty to thousands of asylum seekers stuck in the terrible and pointless limbo of the temporary protection visa system. After nine years of nothing, we've had nine months of steady, responsible and positive reform in the national interest. That's been achieved by working with all those in parliament who take a constructive approach, including the Greens. So, while I understand the 'what have the Romans done for us lately' flavour of the motion, the reality is the Albanese government is delivering positive and sustainable reform through a fair and responsible approach to the budget.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Cultural Policy</title>
          <page.no>168</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government has launched <inline font-style="italic">Revive: A Place for Every Story, A Story for Every Place</inline> (Revive), Australia's new National Cultural Policy that will set the course for Australia's arts, entertainment and cultural sector for the next five years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Revive comes after a decade of wilful neglect and funding cuts for the arts and entertainment sector;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Revive is built on five pillars and puts First Nations first—recognising and respecting the crucial place of these stories at the heart of our arts and culture; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in implementing Revive, the Government will:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) reverse the former Government's cuts to the Australia Council for the Arts;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) establish Creative Australia and create four new bodies: Music Australia, Writers Australia, First Nations First body and a Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) almost double the Regional Arts Fund;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) introduce quotas for Australian content on digital streaming platforms; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) legislate to ban fake First Nations' art; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges Revive will bring drive, direction, and vision back to the $17 billion arts industry which employs an estimated 400,000 Australians.</para></quote>
<para>Australia is emerging from a dark period for the arts. For two years, the pandemic separated audiences from the creative experiences that are so connected to our wellbeing, our connection to each other and our understanding of ourselves. Theatres and galleries fell silent, choirs couldn't sing, kids couldn't dance, school plays were banned and festivals were cancelled. But we gobbled up film and TV, put art on our walls and read to get us through. That difficult period reminded Australians how much art of all types matters to our lives.</para>
<para>The cultural sector faced this storm in a more vulnerable position than it should have been in. The arts community had suffered from a decade of funding cuts. The infamous Brandis cuts devastated the small to medium arts sector. These small organisations are essential to the arts ecosystem, but they were abandoned by the previous government. Many organisations simply didn't survive. The previous government could never quite acknowledge that arts jobs are real jobs. When COVID hit, the government had to be dragged to support artists when they so desperately needed help. The Liberals' belated response, the RISE Fund, had no vision or strategy.</para>
<para>The Albanese government takes a very different approach. We've listened to the arts community. The Minister for the Arts and I, alongside the Office for the Arts, have travelled the country, holding 14 roundtable meetings to listen to ideas, concerns, insights and aspirations. We received more than 1,200 submissions and had countless one-on-one conversations.</para>
<para>Our new National Cultural Policy, Revive, is based on the knowledge and expertise of people from right across the nation. Revive turns the page. This government will respect, support and uplift the horizons of the arts community. Unlike the previous government, we believe that artists, not politicians, should make decisions about artistic merit. That's why we're investing in the agency that makes funding decisions at arm's length from government. We're reversing the brutal Brandis cuts and providing $199 million to the Australia Council. This means more support across all art forms, including to underfunded areas like youth arts, small to medium organisations and independent artists.</para>
<para>The Australia Council will be strengthened, modernised and given an expanded mandate. Its transformation into Creative Australia will be the most significant reform in its history. It'll have four new bodies. One will be the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces, which will provide advice on issues of pay, safety and welfare in the arts and entertainment sectors. It'll refer matters of workplace concern to relevant authorities and develop codes of conduct. It will address issues raised in the <inline font-style="italic">Raising their voices</inline> report, which detailed shocking levels of harassment, sexism and prejudice in arts workplaces. Another body, Music Australia, will support the music industry to grow through strategic initiatives, industry partnerships, research, skills development and export promotion. We'll have a First Nations body to give First Nations people autonomy over arts decisions and investments. Writers Australia will provide direct support to the literature sector for writers and publishers to grow local and international audiences for Australian books.</para>
<para>They are all significant steps forward, but, on top of this, we'll introduce quotas for Australian content for digital streaming platforms. We'll almost double investment in the Regional Arts Fund. We'll develop an arts and disability plan to enable people with disability to access and participate fully in the cultural and creative life of our nation. We'll provide $12 million to support digital games developers and independent games studios. We'll legislate to ban fake First Nations art and provide $3.8 million to digitise at-risk First Nations cultural material so it's preserved for future generations.</para>
<para>We'll introduce digital lending rights for writers and establish the role of poet laureate for Australia. We'll share the works of the National Gallery collection with regional and suburban galleries—and I know, having been in country New South Wales in the last few days, that conversations about that are already starting. We'll establish artist residencies to visit Australian World Heritage sites to produce artworks and tell stories of place and heritage.</para>
<para>So how are arts workers feeling? As one said, 'I didn't realise how demoralising it had been until this light came through.'</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there a seconder for the motion?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Gosling</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para><inline font-style="italic">Sea Country</inline>, a children's book written by Aunty Patsy Cameron, with beautiful collages and illustrations by Lisa Kennedy, begins:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My people are proud, strong people. We are the descendants of Mannalargenna of the Pairrebeenne/Trawlwoolway clan. We grew up on Flinders Island in eastern Bass Strait. The bush and the beach were our playground … We were free to hear Country speaking to us.</para></quote>
<para><inline font-style="italic">Sea Country </inline>weaves a cultural homage to life on Flinders Island, with stories of collecting, fishing in wooden dinghies with long oars and watching clouds snake their way down Mount Munro. When the book was launched, Aunty Patsy said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think it's really important to tell these stories for children to understand Aboriginal heritage and how Aboriginal people relate to the land, and how as a young person I related to the country, to the land and the seas and the skies.</para></quote>
<para>In the northern region of lutruwita, the First Nations connection to kanamaluka, our local estuary, has been explored at the newly built University of Tasmania Library at Inveresk, which I opened last year. Launceston-born and -raised Aboriginal artist Caleb Mansell was commissioned to design feature carpets for the building's interior. A proud and deep connection to country and culture drove the inspiration for the final pieces, which can be seen across the three levels of the new library. The pieces are titled <inline font-style="italic">Wetlands</inline><inline font-style="italic">;</inline><inline font-style="italic">kanamaluka</inline><inline font-style="italic">I</inline><inline font-style="italic">,</inline><inline font-style="italic">II </inline><inline font-style="italic">and </inline><inline font-style="italic">III; </inline>and <inline font-style="italic">Flats</inline>. Their colours and patterns represent themes and features connected to the nearby waterway. Caleb said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Growing up in Launceston, I spent a lot of time exploring and connecting to Country. There was always something mystical about this water that drew me in, it was like an energy. It was important that I brought kanamaluka from outside into the campus and told the story of how it supported our old people and still connects and supports our community today.</para></quote>
<para>It is critical that we ensure that the culture and historical significance of our First Nations people, like Aunty Patsy and Caleb, is heard through art. I welcome one of the key pillars of this new cultural policy, Revive, which has a focus on recognising and representing the crucial place of First Nations stories at the heart of our arts and culture and, importantly, legislating to ban fake First Nations art.</para>
<para>I've spoken in parliament on numerous occasions about how the arts sector in Northern Tasmania is incredibly strong, despite our relatively small population. This coming Friday will see the launch of the biennial Ten Days on the Island festival, which will present a number of exhibitions, performances and community events across the island. This comes off the back of another successful Mona Foma. Next week, the award-winning Encore Theatre Company will hold their opening night of <inline font-style="italic">Priscilla</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Queen of the Desert</inline>, which I can't wait to see. It will have a three-week run before they head into rehearsals for <inline font-style="italic">The </inline><inline font-style="italic">Boy from Oz</inline> in October. Of course, later this year Junction Arts Festival will be back—no doubt bigger and better than ever—while, across the region, smaller cultural, writing and poetry festivals and events are held throughout the year, giving dancers, actors, singers, writers, photographers, painters and creators a platform for their work to be performed or displayed.</para>
<para>Over the past decade, a significant number of organisations and individual artists in my electorate of Bass have been supported through coalition funding to bring their creative pursuits to life. When the pandemic was in its height and Tasmanian borders remained shut, I saw firsthand, from my continuing engagement with the local arts community, how the RISE fund gave local performers, pubs, theatre groups and art galleries a chance to get back on their feet and survive at a time when the industry had come to a complete standstill. Given where we were just a few years ago, I am absolutely full of pride when I look at the calendar of arts events in the year ahead and see how our local arts industry is thriving, assisted largely by the community, who have come out in droves to support local shows and artists.</para>
<para>Art in all its forms is a reflection on our society and its culture. It is a source of inspiration and connection for our communities. I'm proud of the creative output that continues to grow in my electorate of Bass and want to thank all artists who contribute to our local arts scene. I'm hopeful that the establishment of Creative Australia and four new bodies within it—Music Australia, Writers Australia, a First Nations led body and a Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces—will amplify opportunities for local artists in my region.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The new National Cultural Policy presents a much-needed boost to our arts industry. It promises a revival to the community of creative Australians and brings with it, for the first time in a very long time, government direction. This cultural policy is the third of its kind, following Paul Keating's Creative Nation and Julia Gillard's Creative Australia. It's a proud Labor legacy, and I'm proud to be of a government that is continuing it.</para>
<para>We have an amazing arts sector in Dunkley. For example, last Saturday night it was on display in a magical way. The fourth Stellar Short Film Festival was held at McClelland Sculpture Park and Gallery. You couldn't find a more beautiful venue—outside amongst the sculptures, the gum trees and the stars and with local food vans and refreshments. That spirited lot gets a big shout-out; it was just amazing. It's one of those events where, after you've been once, you can't stop coming back. It's everything that is great, innovative and inspiring about Australian cinematic culture. It's one of a kind in our country, and it's run by, created by and is the heart and soul of Dunkley locals. There were about a thousand people there on Saturday night, enjoying film and, as I said, food and beverages from locals. Many people went with their family and friends, and we had artists from all the sectors that are involved in making film from around the country.</para>
<para>Twelve of the best award-winning Australian films from 2020 to 2022 were showcased and competed for prizes from a panel of film judges. They were so impressive: Michael Caton, known for <inline font-style="italic">T</inline><inline font-style="italic">he Castle</inline> and much more; Scott Major, who you'll remember from <inline font-style="italic">Heart</inline><inline font-style="italic">break High</inline>; Natalie Erika James, from <inline font-style="italic">Relic</inline>; Bradley Slabe, from <inline font-style="italic">Lost </inline><inline font-style="italic">& F</inline><inline font-style="italic">ound</inline>; and Tilda Cobham-Hervey, from <inline font-style="italic">Hotel </inline><inline font-style="italic">Mumbai</inline>. They were all enjoying everything that Langwarrin had to offer at McClelland Sculpture Park. Filmmakers and actors flew in from around the country.</para>
<para>I want to make special mention of one of the films from the night. <inline font-style="italic">Tarneit</inline>, directed by John Sheedy, won an award on Saturday night. I have to say—sorry, everyone else—it was my favourite. It's a beautiful film which tells the story of Tyrone and Clinton living in Tarneit, in Melbourne. They are deeply bonded, teenage young men. They were deeply bonded partly because they were both deaf, partly through a shared sense of neglect and the hardships of life and mostly because they shared a dream of one day escaping that harsh violence that swirled around them. The film was particularly special as the actors are deaf, and we were able to, with the organisers of Stellar, make sure they could attend the event, receive awards on the film's behalf on the night and be genuinely and absolutely included because the organisers of Stellar arranged for Auslan interpreters—I must say, at significant expense—to be there to make sure that the brilliant young actors could be part of this event in a full and heartfelt way.</para>
<para>We know how important the arts sector is in my community. Frankston, Mount Eliza and the surrounds are full of visual artists, museums, writers, content creators and more. I've spoken of many of them over the last four years in this parliament. These are people who went out of their way to contribute, prior to the last election, to shaping our national arts policy, being part of a forum online with the arts minister, the then shadow minister, to share their experiences, their ideas and their encouragement to move forward with a comprehensive policy. Now that we've launched Revive, the cultural policy my community were looking for, I'm very excited that in a few weeks the now arts minister is coming back to Dunkley to catch up again with many of these local voices, to talk about where to from here.</para>
<para>In my last five seconds, I want to give a big shout-out to the upcoming Big Picture Fest hosted by Frankston City Council and congratulate them. It will be something to be seen and not to be missed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak in favour of this motion and also to commend the long-term work of the members for Macquarie and Watson. The Albanese government has launched <inline font-style="italic">Revive: </inline><inline font-style="italic">A</inline><inline font-style="italic"> place for every story, a story for every place</inline>, Australia's new national cultural policy that will set the course for Australia's arts, entertainment and cultural sector for the next five years. This government recognises the importance this sector plays in Australia's cultural advancement and that the arts shouldn't be a privilege that only a few can access. It's something all Australians can experience and participate in.</para>
<para>At the peak of the pandemic, the arts sector worked overtime with little federal support to ensure Australians could still engage with all aspects of the sector, from our cultural institutions and our learned societies to our favourite indi artists. The industry was forced to completely change its ways. Our favourite musicians, artists, comedians and actors went to podcasts, Zoom concerts or other mediums to ensure they could provide sought-after content for their dedicated followers. There are many Australians that are incredibly grateful for the services the arts sector continued to provide during such difficult circumstances.</para>
<para>The former government were no friends to those interested in the arts or those who worked across the sector. The Brandis era cuts devastated the industry and left many industry participants without hope. But now, thanks to the Albanese government, small to medium-sized organisations will have the opportunity to grow again. Revive will also seek to modernise how the government supports the arts sector.</para>
<para>Since its creation by the Whitlam government in 1975, the Australia Council has been the principal Commonwealth body that has supported the arts sector. The Albanese government will now restore its funding and modernise the program by establishing Creative Australia and creating four new bodies: Music Australia, Writers Australia, First Nations First and a Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces. Revive will bring much-needed direction to the industry that was largely forgotten during the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments.</para>
<para>This government recognises that you should not need to travel to the centre of our capital cities to appreciate art and that tourists should be encouraged to visit our regions to appreciate their stories and cultural contributions to Australia. This policy will begin the process of restoring the cuts made under the previous government and increase funding for the Regional Arts Fund, which will increase its capacity to deliver more regional programs. Revive, in this space, will aim to share the national collections with all Australians, by establishing a loan program that will deliver long-term loans of works from the National Gallery of Australia's collection to regional and suburban cultural institutions, and I look forward to some of the potential programs that might run through the Tuggeranong Arts Centre in my seat of Bean.</para>
<para>Our national collecting institutions have provided Australians, whether they are academic researchers, amateur family historians or visitors, with a crucial link not just to our national heritage but also to an understanding of both our past and present. While Revive doesn't directly address the crippling neglect from the Liberal-National government's decade-long cultural war, I will continue to work with the Minister for the Arts and the Special Envoy for the Arts to ensure that the long-term financial sustainability of our national collecting institutions can be addressed in the upcoming budget process.</para>
<para>We owe Australians a policy that will help shape and grow this nation's ability to share its stories through cultural expression. When I first served in this great place, I had the privilege to be involved in the inquiry into Canberra's national institutions and the report that came out of that inquiry, <inline font-style="italic">Telling</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Australia's </inline><inline font-style="italic">story—and w</inline><inline font-style="italic">hy it's important</inline>. Many of that report's recommendations have remained on the shelf gathering dust. Finally we have a government that is not only committed to our national cultural institutions but is committed to a national cultural policy that will tell our stories, past, present and future. I commend the motion to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pacific Australia Labour Mobility</title>
          <page.no>172</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Coalition's strong track record of delivering for Pacific Island economies through the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) Scheme, which has been instrumental in setting up Pacific workers and farmers for success;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) there are currently 35,000 PALM workers in Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) during the COVID-19 pandemic, the former Government managed to double the PALM Scheme from 12,500 to 25,000 participants, which furthered Pacific economies and ensured Australian food security; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that this recent additional growth is due to the previous Government's streamlining of the Pacific Labour Scheme, which ensured a more efficient and safer PALM Scheme, in turn benefitting both workers and farmers.</para></quote>
<para>In moving this motion, I want to emphasise the fact that this is a coalition policy. PALM was introduced in April 2022. It replaced the Seasonal Worker Program, from the Gillard Labor years, in 2012, and the Pacific Labour Scheme, introduced in Malcolm Turnbull's prime ministership, in 2018. When PALM came in, Zed Seselja was the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. It's a pity that the former Australian Capital Territory senator is now no longer in the upper house, but he is certainly contributing to better outcomes in the Pacific in a private capacity.</para>
<para>The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme allows for Australian businesses to hire workers from nine Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste. The PALM scheme helps to fill labour gaps in rural and regional Australia by offering employers access to a pool of workers. I have to say that it's not just in fruit picking, agriculture and meat processing that Pacific island workers come to the fore. It's in aged care, as you would know, Deputy Speaker Chesters, and in hospitality. Being a regional member, you would know that there are many gaps. Indeed, the Regional Australia Institute identifies 80,000 full-time vacancies in regional Australia right now. I see the member for Solomon nodding. He'd know, representing Darwin, just how many jobs there are right across our great nation.</para>
<para>The money sent from Pacific workers in Australia home to their families makes up a significant amount of gross domestic product for their home countries. It helps to contribute to raising standards of living and better health and education outcomes, particularly for children. It helps families to achieve their hopes and aspirations for themselves and their young ones and even to buy a home. As I say, a significant proportion of GDP comes from Australian workers, PALM workers, sending their money back to their Pacific home nations. Once approved to recruit under the PALM scheme, employers can access two cohorts of workers: seasonal workers for up to nine months and longer term workers for between one and four years.</para>
<para>We welcome the 35,000 PALM workers now in Australia. On 27 October last year, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, the member for Shortland, said he wanted to see 35,000 PALM workers in Australia over the next 12 months. On 31 October there were 31,500 PALM workers already in Australia. The government appear to have deliberately set themselves an easy goal by giving themselves 12 months to recruit just 3,500 people. When you set the bar low, it's pretty easy to achieve. It's pretty easy to jump over the bar and pat yourself on the back and say: 'Well done. Look at me—aren't I good? Fantastic.' But on 25 March 2021 there were 22,500 PALM workers in Australia. In seven months, 9,000 workers came to Australia. What made the government think that it would take 12 months to get what they were trying to achieve—what Labor set their target at?</para>
<para>Labor are not only setting themselves lowball goals; they're also taking credit for our work. But that's not surprising. We're used to this situation. It was the coalition who streamlined the Pacific Labour Scheme and the Seasonal Worker Program to ensure a more efficient and, I'll have to say, safer PALM scheme. One of the reasons for this recent growth is the fact that it benefits both workers and farmers—farmers particularly. We know that Pacific Islanders are so beneficial in so many areas of endeavour, but it's in agriculture where they really shine. In November 2021 we announced the start of a new simplified and modernised approach—our Pacific Labour Mobility Scheme—to the SWP and the PLS. The new PALM scheme we introduced has additional flexibilities, expanded access to the programs, additional support to boost worker arrivals and bolstered worker welfare measures. This is so important because we want to give those Pacific Islanders the surety that they're going to be safe, their conditions are going to be flexible and they're going to be paid the right amount.</para>
<para>I've been to Vanuatu—a couple of times in recent months—to Papua New Guinea and to the Federated States of Micronesia, and one of the things we also want to make sure is that the right balance is met, because what we don't want to do is take the best and brightest away from those nations and leave them short—leave them in a situation where they don't have skilled or unskilled workers in their own countries doing work for them. I commend the PALM scheme. It is a very good scheme, and it was the coalition government that introduced it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there a seconder for the motion?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Coulton</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll second it and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Riverina here today. He's someone I have a lot of time for in this place. One reason for that was spending a very valuable week with the member for Riverina on a delegation to Kenya late last year, an extremely rewarding experience, in a place where we did a bit of soil sampling, if I remember rightly. One of the other reasons, especially given that this is my first term in this place, is that it seems rarer and rarer these days to see members of the National Party speaking on policies that look at boosting our agricultural sector and that help our farmers—in this case, the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, also known as the PALM scheme. The textbooks say this used to happen a lot more back in yesteryear. I'm glad we have a practitioner of the old ways amongst us here today! It is a really good thing to see as a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and I really do mean that.</para>
<para>The P in the PALM scheme indicates that this is a program that doesn't just provide a huge boost to our agriculture sector. The PALM scheme provides a great deal of benefit to a number of our friends and neighbours in the Pacific region who come to Australia to work under the scheme, to their families and to their local economies. They number in the tens of thousands. In fact, as the member for Riverina's motion notes, the number is in the vicinity of 35,000. There are 35,000 workers under this scheme here in Australia. They are from countries like Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu, which is a country I believe the member for Riverina knows quite intimately.</para>
<para>I don't necessarily want to the sour the mood of agreement here. Providing jobs, particularly in the agriculture sector, is a fantastic thing. In turn it provides a steady income for workers from Pacific nations to send back home. In fact, a worker in the PALM scheme repatriates on average around $15,000 every year. This scheme involves countries from a region where more than one-third of the people are living on less than $1,000 a year. This, quite accurately, can bring families out of poverty. Agriculture is not the only sector that PALM workers are filling vacancies in. They are in catering and the hospitality sector and all the way through to the care sector.</para>
<para>I can't help but notice that the member for Riverina puts the jump in participant numbers solely down to the efforts of the former government. In the dying days of the Morrison government the 25,000 quoted figure is close enough to be accurate, but that jumped by 44 per cent to 35,000 in seven months—six months earlier than the projected figures had indicated. It was somewhat naive to the fact that the PALM scheme was a big item on the Albanese Labor government's agenda during the Job and Skills Summit that was held not long after the election.</para>
<para>The program is a collaborative approach from the government. It brings contributions from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and all the way up to the Prime Minister himself.</para>
<para>The inclusion in that list of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations draws me to another key distinction between the scheme under the previous government and the scheme under the Albanese Labor government. We are focused on ensuring that workers are treated fairly and are not subject to horrendous conditions on their job sites. Ensuring a safe and respectful workplace should be just as important to us all as filling the workforce shortages this scheme provides for. Any breach of the conditions of workers is serious, and I am glad the government views breaches of workplace laws for workers under schemes such as this to be serious.</para>
<para>The story that gets painted of Australia by migrant workers can be clouded by the conduct of those who employ them. This can undermine the effectiveness of programs, such as the PALM scheme, and diminish our reputation abroad more generally. I'm sure this is something even those opposite, who have seldom been friends and allies of workers, would see as a terrible thing.</para>
<para>I suppose we can try to look past what motivates us, as long as we find ourselves at the same conclusion. Like those opposite, we see the inherent benefits of the PALM scheme. With this government at the helm I know this scheme can expand in a way that benefits us all.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm also very pleased to back my friend and colleague the member for Riverina on this very important motion about the PALM scheme. I pay tribute to the member for Riverina, who has taken the task of engagement with the Pacific nations very seriously and has engaged in quite a lot of their cultural activities as well. I'm very pleased that I can support him on this motion.</para>
<para>I'm personally aware of a couple of places in my electorate where the PALM scheme is operating. They are largely citrus orchards. It suits that industry. The work is not all year round. The citrus harvest goes for about six months. The workers come across, do their six months and then go home. What's important, like with everything else, is the personal relationships that build up between the workers who come across and the employers.</para>
<para>I spoke to some ladies from Vanuatu, who were on an orchard in Moree. In one season, they'd saved enough money to buy their own land. In the second year, they were saving enough money to build a house on it. They'd actually left their husbands at home with their children, and they were doing a sterling job in Moree. I have also spoken to some Fijians working in a similar situation in Gunnedah.</para>
<para>The reason this scheme works so well is that it's not full-time work; it's seasonal work. I know there's an amendment coming through on the Pacific Engagement scheme that may be going to be discussed this week in parliament. I've got a few concerns about that one, because it's a ballot, and going into a ballot sort of removes or puts at a distance that personal relationship that people have. It's also permanent migration on a regular basis. The problem with that is that then we could be removing some of the more motivated future leaders of our neighbours, permanently, to Australia, whereas the PALM scheme really acts as an economic stimulus for the villages of these islands where they come from. The ladies that I met in Moree work really hard. They work six days a week. On Sunday, they go to church and look after their domestic affairs, and then they're back to work on Monday. They are thoroughly decent and nice people who are taking the opportunity to lift their families out of poverty. I heard anecdotally this week that a large proportion of the GDP of some of our Pacific neighbours is made up of income that comes from guest workers who come to Australia and send their money home.</para>
<para>So I back the member for Riverina. I think we need to continue this scheme. It's probably limited in its numbers, because the countries where they come from don't have huge populations. But, as I say, I do have some reservations about the new engagement. Don't get me wrong. In my electorate, we are short thousands of workers. But we actually need to be specific about the skill set and the aptitude of the people who come in, and just having people on a ballot I think is a little bit random.</para>
<para>Thankfully, as I know from the employers that I speak to, employers treat these people very well. I've been to the accommodation. It's been fully renovated, with leather lounges and industrial kitchens. It's very comfortable.</para>
<para>The member for Spence mentioned exploitation of workers, and I think that is something we need to watch for. That would be about the lowest form of activity—to bring people in from overseas and then treat them poorly in an employment situation.</para>
<para>So this is a great scheme, instigated by the coalition government, and, in opposition, supported well by my colleague and friend the member for Riverina.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Riverina as well for giving us this opportunity to talk about the PALM scheme. We acknowledge the background to this scheme, but we're also incredibly happy and confident in our ability to grow it, because our government understands the importance of the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, or the PALM scheme, to not only our Pacific family but also those Australian producers that benefit so much from it.</para>
<para>I was quite happy to listen to the history lesson on the program. But it was a serious thing when, as honourable members might remember, the current Leader of the Opposition made jokes about the future of people in the Pacific, some time ago. That is not the sort of empathy that we want, or need, to grow and further enhance our relationship with the Pacific islands. I hope that has been a learning point for some of those opposite. I don't put the member for Riverina in that basket at all, but I think it goes to underscore a point about how important not only diplomacy is but also real action on climate change and on the things that are important to people, such as employment in the Pacific, is.</para>
<para>When our government came to office, the total number of PALM workers in Australia was just over 24,400. The member for Riverina had some figures. In the October 2022 budget we committed to reaching 35,000 workers by June 2023. We reached that goal in December, some six months ahead of schedule. Far from being a small increase, or a low bar, this was a 44 per cent increase in just seven months, more than quadrupling the workers here in Australia from the Pacific compared to pre-COVID times. Reaching this milestone early is one demonstration of our commitment to immediately address longstanding workforce issues across the key sectors in our economy. Coming from the Northern Territory, I certainly understand that.</para>
<para>The workers coming under this scheme are earning income, developing skills and filling workforce shortages across 28 industries, including agriculture, food processing, hospitality and aged care. All honourable members would be aware of workforce challenges in these industries. The scheme is vital for filling workplace shortages in regional Australia and ensuring businesses can continue supporting their communities when there are limited local workers available.</para>
<para>The scheme remains uncapped and will continue to grow as long as there is demand from Australian businesses. There are currently more than 37,000 pre-screened workers across the Pacific who are waiting to work in Australia. In the Northern Territory, which hosts over 1,000 workers, we've recently seen 215 arrive from Samoa and 151 from Vanuatu to pick mangoes. They were very welcome, of course. The last of the mangoes are in the markets at the moment, actually. Many of them were picked by those workers.</para>
<para>Thirty-five Samoans have also served as aged-care and disability support workers in remote areas of the Territory, where we can really struggle for workforce. Last March we saw 150 more seasonal workers from Fiji and Timor-Leste arrive in Darwin and Alice Springs to bolster the Territory's tourism, hospitality, aged-care, disability and agricultural workforces.</para>
<para>Indeed, just the other day, returning from the air show down at Avalon, I chatted with a bunch of great blokes from Timor-Leste. One of them, Tino, has work at the Humpty Doo Barramundi farm, south-east of Darwin. He'd been using the opportunity not only to earn an income to support his brother's education but also to develop his own skills and to learn more about leadership. He has a good reputation as a hard worker and dedicates himself to excellence. 'I try to be the best I can be,' he said.</para>
<para>Thanks to the hundreds of workers like Tino, the scheme makes a massive contribution to the Territory. It also boosts the Pacific and Timor-Leste's economies by lifting families out of poverty. This program is a real driver of economic development in the Pacific. It will continue to succeed and grow under our government. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a pleasure to rise and support the member for Riverina's fine motion in support of the PALM scheme, an initiative of the coalition government. It succeeded in bringing so many workers from our Pacific family here to Australia to be able to earn a great Australian wage and, of course, have those remittances go back to their families and communities all across the Pacific. It ensures that they have a much higher GDP than they would otherwise and that real prosperity reaches the regions, not through government bureaucracy but directly to families and villages, which I had the opportunity to visit on many occasions as the Minister for International Development and the Pacific.</para>
<para>On those occasions when I did visit workers and saw the PALM scheme in action in different countries throughout the Pacific I found exactly what this motion is speaking to the parliament today about: people who had been working on the scheme for a long time, people who were repeat workers, and farmers who had developed great relationships and links with people. It's a very successful scheme that deserves great attention from the Albanese government.</para>
<para>I'll speak a little bit now about some of the reforms that the Albanese government has made and some of the challenges that they might face, but I would just endorse, of course, that the Minister for International Development and the Pacific really does need to set ambitious targets, because this is a temporary visa scheme. And a temporary visa scheme is entirely appropriate for this kind of genuine engagement with different Pacific countries. It has had great benefits, working very well. So we'd encourage them to expand it. We'd encourage them to keep meeting the shortages in regions and to also look at the former government's very successful agricultural visa that was proposed as a longer term solution.</para>
<para>One word of caution I would add to the government's plans in relation to the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023—that is, for the people listening, the green-card-style system that the government did have in its election policy, to be fair to it, though it was not spoken about—is that the unintended consequences of having a green-card system for the Pacific could be quite severe. The intention of the government in this regard for Pacific workers has been that it will deepen engagement with Pacific countries. But we've seen from New Zealand's system—and they speak to the New Zealand system—that often these kinds of initiatives can lead to depopulation of Pacific countries, which is not something that we want to see.</para>
<para>It can also sometimes lead to what is colloquially referred to as brain drain, where talented and smart young people migrate out of those countries when Pacific societies need as much investment in them. It was a policy objective of the previous government to invest in the countries, to invest in capacity, to invest in skills building. To me it is a great concern that the government may not have thought through the impact of their amendment to the Migration Act in relation to the green-card system that they're modelling on the United States one. While some people will say it's fantastic to bring people from the Pacific here on a permanent basis, I think the impact on those Pacific communities may be underestimated, and it's not something I think Australia would like to see over the long term. So I would urge the government to have some caution there.</para>
<para>To bring people's families out with workers, as well, can present serious accommodation challenges around Australia. We've seen that already. We have shortages of accommodation. We still don't have the formula right for rural and regional councils and mayors to build accommodation that is good quality but is low cost and is able to sustain workforces. More family members, including women and children predominantly but also other male family members, can put an additional burden on the accommodation system around Australia.</para>
<para>I would urge the government to look at the PALM scheme as a model of success. It's a very successful scheme, as the member for Riverina has highlighted. It deserves our full endorsement in our approach. Some of the measures the government is trialling are controversial, to my mind. They may not have thought through the direct policy work that is needed to back up a green-card system—a total change of policy direction—and the outcome that might happen in Pacific countries, as well as the detailed work that needs to go into the accommodation inside Australia and the other factors that we've seen can be quite challenging when people come here for regional work.</para>
<para>The success of the PALM scheme was in its very successful design and the return that went to the workers. We're thrilled to see so many Pacific Island family members coming back to Australia, taking up those work opportunities. There will be many, many more. We strongly support the PALM scheme. It is a temporary visa scheme, but it works, and it sends back skilled workers, with high amounts of remittances over time back into those communities, in some cases forming a substantial part of the GDP of many of those Pacific countries. It's a great investment from a coalition government. We urge the government to strongly support PALM and to keep PALM going but also to carefully consider the impact of their policy changes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I recently had the pleasure of visiting PNG on a multipartisan delegation focused on health with the member for Riverina, and we had a great time. It was very educational. We were able to do our job thanks to a small army of personnel from Save the Children, DFAT and other organisations who got us safely from A to B. Our security detail was provided by a private contractor run by one of my constituents, David Saul. David is ex-military and, through his company, employs local people in a variety of occupations, here in Australia as well as in PNG. These tasks include private security, facilities management and training. I met David at the end of last year to discuss improvements to the PALM scheme. He shared his frustrations with red tape and prioritisation of rural above metropolitan areas, as well as how labour shortages were constraining his business growth. This was my first trip to PNG, and I must confess that I found the level of poverty confronting. As someone who spent the first decade of their life in Zambia, I did not expect this degree of deprivation. People are poor, infrastructure is crumbling or non-existent, connectivity is patchy, half the children are growth retarded and gender based violence is rife. Life is hard, and it seems to be getting harder under the demands of a growing population that may be somewhere between 15 million and 20 million.</para>
<para>Despite their hardships, the kindness and generosity of the people of PNG shone through. As a parliamentarian, however, I don't get to romanticise reality. Our Pacific family needs us, and we want to be their preferred partner of choice when it comes to economic development. The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, or PALM scheme, speaks to mutual benefit. With key-worker shortages gripping essential services like aged-care, and with our businesses desperate for workers, the Albanese government wants to open the door to our Pacific family—thereby boosting remittance flows and connections with our region.</para>
<para>Seasonal workers send, on average, $1,000 per month to their families, and longer-term workers remit $1,300 per month, transforming lives back home and boosting the GDP of their countries as well. It's a big deal in a region where more than one third of people live on less than $1,000 a year, noting that long-term PALM workers send home, on average, 15 times the average. Since coming to government, the PALM program has swelled by 44 per cent, going from 24,000 at the end of May, when we took government, to over 35,000 workers at the end of December. We have delivered a full six months ahead of schedule.</para>
<para>The Albanese government, from day one, started to repair relationships in the Pacific that had been neglected by those opposite, and it is paying a mutually beneficial economic dividend. Open to nine Pacific islands, including Fiji, Kiribati, PNG, Nauru, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Timor-Leste, this temporary program is demand driven and uncapped, in order to fill gaps unmet by domestic labour supply. So far, over 400 approved businesses have taken up the scheme, but we would like more Australian businesses to join. Eligible businesses, at this stage, include any sector in rural or regional areas or in agriculture nationally. Temporary programs may be short term, up to nine months, or longer term, ranging from one to four years.</para>
<para>Until now, workers have been being unable to bring their dependants to Australia. However, in 2023, 200 families of long-term workers will be allowed to stay. These lucky families will enjoy the benefits of the childcare subsidy, family assistance payments and access to health and education. Criticisms of the scheme include that it is too slow, with employers unable to recruit directly in-country, except through a third party, and employers in city based businesses are denied access to labour. The scheme has been marred by weak safeguards, which have invited exploitation of workers by unscrupulous operators. Implementing the recommendations of the Migrant Workers Taskforce will improve workplace conditions, bringing them in line with community expectations. This is being achieved within language predeparture briefings of workers, as well as employers meeting obligations around accommodation, worker wellbeing, sufficient hours of work and so on.</para>
<para>The PALM scheme will continue to grow as long as there is demand from businesses in Australia. Given widespread labour shortages across multiple sectors, I hope to see an expansion of the scheme to metropolitan areas. With more than 37,000 workers currently on a waitlist and yawning vacancies in aged care, we must expedite this process. The mutual benefits are clear. Our introduction of key aged-care reforms means that we are going to need a whole lot more aged-care workers, and currently we seem to be falling short by around 20,000.</para>
<para>Under us, the PALM scheme has been strengthened by our intensified diplomatic push and our commitment to worker security and to the shared aspirations of the Australian business community. We hope to see it grow in tandem with business and our own economic interests.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm really pleased to speak on the PALM private members' motion, and the member for Riverina and his work in the space. As we know, the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme has been a vital component in fulfilling the labour needs of businesses across the country, particularly in regional Australia. We know that currently there are 35,000 workers in the country doing exactly that. Over 3,400 of those people are in my state of Western Australia; this was reported in the <inline font-style="italic">Countrym</inline><inline font-style="italic">a</inline><inline font-style="italic">n</inline>, a local agricultural paper. That pretty well highlights how important this scheme is in my part of the world, where there are such significant labour shortages. In government, we saw this as a really useful scheme—which it has proven to be, as other speakers have acknowledged. It was a result of the former government's streamlining of the Seasonal Workers Program and the Pacific labour scheme together. That benefited the workers, the farmers, the businesses and even the communities from where the workers came. They have filled absolutely critical roles throughout the electorate, whether in seasonal work of various sorts—in harvesting, in pruning, in picking and packing—or in longer-term positions like those in the food processing or care industry, like aged care.</para>
<para>Capecare, an aged-care facility in Dunsborough in my electorate, have had difficulty securing workers. Through the PALM scheme, they have filled eight crucial vacancies and are looking at potentially increasing that number. This is really important to Capecare. They provide fantastic services for people in the aged-care sector in my part of the world. They have recently, in the last few years, with some assistance, through the Building Better Regions Fund, built an aged-care facility that is providing extraordinary services. But, again, as with so many other facilities, the biggest issue is not having sufficient staff. This is replicated right across the regions and right across Australia, but to see the people from the PALM scheme part of this—they have been extremely valuable workers in each of the sectors they've been engaged in. The former government basically encouraged those in the aged-care worker space and supported aged-care employers to recruit people through the PALM scheme, acknowledging this was a real issue. That was one of the focuses of the PALM scheme itself.</para>
<para>Admittedly, some of those people, with the great shortage of accommodation in regional areas, have bought homes to house their workers in because there are no other options. We've seen such broad worker shortages. One of my abattoirs has 187 of the PALM scheme workers. We know that they come from so many different countries, be they from Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, PNG, Samoa, the Solomons, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Vanuatu or Tuvalu. The people-to-people connections and the relationships that have been built as part of this have really been, in some smaller communities, a massive input into those smaller communities. The vital remittance flows that have gone back to the families and the communities they come from are a major bonus for those economies and for the individual families. The opportunities that come into those communities as a result of the income earned out of Australia are incredibly vital.</para>
<para>When I was in the Solomons, going back a few years, there was a gentleman who—and Australia is so good at what it does in the Pacific in supporting our Pacific neighbours; this is just one way—walked several days to let me know, as a result of Australia's aid, what he was able to do with coconuts in the compression and the sale of those to various buyers. He was so delighted he was able to put his grandson through school. That young boy would have had no opportunity to do so otherwise, and that's what this scheme has also assisted with.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before the last federal election, in April 2022 I was at a forum organised by AgForce Queensland—a Politics in the Pub in the Grand Hotel in Esk, in Somerset in my electorate. I was pleased to talk both formally in the debate and informally outside it about how Labor would reform, improve and expand the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme. I commend the member for Riverina for his optimism and his political chutzpah in giving credit to the former government in relation to the expansion of the scheme under the current federal Labor government, where we saw the total number of workers rise to over 35,000 by the end of last year. It's a milestone that we achieved six months early. It's important for the Australian economy, and it's important for my electorate of Blair, a regional and rural electorate in South-East Queensland.</para>
<para>PALM workers are earning an income, developing skills and filling workforce shortages across 28 industries, including agriculture and food processing. It's particularly important to those two industries in my electorate, in terms of agriculture in rural Ipswich and the Somerset region, and in terms of meat processing at places like JBS at Dinmore and at other meat-processing facilities at Coominya and Kilcoy. But it's also important for the accommodation, hospitality and aged-care sectors, and, with great shortages in aged care, it's important for this scheme to operate. It's vital not just in my electorate but around the country, and workers in the scheme are employed under the same industry awards and legislation as Australian workers. That's important for the integrity of the scheme.</para>
<para>Employers must meet stringent criteria to participate, including compliance with workplace regulations and health and safety laws. Nine Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste are participating in the scheme, which is boosting economies and lifting families out of poverty. The reforms that we are making are familial, in terms of bringing families across, and financial, in assisting people in the scheme. In a region where more than a third of the people live on less than $1,000 a year, the ability to send home in excess of $10,000 or $15,000 in remittances is a huge economic boost for these families and the region.</para>
<para>We're delivering on our commitment to expand, reform and improve the scheme. It's a commitment we made before the election, and of course we commit to both addressing the Pacific's economic challenges and easing Australia's agricultural workforce shortages by reforming the Seasonal Worker Program and expanding the Pacific Labour Scheme. We said we'd ensure the federal government meets upfront travel costs for Pacific workers under the Seasonal Worker Program—that's the financial benefit—to increased the attractiveness of the program for Australian farmers. That was a point I made during a debate in April 2020 to a forum who weren't always my way inclined in terms of their political disposition.</para>
<para>We promised we'd make it easier for Pacific workers to fill labour shortages across the country and bring their family members there. That's exactly what we are doing. We've dedicated an agricultural visa stream under PALM and created a robust and sustainable four-year visa with portability, some strong oversight mechanisms and protection and rights for workers. This is about improving lives, mitigating critical skills shortages and contributing to our economy and to the economic resilience of the region.</para>
<para>In the member for Riverina's motion, he claims that recent additional growth in PALM numbers is due to the previous government's commitment, but I think he should look back at the history of this particular scheme. I would remind him that it was actually the Rudd Labor government that introduced the first Pacific labour mobility program in Australia, the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme, in 2008. Indeed, a lot of the policy work was done by Labor in opposition, prior to the 2007 election, by the then shadow minister for the Pacific Islands, Bob Sercombe, and his office, and it highlighted the two-way economic and foreign policy benefits of a Pacific seasonal worker program.</para>
<para>So those opposite can't claim credit for a program that we initiated and we've made improvements to since we've got into power. It's important to not get engaged in a bit of historical revisionism here and to tell the truth. It was Labor government scheme. It's a Labor government improvement on the scheme, and Labor's making a big difference to people. These workers will address important skills shortages. It'll help farmers in my electorate, and it'll help meat processors like JBS with their workforce shortages. I'm looking forward to working with those employers in my area to achieve better outcomes.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Broadband</title>
          <page.no>178</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Australian Labor Party established the National Broadband Network (NBN) Co in 2009;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the NBN Co was established to connect all Australians with fast, accessible and reliable broadband;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the former Government's move to a multi-technology mix, using the copper broadband network, resulted in reduced broadband speeds, less reliability and increased costs to NBN Co; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) businesses and everyday Australians require fast and reliable broadband to operate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) use of the copper broadband network has delayed access to fast and reliable broadband;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) existing broadband infrastructure requires upgrading due to the former Government's use of copper technology;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Government committed $2.4 billion in the October 2022-2023 budget to expand full-fibre access to an additional 1.5 million premises by late 2025, including 660,000 in regional Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) Government will continue to ensure all Australians can have access to fast and reliable broadband; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that Australian families deserve access to internet that is affordable and meets the needs of small business, education, and recreation.</para></quote>
<para>In 2009 the then federal government, under Kevin Rudd, proposed one of the most ambitious infrastructure builds in modern times. Much like any other infrastructure project initiated by government, whether it be sewerage, roads or energy systems, it is not only necessary but vital to a modern-day society. The National Broadband Network was designed to connect Australians to an increasingly interconnected and globalised world. It was to be built with the future in mind, ensuring that Australians could benefit for decades. However, many did not see that benefit. Instead, they claimed that Australians did not need faster internet speeds and labelled it as unnecessary and a waste. We now know that Australians don't just want faster and more reliable internet; they need it. During the COVID pandemic, Australians had to work, see a doctor and attend school from home. It was clear how necessary reliable broadband was. We saw the impacts of the previous government's failed NBN policy.</para>
<para>The NBN was meant to be a public infrastructure project, with the goal of providing Australians with world-leading broadband. Instead, it was diverted onto a politically determined path laid out by the former government that aimed to prove that fibre to the premises was unnecessary. The Abbott government's changes to the multitechnology mix, which championed fibre to the node, were promised to be cheaper for taxpayers and quicker to roll out. Instead, Australians received an outdated broadband network, with reduced speeds and less reliability, for an even higher price tag. In 2013 the Abbott government estimated that the project would cost $29.5 billion. It blew out to $56 billion. It was an incredibly expensive and failed experiment, and, as this became obvious, the previous government announced further funding of $4.5 billion in 2020. The Albanese government is committed to restoring the original intent of the NBN: fast and reliable internet for all Australians. The importance of fast internet for both economic and social growth can't be understated. Businesses need to adapt to a digital business model as households are increasingly working or studying from home.</para>
<para>The shift to online mediums didn't begin with COVID, but the pandemic has accelerated the change that was already occurring, and it will continue, which is why we're ensuring, as a government, that more households can access full-fibre broadband. In the October 2022-23 budget, the Albanese government committed a further $2.4 billion to expand full-fibre access to 1.5 million premises. In Werriwa that includes suburbs like Hinchinbrook and Middleton Grange, which will be able to order a full-fibre upgrade on demand from 2024. Those suburbs are in addition to many more in the electorate of Werriwa and surrounding south-west suburbs, like Leppington, Bringelly, Rossmore, Austral, Kemps Creek, Catherine Field, Denham Court, Gledswood Hills and Gregory Hills, where people can already order their fibre connections and receive all the benefits of world-class, reliable broadband today. I encourage those residents to visit the NBN website for more information. These are suburbs with new families moving in and new schools and businesses being built. With the opening of the Western Sydney Airport in the near future, it's vital that households and businesses have fast and reliable broadband. Whether you're in a metropolitan, suburban or regional area, everyone deserves to benefit from nation-building infrastructure projects, and the NBN is no exception.</para>
<para>A study commissioned by NBN Co, undertaken by Accenture in 2021, found that Australians derive an average of $1,920 in value every year from their NBN plan. It saves Australians an average of 170 hours a year, by making essential tasks easier to do online. There is significant social and economic value in saving almost four working weeks a year. Australians can spend that time doing what matters most to them. By 2025, 90 per cent of households and businesses in the NBN fixed-line footprint, including 660,000 premises in regional Australia, will have access to gigabit speeds—1,000 megabits per second.</para>
<para>I know that many residents in Werriwa look forward to having access to faster broadband, and that's what the Albanese government is delivering, so that they can take advantage of the world-class opportunities available for them, their children and their businesses.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Laxale</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to hold the Labor government to account for their dismal record on internet and phone connectivity for this country. Under Labor, the NBN was such a train wreck of a project that its network passed only three per cent of Australian premises at a whopping amount of money: $6 billion. The rollout was so badly managed that contractors downed tools and stopped construction work in four states around the country. When the coalition took over responsibility for the NBN, we set about fixing the problem in a methodical way.</para>
<para>Our strategic review recommended using a combination of rollout technologies—the multi-technology mix. We invested $4.5 billion in 2020 to ensure that 75 per cent of premises across Australia could connect to much faster broadband speeds. A key part of this commitment was to upgrade two million fibre-to-the-node sites to fibre to the premises to access these very high speeds. Importantly, this was financed through the NBN accessing private-sector debt at low interest rates over the long term, meaning that no additional investment by the Commonwealth was required. As part of this initiative, NBN Co aim to invest $700 million over the next three years to provide 90 per cent of all Australian businesses with access to business grade fibre at no upfront cost.</para>
<para>Transforming the access and affordability of business grade fibre and increasing competition and choice have proven to have been critical in our economic recovery from COVID-19. This was a game changer for small and medium-sized businesses in boosting productivity, fostering innovation and allowing businesses to embrace opportunities for growth. If the NBN had not been rolled out with such speed and purpose by the former coalition government using all available technologies, millions of premises throughout Australia may have languished on ADSL speeds of eight megabits per second on average or endured, indeed, having no internet service at all. Because of the coalition's approach, the NBN was there for Australians when they desperately needed it after the pandemic hit. Almost overnight, we had to adapt the way we worked, learned, accessed vital services and kept in touch with our loved ones.</para>
<para>Labor's record on the NBN is appalling. During the 2013 election campaign, the then minister for communications, Anthony Albanese, the member for Grayndler, announced with great fanfare that broadband was now available to 5,400 homes and businesses in Sydney. What he didn't say was that close to 1,000 of these homes were service class 0 and a massive 98.6 per cent had no fibre connecting the home at all. At the time of the 2013 federal election, NBN Co said it had passed 209,000 premises but close to 80 per cent of these had no fibre going into the home. We've seen this play before. It's typical Labor—very good with PR but absolutely hopeless when it comes to implementing policy.</para>
<para>NBN is critically important to regional and remote Australian communities, but so too is mobile telephone connectivity. Sadly, Labor has poor form with this technology as well. Their Mobile Black Spot Program was a failure, riddled with dodgy deals and mismanagement. Let me be very clear: the coalition government takes the issue of mobile black spots very seriously. In fact, since 2013, we've invested $308 million in our Mobile Black Spot Program, delivering new or improved mobile coverage to more than 1,200 communities right across the country. Labor claimed their program would deliver 765 new base stations. In reality, it was only 499. To make matters worse, many of the base stations were built in areas that already had coverage, while many areas with no coverage were left to languish.</para>
<para>I was extremely disappointed—shocked, even—to hear that, in Labor's new round of mobile black spot funding, 74 per cent of selected locations are in Labor's electorates. While Labor has once again looked after their own, our regional communities have been ignored, and they are suffering as a result. In my own very large electorate—the largest electorate in the land—there was only one site selected in this latest round. It is quite unbelievable. Minister Rowland needs to fully explain her role in personally selecting this list of sites so that we can clearly understand what the basis of it was. The Labor government has consistently demonstrated that they don't understand Australia, and this is another example.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Labor Party is the party that brings Australia forward. We're the party who introduced all of the things that make this country great, like paid parental leave and Medicare, just to name a couple of the nation-building changes put in place by us, the Labor Party. The NBN was meant to be another of those things that made our country great, and it would have been if the Labor Party had remained in government. But, as with many things implemented by those opposite, it became a massive flop. Instead of putting our country ahead of the rest of the world, we were left behind. Instead of making the most of the world-leading optic fibre that was available to us, they used copper—and it was Aussies that copped the consequences. They went for a cheap option instead of going for 'job done once, job done right'. So now we are here to do the job that should have been done properly the first time.</para>
<para>The internet isn't just the way of the world in the future; it's the way of the world right now. Thirteen years ago, we wanted to provide all Australians with fast, accessible and reliable broadband, but instead they got the cheap option, which was far from fast and reliable. It's ironic that this cheaper option turned out to be more expensive at the end of the day. Paying more for a product that is not as good—what sort of a deal is that?</para>
<para>This is a government that has a lot of work to do. We have a lot of catching up to do if Australia is to keep up with the rest of the world when it comes to the standard of our broadband. But this is a government that doesn't want Australia or Australians to be left behind, so we're getting on with the job straightaway.</para>
<para>This government committed $2.4 billion in the October 2022-23 budget to expanding full-fibre access to an additional 1.5 million premises by late 2025. We are ensuring that all Australians can have access to fast and reliable broadband, because Australian families deserve access to internet that is affordable, and it is just a simple fact that, if our country is to advance, our internet must meet the needs of small business, education and recreation.</para>
<para>This is good news for my electorate of Hunter. My constituents will be jumping with joy over these 1.5 million premises. And 660,000 of these are in regional Australia. On this side of the House, we may not wear puffer vests with slogans on them, but we sure do care about regions like my electorate, the Hunter. This announcement is just one example of a focus on regional Australia that will bring practical and significant benefits to all parts of the community, from businesses to families. Our most recent announcement meant that a further 14,637 households in my electorate will be able to upgrade to a full-fibre broadband connection. This covers almost all corners of my electorate, from Wyee to Wangi Wangi, Wallsend, Singleton, Glendale, Edgeworth, Cooranbong, Cessnock, Cardiff and Bonnells Bay—and this is just the start.</para>
<para>The NBN has been vital for our country. There are no two ways about it. The NBN has kept Australians connected, has supported remote learning and telehealth, and has expanded the reach of small business into new markets and customers. It is good for just about all parts of our country.</para>
<para>Sadly, there is a digital divide in this country which impacts regional and rural electorates like mine. But we are determined to narrow this divide. That's why the Minister for Communications made available $480 million to upgrade the fixed wireless network, within months of coming into government, something the coalition promised but never actually delivered. We're also narrowing the digital divide between our major cities and regional communities. From upgrades to Sky Muster Plus, fixed wireless and the fixed-line network, our government is determined to give Australians access to the 21st-century communications infrastructure they need and they deserve.</para>
<para>It's clear how important this infrastructure is for our country, and it's obvious how important it is for my electorate, the Hunter. This is why it's so important that we finish the job that we started and bring the NBN up to scratch, giving Australia the world-standard broadband that we first intended to provide. Only an Albanese Labor government delivers for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Werriwa for this important motion. In 2013, the then independent member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, spoke in this very chamber about the ageing and poorly maintained copper-wire network for NBN in our electorate. Today, almost 10 years on, here we are, still talking about the copper networks. Dissatisfied, disadvantaged and disconnected, that's how our Strathbogie Shire in my electorate of Indi and its residents feel about the NBN. Fibre is only available in two towns and then only to some. Most of the residents rely on fixed wireless and satellite. The mobile phone system and NBN alike face congestion, slower speeds and dropouts.</para>
<para>The NBN rollout has been disappointingly slow. If ever there was a case of overpromise and under-deliver, it has to be the NBN, most especially for rural, regional and remote Australians. In 2020, the Morrison government, however, announced that the NBN was complete. Well, we knew that nothing could be further from the truth. Even where people have an NBN connection, there's absolutely no guarantee that they'll get what they pay for. Broadband providers often advertise speeds which do not match what the customers actually receive. We knew in 2020, when that announcement was made of the completion of the NBN, and we know now, that NBN service levels of 25 megabits per second are considered to have been met if a user's connection reached that speed just twice a day. We knew then, as we know now, that the standard of 19 days to provision a new service in regional Australia and up to three days to fix a network fault are too slow to attract businesses to regional areas.</para>
<para>So, when I introduced the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Faster Internet for Regional Australia) Bill 2022, I hoped it would establish ambitious standards for NBN and other service providers who own and operate broadband infrastructure so that they must meet service standards or face serious financial penalties—standards such as an average minimum speed of 25 megabits per second.</para>
<para>We cannot accept another government putting regional communities in the too-hard basket. Programs such as the Regional Co-Investment Fund were established by the former government to improve satellite or fixed wireless NBN connections, including upgrading both fibre to the premises and supporting higher speeds. This $300 million fund operates on a co-investment model, where governments stump up funding alongside NBN Co where investment would be subcommercial.</para>
<para>However, smaller local councils have sounded the alarm that they are most disadvantaged by this system. Their low ratepayer base limits their ability to co-fund this new infrastructure. When customers choose to explore other possibilities under the Technology Choice Program, it's not uncommon for them to be quoted a $330 fee. One constituent in the town of Bright in my electorate was quoted over $19,000 for infrastructure installation to get fibre to the premises. We are talking about a service we have already paid for through our taxes. Why are we being asked to pay for it again?</para>
<para>On top of this, last week a government discussion paper revealed that the NBN Co chief executive, Stephen Rue, was paid almost $700,000 in bonuses for the last financial year. Three NBN executives collectively received more than $1 million in bonuses during the same period—and these are bonuses; this isn't even their annual salary! By comparison, if the NBN were to be delivered to every one of the 494 households in little Violet Town in my electorate, a community who has no fibre network at all, it would cost about $2.2 million for fibre to the premises or $1.2 million for fibre to the node. In other words, it would cost about the same amount to finally give every household in Violet Town the NBN as it would to give four NBN executives their annual bonuses.</para>
<para>I appreciate that the current government has recognised the shortfalls that have resulted from the previous policies on the NBN rollout, but I'm calling on this government to really do something concrete, remedy these failures and make meaningful improvements that will prepare us for the future and bring us what we need today: excellent speeds and reliable service in rural, regional and remote Australia.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 30</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>