2023-03-21 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 21 March 2023

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

 

MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Climate Change 1 12:01 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Melbourne from moving the following motion immediately—That the House: (1) notes the release of the sixth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change synthesis report on the escalating climate emergency; (2) notes the statement by the UN Secretary-General that there can be no new coal, oil and gas projects and Australia and other developed countries must phase out coal by 2030; and (3) calls on the Government to heed the call of the IPCC and the UN Secretary-General and stop approving new coal and gas projects. There could be nothing more urgent and needing debate in this place today than the message that we have received from the UN Secretary-General and the world scientists overnight. The UN Secretary-General told us: 'Dear friends, humanity is on thin ice, and that ice is melting fast.' He has issued what is to us a call to defuse the climate timebomb that is ticking, and he is giving us a survival guide to humanity. This is the final warning from the world's scientists. This is what has been referred to as our last-ditch chance. The urgency with which the world's scientists and the UN are calling on us to act cannot be underestimated and demands that we suspend standing orders today to debate this and to determine how we're going to respond. Why is this so critical? We have been told by the world's scientists overnight that we are on track to go above 1.5 degrees, and it could happen within a few years time. Why is that critical? That will mean absolute and utter devastation for our Pacific Island neighbours. They have urged us to take all steps to limit global warming to 1½ degrees or they face an existential threat. They have been crystal clear about that to us and the science is crystal clear about that to us, because what the report also tells us, overnight, that demands our urgent attention is that vulnerable communities are 15 times more likely to be affected by the extreme floods and fires and droughts and rising sea levels that we are facing at the moment. They are the ones who did not cause the climate crisis, but they are the ones who have the most to lose from the climate crisis and the least ability to respond to it. Not only in the Torres Strait Islands but also in the Pacific islands of our neighbours, we are seeing sea levels rising and extreme storms that are damaging homes right now. But what the IPCC also told us overnight is that people are already dying from the extreme heat. The climate crisis is already taking lives and killing people. It is already happening. It is, in the words of one commentator, a 'screaming siren' that cannot be ignored. But there is a way out. We have been given a way out, but we have to grasp it urgently. We have to grasp it urgently today. This has been made crystal clear by the UN Secretary-General: This is the moment for all G20 members to come together in a joint effort, pooling their resources and scientific capacities as well as their proven and affordable technologies through the public and private sectors to make carbon neutrality a reality by 2050. Every country must be part of the solution. Demanding others move first only ensures humanity comes last. The Acceleration Agenda calls for a number of other actions. Specifically: No new coal and the phasing out of coal by 2030 in OECD countries and 2040 in all other countries. Ending all international public and private funding of coal. Ensuring net zero electricity generation by 2035 for all developed countries and 2040 for the rest of the world. Ceasing all licensing or funding of new oil and gas—consistent with the findings of the International Energy Agency. Stopping any expansion of existing oil and gas reserves. Shifting subsidies from fossil fuels to a just energy transition. Establishing a global phase down of existing oil and gas production compatible with the 2050 global net zero target. I urge all governments to prepare energy transition plans consistent with these actions and ready for investors. We could not agree more. That is why, right now, we need to suspend standing orders to work out how we are going to do what the UN Secretary-General and the world's scientists have asked us to do. We have a debate on the government's safeguard legislation, the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, coming up later on today. I want to say that this isn't an attempt to delay that. We can have a debate about this and then move on to that. But we have to listen to what we are being told and take that into account as we work out in this country how we are going to tackle the climate crisis. When the UN Secretary-General calls out countries like Australia and says there can be no new coal and we must stop any expansion of existing oil and gas reserves, it is because humanity is at stake and civilisation is at stake. Every new coal and gas project opened in Australia is a death warrant for our children and our grandchildren. We are the ones who sit here now hearing the report that we may hit 1½ degrees potentially within 10 years, if not by the end of this decade. This is happening right now. The actions need to be taken right now. There is a lot in this report on which you would find agreement among most people in this parliament. But what is crystal clear is that the single biggest thing we could do in this country is stop pouring petrol on the fire. You can't put a fire out while you're pouring petrol on it. The first step in fixing a problem has to be to stop making the problem worse. We have come a long way in this country. It is good that we saw, just under a year ago, the Australian people speak up and say, 'We want the parliament to take action on the climate crisis.' People now understand that, in order to do that, the single biggest gift that Australia could make to the rest of the world is to stop putting the rest of the world and itself in danger by exporting so much coal and gas and by using so much of it here. That is what our Pacific island neighbours have been asking us for a long time—stop opening coal and gas. It is what the scientists have been asking us for a long time. It is what the UN Secretary-General is asking us in the clearest possible terms, in the most urgent of warnings, to do and to do right now. So that is why we have to suspend standing orders and have a debate on this now, so that when we debate the other important legislation that the government has, including legislation to tackle the climate crisis, later today and over the course of the next couple of weeks, we will do it with the warnings of the world's scientists and the advice of the UN Secretary-General ringing in our ears. There is no space left to open up new coal and gas projects. It is putting people at risk. It is putting our country risk. It is putting lives at risk. So I hope that we will have time to debate this important report, to digest the significance of it and to translate it into action. Other countries are starting to do this. When Barack Obama was president, he stopped exploration on federal lands with respect to coal. Germany had a plan and phased out its brown coal. The penny is dropping elsewhere, and the penny needs to drop here as well. If we really want fewer floods, less drought and fewer extreme weather events that take lives and livelihoods, we have to stop opening coal and gas. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? Mr Katter HX4 No, I'm not seconding the motion. I'm speaking against it. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm calling for a seconder. Member for Kennedy, can you just resume your seat for a moment. 12:11 Ms WATSON 300127 Ryan -BROWN () (): I second the motion. Today's IPCC report confirms what we already knew: we need to stop approving new coal and gas now if we are to have any hope of avoiding truly catastrophic global warming. It was just over a year ago now that we in Brisbane felt the very real impacts of climate change. Thousands of families lost everything. It was absolutely devastating. But it wasn't just the flooding itself. This event affected almost every aspect of our lives, with food shortages on supermarket shelves, and roads and public transport corridors cut—in many cases offline for months. Of course, this added to the existing housing and rental crisis by forcing people out of their homes. That was just in Brisbane last year. That's not to mention the bushfires that ravaged Western Australia only a few months ago, the floods that have absolutely devastated large parts of regional Queensland and north-western Australia—more so-called once-in-a-century events—or the increasingly regular and devastating mega floods and fires in many other parts of the world. I could go on, but it's clear that this government is more interested in listening to the fossil fuel industry than to climate scientists. Clearly, the nearly $6 million in donations they've taken over the last decade from coal, oil and gas companies have prioritised the interests of those companies over our children's and grandchildren's futures. How cheap—selling off our kids' futures for a measly $6 million. This IPCC report is crystal clear. We need to end all new coal and gas. The government's proposed safeguard mechanism that we're going to be debating, as it stands now, does not address this. It allows new coal and gas mines to open and to keep polluting. The government even boasts that Shell, Woodside and Rio Tinto all approve of this bill. Of course they do, because it safeguards their profits over our planet. It'll see emissions go up. One proposed gas project, the Scarborough project in Western Australia, will emit an estimated 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon over its lifetime. This blows away even the most optimistic estimates of emissions reduction from the safeguard mechanism, and that's just one gas project. I hope everyone here in this House is very carefully considering their vote on this issue, because their constituents have spoken clearly. The Guardian reported today that the majority of voters in the member for Moreton's electorate support stopping new coal and gas projects; the majority of voters in the member for Bennelong's electorate support stopping new coal and gas; and the majority of voters in Sydney, the environment minister's electorate, support stopping new coal and gas. Instead, the government are continuing to provide public money to new fossil fuel projects, and they're in lock step with the previous government on handing out $1.5 billion in taxpayer money to the Beetaloo basin project in the Northern Territory, against the wishes of even their members in Northern Territory Labor. This is along with another $10 billion or so in fossil fuel subsidies that the government regularly commits to. Government needs to end these subsidies now and divert that money into urgent investment in renewables. Listen to the IPCC, listen to the climate scientists and listen to voters in your own electorates, and stop new coal and gas. 12:14 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Whilst I most certainly agree and have always advocated, long before it was a popular thing—I speak with some authority, because I didn't talk about it; I did it. I am on the record as providing the first standalone solar system in Australian history. The head of GE from America came out for the opening ceremony. It was a very important fact. But to achieve that I had to do a hell of a lot of research on silicon. We wanted to provide the world's high-tech silicon. We've got the best silicon deposits in the world. They're already smashed up into fine particles, a very fine sand, which makes them very cheap, and they're 98 per cent pure, so we wanted to develop that. You must understand that a solar panel is not carbon neutral—anything but. You have spiral separation, which takes up no energy, but then you have to put it under electromagnets, which burns up an enormous amount of energy, putting enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That's not the fun part. The fun part is where you have to crush silicon into flour. Silicon is the second hardest metalloid on earth, second only to diamond, and you've got to crush it. That burns up a hell of a lot of power. So we've got electromagnetic power going up and now we've got the crushing powder going up, but that's not the real fun part. The real fun part is when you've got to smelt it. You can smelt it with wood or you can smelt it with coal. No-one on earth would smelt it with electricity, but, in any event, that worsens your problem. It is not carbon neutral. The proposals put forward by my worthy colleagues in the Greens, by myself and by many other crossbenchers are sensible proposals to lower it dramatically, but there is no way that I am going to stand aside and watch my friends, my relatives and members of my staff have their entire lives destroyed by closing down the Australian coal industry. I'm sorry to have to give the parliament the bad news, but, thanks to your stupid free-market policies, we only have three sources of income. Thanks to your stupid policies, you gave all the income from gas away, so one of them is gone. The three of them, last time I looked, were worth about $120 billion each. The next thing down may be aluminium, cattle or gold. They're worth about $16 billion. You've only got three sources of income from overseas, and you gave one away. Now you want to do away with another one. I don't know how you're going to buy everything from overseas. This place decided that we're free-market, and, in fairness to the Greens, they've never been for that. They've always been on the right side of the fence as far as I'm concerned on these issues, but the mainstream parties gave it all away. We have to buy everything from overseas. We don't produce cars. We don't produce fuel. We don't produce household appliances. We don't produce about half the stuff you need to build a house; it comes from overseas. If the government proceeds with the current legislation, that will close down the steel and aluminium industries in Australia. Both will be gone. You can shake your head as much as you like, but if you were running an iron industry in Australia you would know that the cost of producing steel is the cost of energy, and you're going to double the cost of energy—no, don't shake your head, because you've got the graphs. Don't lie to the parliament. You've got the graphs and you have seen how the price of electricity has doubled. You can go down to the library and get the pricing if you like. What tripled it was your free-market policies. That tripled the price of energy. In Queensland, for eight years it was $670; you free-marketed it and it went to $1,500. Now it's gone to $3,000, thanks to your greenie advocates. There are a lot of old people that can't switch the lights on anymore thanks to your environmental policies. But you've got to go to empirical evidence. I have great respect for the Greens these days. They are one party that is not part of the corporate paradigm of power. They are one party that is not in the pockets of the paradigms of power. The big parties most certainly are. But, with all due respect, give us empirical evidence, please. You can have your scientific theory, but you've got to have empirical evidence. At the Gold Coast, the beach is exactly where it was 70 or 80 years ago. (Time expired) 12:20 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The IPCC report out today reaffirms something yet again. For those of us who have been reading these reports for many years, this comes as no surprise, because report after report after report has made the same point, with increasing degrees of urgency to the plea. This report makes it clear that we have agency and urgency—agency because it is not too late to hold the world as close as possible to a 1.5-degree rise, but urgency because we must move now. The best time to move was 20 years ago. The second-best time to move is now. And the parliament has an opportunity to make that move this week. The parliament has an opportunity, for the first time in a decade, to put a measure in place to reduce emissions from our biggest emitters. That is the choice facing the parliament this week. This is a big choice for the parliament. The parliament can seize this opportunity or squander this opportunity. That is the choice before the parliament this week. Last year we had a debate in this House about targets. The parliament agreed with us on a 43 per cent target. Some honourable members said that target should be higher. I understood that and understand that and respect that. We all agreed it was a floor, not a ceiling. That's what we all agreed: it was a floor, not a ceiling. But our projections tell us: unless the parliament passes the safeguard reforms, our projections will be for 35 per cent, not 43. So those honourable members who argued for more, who said that target should be higher, have a choice to make this week. If you vote against the safeguard mechanism, you are voting for a lower outcome, you are voting against achieving a 43 per cent emissions reduction. These are the stakes. There are 205 million tonnes of emissions, between now and 2030, at stake in this vote. That is the equivalent of taking two-thirds of the cars off Australia's roads. That's what we're talking about in this parliament this week. Honourable members—the Leader of the Greens and others—have talked about fossil fuels. Well, fossil fuels covered under the safeguard mechanism emit, currently, 73 million tonnes a year. Projections tell us that, without reform, without a change of policy, this will grow to 83 million tonnes, but, with a change of policy, it will be a net 52 million tonnes. That's the question facing the parliament. It's a 205-million-tonne question facing this parliament as to whether we pass these reforms or not. That is the choice facing this parliament. The same goes for new facilities. I want to see a regime in place which covers all new facilities, which covers industrial facilities, which covers resources, which covers them all, because, if the safeguard reforms do not pass, there will be no regime that encourages emissions reduction. New proposals, regardless of what they are, will be able to be developed. There will be no regime in place to require an emissions reduction regime. What we're talking about is putting a framework in place for that investment that is so necessary, that business has been crying out for for the last decade. Business have been asking for it, saying, 'We want to see emissions come down, but we need a framework to invest in that emissions reduction.' This government is prepared to give them that. The question is: is the parliament? That is the choice facing this parliament in this sitting fortnight. Will we grasp that nettle? Will we give Australians the action on climate that they voted for last May? Will parties of goodwill and good faith come together to work together to deliver that or will they not? If honourable members call for higher targets and say 43 per cent is not enough, there is an obligation on them to vote for policies which achieve emissions reduction, even if they're not, from their point of view, 100 per cent perfect, even if they're not what they would design. There is a choice before the parliament. No member can criticise this government on targets if they then vote against policies to achieve emissions reduction. No member can do that. I don't care what seat they represent or what party they represent. They cannot criticise this government about emissions reductions targets and say that they're not good enough if they then come in here and vote against policies to achieve emissions reduction. That is not an acceptable outcome. This government will continue to work in good faith and in goodwill with parties and individuals of good faith and goodwill. We'll continue to work together to make sure that the perfect is not the enemy of the good. But we will stand by the policies we took to the election. We will implement policies in line with our agenda and our mandate. Those policies are emissions reduction. If this parliament doesn't want emissions reduction, if this parliament wants to vote against policies for emission reduction, that will happen. If they want to vote for policies for emissions reduction, then the country will be the beneficiary. The planet will be the beneficiary. We will see jobs created across our country, particularly in Australia's regions. This country, after a decade of denial and delay, a decade of dysfunction, can finally grasp at nil. That's the choice before the parliament that we'll be putting to the parliament in this sitting fortnight. That's the choice available to honourable members. I feel some confidence the parliament won't squander that opportunity. I feel some confidence that after a decade the parliament will recognise that it's time to come together and take that step forward. They say 35 per cent emissions reduction is not enough. If you think that 43 is not enough, then 35 is certainly not enough. Honourable members who vote for a 35 per cent emissions reduction because they throw out the safeguard reforms, if that is what they choose to do, will be making that choice. I don't think that is what the Australian people voted for last May. I think the Australian people voted for people of goodwill and progress to make progress. This parliament has a choice: make a point or make progress. I want to make progress. If others choose to make a point, that is a matter for them. The SPEAKER 53517 The time for the debate has concluded. The question is that the motion be disagreed to. A division is required. In accordance with standing order 133, the division which has been called for to be required is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. The debate on this item is therefore adjourned until that time. BILLS 5 BILLS Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023, Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023, Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023, Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023, National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023, Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022, Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023, National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023 5

Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023

Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023

Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023

Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023

National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023

Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022

Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023

Reference to Federation Chamber 5 12:27 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to Federation Chamber for further consideration: 1) the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023, the Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023 and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023; and 2) the National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022, the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. I hope my next speech is more interesting than that! COMMITTEES 5 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 5 Report 5 12:28 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report entitled Eighty SixthAnnual Report. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr PERRETT HVP by leave—The committee is required by legislation to make a report every year on its work, and this report covers the committee's proceedings in 2022 both before and after the election. Apparently it lost its way under the former chair, but it—no! I take that back! During 2022 the committee reported on 10 major works, with a combined cost of over $1.2 billion. I thank the former chair, who is in the chamber today. The committee also scrutinised 290 medium works, with a combined value of over $1.8 billion. The threshold for works to be referred to the committee is currently $15 million for non-defence works and $75 million for defence works. Since the early 1990s the committee has also reviewed medium works—those with a value over $2 million but lower than the threshold. Two million dollars does not buy as much as it used to, especially in construction. Therefore, from the end of 2022 the committee raised the lower limit of medium works to $5 million. This will allow the committee in 2023 to review fewer medium works but, when we do so, to do so with a higher degree of scrutiny. As a final remark, I would like to thank both the current and the former members of the public works committee for their participation and contributions in 2022, particularly the current deputy chair, the member for Hinkler, and I would also like to thank the secretariat for the wonderful work they do in supporting us in all parts of the world, from Norfolk Island to the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island and everywhere in between. This committee looks forward to continuing the important oversight of proposed public works. BILLS 6 BILLS National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023 6

National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023

Second Reading 6 12:30 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023. The opposition will be supporting this bill as it provides greater protection for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme from fraud and abuse. We have always been strong supporters of the access to affordable medicines that the PBS provides to Australian households, and we know that ensuring continued and improved access to affordable medicines is now more important than ever, with the cost of living continuing to put significant and rising pressure on Australians. The bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to support the sustainability and operation of the PBS. This bill extends the discretionary power of the secretary and the Minister for Health and Aged Care to suspend or revoke an approval for a pharmacist to supply pharmaceutical benefits at a particular premises, irrespective of whether the approval is held by an individual or under a company structure, where they have been charged with a PBS related offence. By way of background, where a pharmacist has been approved to supply pharmaceutical benefits at a particular premises, the approved pharmacist can then make claims for payment from the Commonwealth in relation to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. An approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits can be held by a pharmacist as an individual or a body corporate. However, the power to suspend or revoke an approval currently only applies to an approved pharmacist who is an individual. If a pharmacist operates under a company structure and they are charged with a PBS related offence, there is no ability for their approval to be suspended or revoked. This means, for example, that if the director of an approved pharmacist corporation is charged with a PBS related offence they can continue to receive payments from the Commonwealth despite being charged for fraudulently claiming payments. We understand the importance of the change contained in this bill, which will help ensure the sustainability of the PBS by strengthening the compliance powers and ensuring that they apply equally to all types of approved pharmacists. This will better protect the PBS from further fraud and provide greater deterrence for those who seek to abuse this scheme. The coalition has always been a strong supporter of the PBS, which ensures Australians have affordable access to critical medicines, and we will support this bill to protect the sustainability and integrity of this important scheme. The coalition remains absolutely committed to supporting Australians to have access to affordable medicines when they need them, and we're proud of our strong track record in providing Australians with timely and affordable access to effective medicines, cancer treatments and services. When we were in government, the coalition listed almost 3,000 new and amended medicines on the PBS, representing an average of around 30 listings a month. But we know that when Labor were last in government they had to stop listing medicines on the PBS because they couldn't manage money. The government has stated that the measures contained in this bill support the integrity of public funds to ensure these can be invested in access to new and improved medicines, and we will hold them to account on this. It's vital that they continue our strong record on investing in improved access to affordable medicines for all Australians. However, we already have concerns that the Albanese Labor government is not prioritising investments in improved access to potentially life-saving or life-changing treatments, particularly following their decision to remove an innovative diabetes medicine, Fiasp, from the PBS. Fifteen thousand families have had the rug pulled out from under them by the Labor government's decision to remove this life-changing diabetes insulin from the PBS, which will send the price soaring. The former coalition ensured that diabetes patients have affordable access to Fiasp by listing this fast-acting insulin on the PBS in 2019. We understood that Fiasp is an innovative mealtime insulin that improves blood sugar control at a faster rate than other diabetes medications, resulting in an improved quality of life for patients. We note Minister Butler's bandaid announcement to ensure diabetes patients have access to Fiasp for an additional six months if they're able to secure a script in time to cover them, by 1 April, but he must be transparent with Australian diabetes patients and admit whether he has actually considered all possible steps to support Fiasp remaining permanently on the PBS. We know Minister Butler has the power to come to a solution with the manufacturer, and it appears he has chosen not to. The government needs to understand that this callous decision will tear away at the quality of life that this medicine affords over 15,000 people and their families across Australia. Labor went to the election with a promise to ensure cheaper medicines for all Australians, but this decision means they've already broken that promise. For all their moral posturing and their promises, Labor show time and time again that their rhetoric in opposition is not matched by their actions in government, and it's costing Australian lives and livelihoods. This decision to break their promise on affordable medicines comes on top of a growing list of broken promises from this government. Labor promised on 97 separate occasions that Australian electricity prices would drop by $275, but instead they have delivered the most expensive average wholesale electricity prices on record. Labor said they wouldn't make any changes to superannuation, but one in 10 Australians will be affected by the changes that they have now announced, and it's clear that this is just the groundwork for more taxes and changes to come. Labor promised to strengthen Medicare, but so far they've only weakened it. They've slashed Medicare mental health support in half, they've cut 70 telehealth items from Medicare, and bulk-billing rates have plummeted after being at their highest levels when the coalition was in government. Labor said they'd make it easier to see a GP, but they've ripped GPs out of rural, regional, and remote Australia by changing the distribution priority areas. Labor promised cost-of-living relief, but the reality is life is only getting harder for Australians. Right now, to borrow a phrase from those opposite, everything is going up except for wages. Australians with a mortgage now buckle under the pressure of a 10th consecutive interest rate rise, which means a person with a typical mortgage of $750,000 is now paying $1,700 more a month than they were when rates started rising in May. Electricity prices are continuing to spiral out of control, with new increases of up to 23.7 per cent for households and 25.7 per cent for small businesses now announced. More than 100,000 small businesses will also be impacted by increased bills of up to $1,151 a year. It is these rising cost-of-living pressures on Australians that make access to affordable medicines so critical right now. Once again, the coalition does support this bill to support the sustainability and operation of the PBS, which provides Australians with affordable access to potentially life-changing and life-saving medicines. However, we will continue to hold the Albanese government to account on investing in and maintaining continued and improved access to affordable medicines, particularly in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023, Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023, Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023, Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023 7

Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023

Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023

Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023

Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023

Second Reading 7 12:39 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I rise to speak on the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023, the Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023, the Treasury Laws Amendments (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023 and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023. Together, they establish the Financial Accountability Regime, extending the existing Banking Executive Accountability Regime and establishing a compensation scheme of last resort. Astute observers of the goings-on in this place will have noticed that a very similar set of bills came to this parliament, to the House, to this chamber, only a reasonably short time ago. I would note that, as the Assistant Treasurer admitted in his own words, this isn't the first time that the House has dealt with the bills and what they are seeking to achieve. In fact, it was last year that the government introduced similar bills and, quite frankly, the Assistant Treasurer made a complete mess of this whole process. Taking you back, last year we saw the spectacle of the finance minister gutting this legislation in the Senate because the Assistant Treasurer had cut a disastrous deal with the Greens to add millions of dollars of penalties on community owned banks and bank CEOs. These are community owned organisations. He realised the errors of his ways. This was despite the fact that we had set out, from the beginning, to support the bills. The deal that was done with the Greens—it's always dangerous to do a deal with the Greens—was a surprise to industry, and it would seem that even the Treasurer was surprised by the deal. The response was described in the Sydney Morning Herald as: … a ferocious response from banks and super funds, who told the government they should have been consulted on the changes. There then ensued a war of words between the Greens and the Assistant Treasurer. All these months later, here we are dealing with the same issues. These bills could have and should have been dealt with last year. Australia has a strong financial services sector. It's one of the bedrocks of our economy. Right now, with what we're seeing going on around the world, it is important that it stays that way and it is a good thing that it is that way. We want it to remain that way. It has been remarkably strong through very tough times, at times, over the last decade, going back to the financial crisis. It's important that it stays that way. But it's also important that legislation builds on the coalition's work of implementing the banking royal commission recommendations. We will not delay the progress of these bills through the parliament, despite the fact that the passage through the parliament has been delayed extensively by the incompetence of those opposite. But we must note that the government's continued mismanagement of its legislative agenda is very real in this case—its broken promises on tax and superannuation and its failure to respond to the challenges that Australians are facing every day. Let me start with the banking royal commission. Whilst our financial services system has served us well, we can't ignore that the royal commission was necessary. We called it—the coalition called it. We committed to implementing its recommendation to take action on all of the 76 recommendations and additional commitments contained in the final report of that royal commission. Significant progress has been made, and the long road to implement these changes is now reaching its conclusion. With the re-introduction of these bills, the last of the legislative commitments to implement the royal commission's recommendations will indeed be completed. The coalition welcomes the introduction of and the government's decision to retain the primary Financial Accountability Regime and the compensation of last resort legislation, largely in the same shape and form. I have a couple of comments on the financial services compensation scheme of last resort. We introduced this legislation to facilitate the payment of compensation to eligible consumers who have received a determination from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, AFCA, which remains unpaid. This forms part of the final tranche of the legislation to implement recommendations of the royal commission. But there's a key part missing. Part of the Hayne commission recommended commissioning a review into the quality of financial advice—a very important recommendation. This review was commissioned by our government and is currently sitting on the Assistant Treasurer's desk. It's not a happy place to be, on the Assistant Treasurer's desk, because who knows what he's trying to deal with. We've seen his complete incompetence in dealing with legislation, but the Levy review has been there for months, and the government has not yet responded to it. Responding to the review will be crucial to ensure that Australians can afford or can access affordable, high-quality financial advice. Australians will need this advice at a time like this more than ever, and it is crucial that the review be dealt with in a competent way, in contrast to what we have seen from the Assistant Treasurer in recent months. We know this government has broken its promises on tax. More than one in 10 Australians will be seeking financial advice following the government's broken promises to increase super taxes. Many Australians are having to get advice about how to deal with legislation coming forward from those opposite, who tax unrealised capital gains, but this is going into a new space. Even Wayne Swan realised the error of his ways when he attempted to tax unrealised capital gains. He dropped it, but that's where those opposite are going, and lots of people are going to need a lot of financial advice about how to deal with those circumstances. Those opposite are also curbing access to franking credits. It's a promise that was made by those opposite. 'We're going there,' they said. 'It's not going to happen,' they said many times over. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer said, 'We're not going after franking credits.' Well, they're going after franking credits. These are not minor or modest breaches. These are breaches of trust with the Australian people. They go to the integrity of this government that said one thing—crystal clear, unambiguous, no footnotes, no asterisks—before the election and did the complete opposite after the election. Labor's broken promises on taxes will ensure that Australians are worse off than they would have been, and it remains to be seen how many more broken promises we'll see on taxes as we approach the next budget. But, sadly, in the case of superannuation it goes beyond just a broken promise. It undermines confidence in our superannuation system, where people put their money for very long periods of time, trusting the government and trusting the stability of the system. The important point here is that superannuation is the money of Australians, not the government. It's money for the quality of life of Australians in retirement. It is not a piggy bank for the government to tax and spend. Despite promising no challenges to superannuation before the election, the Prime Minister is proposing doubling super taxes on at least 10 per cent of Australians by the time they retire. We're looking forward to seeing the modelling to tell us just how many, but we know they have admitted that it's 20 times more than their initial number, and it remains to be seen how many it will ultimately be. Of course, that will partly depend on the inflation rate, which is completely out of control under those opposite. On top of that, they're stopping companies from offering franking credits to Australian investors, super funds and charities and, as I said, taxing unrealised capital gains in super. That means paying tax before you have the cash. This is a pretty ironclad rule of taxation, that you don't tax someone who hasn't got the cash, because what they're going to have to do is sell their farm or their business in order to realise that cash. The disruption this will cause to employment, to investment and to job creation, particularly in regional areas, where we know small business and farming are the backbone of those economies, is something we should all be deeply, deeply concerned about. As I said, many Australians will be affected, and we know that the number is 20 times more than the initial number that Labor said. The fact of the matter is those opposite are breaking promises on an almost daily basis, and I'm sure there are many more to come. Whilst we won't deny this bill a second reading—it has taken way too long for the bill to get to this point anyway—we do call on the House to recognise the government's mismanagement of the bill, the government's dishonesty with the Australian people, particularly with respect to tax, and the need for the government to commit to reducing inflation and pressure on the cost of living by controlling its own spending, not by taxing Australians more. I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:   ."whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) this package of bills constitute some of the final legislative responses to the Hayne Royal Commission; (2) the failure of the Government to secure passage of the former version of this package of bills through the Parliament after introducing it last year, despite having bipartisan support; (3) that in addition to failing to secure passage of the previous version of this bill, the Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer have failed to respond to the Quality of Advice Review, which would make it easier and more affordable for Australians to access quality financial advice; (4) that according to Treasury modelling, more than 1 in 10 Australians will need this advice following the Government's broken promises to increase super taxes, tax unrealised capital gains, and curb access to franking credits; and (5) calls on the Government to commit to reduce pressure on inflation by controlling its own spending, not by taxing Australians more". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Rick Wilson 198084 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022 9

Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022

Second Reading 9 12:51 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra This Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022 amends the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, implementing outstanding recommendations from the comprehensive review of the legal framework of the intelligence community, known as the Richardson review, undertaken by Dennis Richardson. I should take this time to acknowledge the work of Mr Richardson at his review. The Richardson review was initiated by the coalition while in government. It provided important guidance about the way in which the oversight framework for our intelligence community could be strengthened. At the heart of liberal democracies is the concept of accountability. Built into our public life are mechanisms that allow for that accountability through the media, civil society and parliament. Questions can be asked of those who hold positions of authority and who exercise responsibilities on behalf of others. The capacity for the public to inquire and scrutinise the activities of those who hold power is part of what makes our institution strong. But, by necessity, when it comes to the intelligence community, those mechanisms are different. Secrecy is part of what enables our intelligence agencies to do their work, and that must not be undermined. To misunderstand or undervalue secrecy, for these agencies, is to put lives at risk and compromise the capacity of agencies to continue keeping Australians safe into the future. When secrets are divulged or information is shared that should be classified, the entire architecture of our intelligence community is weakened. Given this, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and other bodies that provide oversight and give scrutiny to our intelligence agencies are extraordinarily important. These oversight bodies hold our agencies to account. They also enable the public to have confidence in their agencies. Oversight must be robust, credible and effective. It must be thorough. This is not in order to undermine the work of intelligence agencies but to give them the credibility needed to maintain the trust of the broader public. The Richardson review gave Australians many reasons to be encouraged about the state of Australia's intelligence community and the legal frameworks under which they operate. While it provided a number of recommendations to strengthen the legal architecture it also reaffirmed that the fundamental principles that underpin Australia's intelligence legislation remain fit for purpose. I want to talk a little bit about the role of the IGIS as envisaged under changes to this bill. Among the changes recommended by the Richardson review was an adjustment to the remit of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to reflect the changed architecture of Australia's intelligence community. This bill follows on from the coalition's bill in the last parliament, the Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill 2020, and enacts some of those changes from the Richardson review. Specifically, the bill seeks to bring the treatment of the Defence Intelligence Organisation and the Office of National Intelligence into line with the treatment of other agencies when it comes to the initiation of an investigation. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will be able to inquire into the Defence Intelligence Organisation and the Office of National Intelligence in response to a complaint not just on its own motion or in response to the direction of the minister. This is consistent with the treatment of other agencies under the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security's remit. The bill also aims to reduce duplication between the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and other oversight bodies such as the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. It contains information-sharing provisions that are intended to avoid the double handling of complaints and inquiries. The bill also gives the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security a clearer capacity to receive information from a broad range of sources while ensuring that information is protected to the largest extent possible. This is important as it strengthens the capacity for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to carry out its work. The bill seeks to ensure that when an Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is appointed, they have some appropriate distance from the agencies they will oversee. This is the implementation of recommendation 172 of the Richardson review and means that a person cannot be appointed Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security if their immediate prior role was as head or deputy head of an agency within the Inspector-General's remit. The bill also provides other changes, including the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, with additional jurisdiction to investigate employment related grievances at the Office of National Intelligence, given that staff at the ONI may be employed under the ONI Act and not under the Public Service Act. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security already has jurisdiction to inquire into employment related grievances from ASIO, ASIS and ASD employees where staff have no other redress mechanisms readily available to them. The bill also contains a number of measures that bring the IGIS Act into line with modern operating procedures. For example, it allows the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to engage consultants and contract service providers rather than just employing staff. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security was referred this bill by the Attorney-General, and I thank him for that reference. In their examination of this bill, they have made a couple of important recommendations that are worth noting. In particular, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security noted that numerous inquiries have recommended an expanded oversight for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to cover the entirety of the national intelligence community. The Attorney-General has given his assurance that the government is giving this due consideration, and we look forward to seeing the government progress this matter. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security also recommended the need for greater information sharing between the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and we wait to see the government's response to those matters. As I've said, many of the measures contained in this bill are measures that the coalition introduced in the Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill 2020. The coalition support this bill. We can continue to support those measures as they're enacted through this bill, and I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 10

Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 10 12:58 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:   ."whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the bill is deficient in a number of respects including that: (1)the bill's purpose is not clear, including whether it is intended to build a pool of skilled entrepreneurs or create more firms; (2)the value proposition for students is unclear, in that the Startup Year program may result in students incurring a substantial additional debt without obtaining any academic credentials;\ (3)the value proposition for higher education institutions is unclear, given that the SY-HELP funds available are unlikely to fund a full year's course; (4)the bill does not make it clear how SY-HELP loan funds will flow, including whether students will be able to access any of the funding as startup capital; (5)the bill does not provide funding for shorter courses under six months in duration; (6)given the barriers to commencing a new accelerator or incubator program, students attending regional or smaller universities which do not have an existing accelerator or incubator program may be at a disadvantage; (7)the bill does not provide sufficient clarity in relation to whether students in Startup Year programs will retain intellectual property rights in relation to their work funded through SY-HELP; and (8)the bill does not appear to have taken into account many of the recommendations made by major interest groups including Universities Australia, the Group of Eight, Australian Technology Network and the Regional Universities Network, all of which expressed concern about aspects of the Startup Year program and SY-HELP funding". Benjamin Franklin said that an investment in knowledge pays the best interest, and on this side of the House we certainly agree with that proposition. Growing our economy and encouraging the development of new businesses is at the heart of the coalition's vision for Australia's future, and we certainly believe that investment in education has an important role in driving our economic future. Startups and other entrepreneurial activity play a very important role in our economic vision for Australia, and they will make a major contribution to our nation's economic growth. On this side of the chamber, we understand what it takes to start a business. On this side of the chamber, we understand when government can help a business and when it should get out of the way. And on this side of the chamber, we have a proud track record of delivering real and effective support for startups, for small business, for entrepreneurs, for business incubators and for accelerator programs. In our government's 2014 budget, the then Abbott government introduced the Entrepreneurs Infrastructure Program, which provided $494.2 million over five years for the commercialisation of goods, job creation and lifting the capability of small business. Funding through this program has been used to assist a wide range of initiatives, including the development of tourism, small businesses and startups. How has Labor responded? In its budget brought down in October 2022, there was a measure entitled 'Government Spending Audit—Industry and Science Portfolio—efficiencies', which included cuts of $197.7 million over four years to the Entrepreneurs Infrastructure Program, representing around 75 per cent of that program's funding. This government should be judged by their actions, and these actions demonstrate they don't attach much priority to supporting entrepreneurs. One of our other significant achievements in government was the $2.2 billion university research commercialisation package. That package included five key strategic and targeted investments to drive our reform agenda: $243 million for the Trailblazer Universities Program, to boost research and development and drive commercialisation outcomes with industry partners; a $150 million capital injection to expand the CSIRO Main Sequence Ventures program, which backs startup companies; $296 million for 1,800 industry PhDs and over 800 new fellowships; the creation of a new intellectual property framework for universities, to support greater university industry collaboration and the uptake of research outputs; and $1.6 billion over 10 years for Australia's Economic Accelerator, a new stage-gated competitive funding program to help university projects bridge the so-called valley of death on the road to commercialisation. On this side of the House we have consistently demonstrated our support for entrepreneurs, for people who take a risk, commercialise the fruits of scientific research and generate jobs and economic activity. Certainly there is an important role for education in all this. In the $2.2 billion package I have already mentioned, we had a significant focus on our national priorities outlined in our Modern Manufacturing Strategy—strengthening Australia's sovereign capability, securing supply chains and investing in the skills and world-class research needed by our manufacturing businesses. It is crucial that we fund the links between research and industry, and it's crucial we have a long-term strategy. Unfortunately, we've seen this Labor government, by contrast, scrap the careful strategic thinking adopted by the previous Liberal-National government. They've replaced it with the National Reconstruction Fund, but it's very clear this is simply a slush fund for Labor election commitments. The bill before the House would add to the existing HELP scheme for students, ostensibly to support their participation in accelerator and incubator programs at tertiary institutions. But this bill is riddled with many programs. To start with, the underlying purpose of the new SY-HELP scheme is very vague. It is not at all clear whether the aim of the program is to build a pool of skilled entrepreneurs or to create more firms. We know that 90 per cent of startups exit or fail to grow. In light of these facts, the purpose of the SY-HELP program should be clearly defined. It's very important that students considering entering this startup-year program do so with their eyes wide open, understanding the real risks present in being involved in such a program. It's also worth pointing out that incubator and accelerator programs are already a feature at many of this country's universities. It is unclear how the SY-HELP program is to be distinguished or differentiated from those existing incubator and accelerator programs. There is, under the arrangements contemplated, the real likelihood that universities will now be incentivised to discontinue their free-of-charge incubator and accelerator programs, and shift much, or indeed all, of the cost of participating in those programs onto students. That is compounded when we consider the real risk that I've already mentioned that students who enter the program may find the outcomes are much less than they've been led to believe by reason of the fact that, as I've mentioned, a very high proportion of startups exit or fail to grow. What is certain, though, is that participants in this scheme will exit it with considerably more debt. It's certainly true that, as a scheme, HECS has worked effectively to give students access to education, with its proven income-enhancing power, and to allow the cost of education to be repaid over time through an income-contingent loan. But whether participating in a startup or accelerator program would deliver the same benefits for most students is quite uncertain. What is certain is that today's high rates of inflation are leading to sharp increases in student debt. For example, on 17 March, the Australian reported, in an article entitled 'Debt bomb for uni students', that Australia's three million university graduates faced a $4.5 billion increase to student debt due to a high rate of indexation linked to high inflation. The National Union of Students reports that school leavers struggling with high rent and food costs are dropping out of their degrees or swapping study time for paid work. These are serious issues for potential participants in the SY-HELP scheme to consider, as their exposure could be quite significant. The bill provides that students may access two separate SY-HELP loans of up to $11,800 each. That, of course, is a total of $23,600. A student with $50,000 of HECS debt before they commence the SY-HELP scheme could then see their debt rising by more than 40 per cent additionally. This comes at the same time that the Albanese Labor government has decided to discontinue the coalition's 10 per cent upfront discount on HECS fees. This is a very short-sighted decision by the Albanese Labor government. When in government, the coalition had a strong focus on helping students to pay down their debt as quickly as possible. It's disappointing that we don't see the same focus from the current government. Let me turn to some of the questions which arise about how the funding under the SY-HELP scheme will actually be delivered. Stakeholders like Universities Australia and the Group of Eight point out that $11,800 is not sufficient to cover the cost of delivering a full-year program, and the bill does not give any indication of the way in which funding may or may not flow on to students in Startup Year programs. It's possible that the $11,800 funding will go directly to the providing institution. But, if this loan is also meant to contribute to the cost of initial capital to support a startup getting going, then this in turn decreases the amount of money available to the providing institution for delivery of the program. Conversely, if the money goes directly and exclusively to the providing institution, then that, of course, will not assist cost-of-living pressures faced by students. The coalition would also make the point that it is good practice with a new and untested program like this to start with a pilot. Many stakeholder groups have also recommended that what should be done here is to start with a pilot. Unfortunately, that sensible recommendation has been ignored. Instead, the Albanese Labor government has chosen to haphazardly roll out this scheme to 2,000 students across a number of different providers. Many questions remain unanswered. How will these 2,000 students be selected? How will the providing institutions be selected? There's a conspicuous lack of clarity here. Many issues, we are told, will be dealt with in the SY-HELP guidelines, and it's not clear whether these will be disallowable instruments, allowing parliament to have an appropriate level of scrutiny. It's also unclear exactly what feedback the government has received on this proposed new program during the six-week consultation process it conducted last year before the bill was drafted and introduced. The Department of Education, for example, conducted a student survey to seek the views of current students and recent graduates on the proposed design of the Startup Year program. However, neither the results of the survey nor submissions received in the consultation process have been published on the relevant departmental websites. That does raise some obvious questions as to why the government has chosen to conceal the submissions it has received and the results of the survey. In particular, it raises questions about whether the consultation process suggested significant flaws with the model the government is taking forward. There are many obvious gaps in the bill itself. There's no assurance for students or tertiary education providers and no guidance for young entrepreneurs, and it's unclear how this fits into a plan for our nation's future. On this side of the House, we believe that the Albanese Labor government should return with a serious reform proposal rather than this half-baked idea—one that actually benefits students, strengthens the economy and supports our education sector. Sadly, this bill does none of these things as it stands. It is just another half-baked idea from a half-baked government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is the amendment seconded? Mrs McIntosh 281513 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023 13

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 13 13:11 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise to speak on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023. As a constructive opposition, we've always said that we will assess each of the Albanese government's proposals on its merits. We note the amendments in this bill seek to support changes to the way VET activity data are collected and submitted by registered training organisations to the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, the NCVER, and modernise the way that VET activity data can be accessed and used by authorised users. We share the government's commitment to resolving the situation in national VET activity data collection, which can see data lags of up to 20 months. That is certainly not an acceptable situation, and it is one we sought to address when we were in government. Specifically, I note the bill's purpose is to improve data collection as part of the VET data streamlining reforms by imposing an obligation on registered training organisations to report data under the act. The bill amends the act to allow the skills minister to delegate their powers to agree to all or part of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Provision Requirements) Instrument 2020—the DPRs—to other individuals or bodies, such as senior officials of the Commonwealth or the states and territories. The bill will enable the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to release information which excludes personal information, unless the personal information is the name of the RTO, to the public about VET training, subject only to ministerial agreement. The bill specifies that the secretary may make a determination permitting the collection, use or disclosure of information for the purposes of designing, building, operating, maintaining, or testing a VET data system. These reforms were first pursued under our previous coalition government, with the aim of better facilitating the government collecting and reporting on data extracted from the vocational education and training system. They were also an aspect of the Heads of Agreement for Skills Reform agreed to in July 2020 between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. The bill seeks to implement some of the recommendations outlined in the Braithwaite review's All eyes on quality: review of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 report. This review was commissioned by the previous coalition government, which in turn responded by supporting, in principle, the recommendations relevant to this legislation. For these reasons, we will be providing support for the aims of this bill, but we should note that there are concerns in the training sector about these changes. It is on that basis that we have sought a commitment from the government to subject this bill to a thorough committee process to allow those concerns to be aired and addressed. I am pleased the government has agreed to make that commitment. I welcome the ongoing and constructive relationship between the office of the minister and my office. It enabled a constructive outcome on Jobs and Skills Australia, and I believe it will assist here as well. The coalition's record in skills and training is a strong one, and these reforms echo the approach we took when we were in government. We had a strong focus on ensuring the skills and training sector would be fit for purpose in the 21st century. While we did a great deal there and achieved a lot, there is always more to do. The fact that the Labor Party inherited a booming skills and training sector from the coalition government is testament to our record. There was real momentum in skills and training thanks to the Liberals and the Nationals. However, since Labor has taken office, we've seen a concerning trend which is of note for this legislation. There has been a clear bias towards prioritising TAFE over all other providers. We absolutely support a strong and well-funded TAFE system—of course we do—but the minister has explicitly said that TAFE should sit at the heart of the VET sector. If we're going to make the skills and training sector fit for the 21st century, we need students to be at the centre of the VET sector. That needs to be our focus. Without industry-led approaches, we will not be able to build the AUKUS submarines, nor will we be able to meet the demands of our ageing workforce or our stretched childcare sector. We need all providers on the field, a level field, working towards skilling Australians. When governments put any one provider on a pedestal over another, it creates unnecessary friction and risks losing sight of what matters: skilling Australians. Just as, culturally, governments need to stop creating issues on VET and university pathways in the minds of young Australians, they need to stop creating barriers within the VET sector itself. We need young Australians to see a career through a trade as holding the same status as a career through university—not more, not less, the same. So why is the government sending the message to Australian students that studying at TAFE is any more worthy than studying at an industry-led training organisation? Skills and capabilities need to be our focus, and government reforms need to reflect that. We recognise the whole training sector is worthy of our time and our focus, which is why we have worked to secure a committee process for this bill. What works for one part of the training sector may not work for all. Seeking the widest possible consultation is vital to getting this right, and I would encourage those opposite to engage with the entire training sector, not just the same contacts. It's also worth noting that we're now six months on from the much-hyped Jobs and Skills Summit, where the Prime Minister announced an additional 180,000 fee-free TAFE places for 2023. Of course, we now know the much-vaunted training blitz was more of a whimper than a bang. We know, of the 180,000 committed places, more than 66 per cent already exist and will only be further subsidised. And we now know just 45,000 will be new, and all of them were already announced as part of Labor's fee-free TAFE pre-election commitment. Most incredibly, at Senate estimates the department confirmed 15,000 would be aged-care places, announced in the coalition's March budget through its JobTrainer Fund. So the Labor Party did indeed reannounce 15,000 new places that we had already announced when we were in government this time last year. Thus far, Labor's free TAFE policy has been way more spin than substance. Six months on, this Labor government is doing its level best to pick winners across the skills sector, rather than supporting student choice. We know private RTOs do 70 to 80 per cent of training across our VET sector, and according to ITECA they train 79 per cent of all women across the skills system. We need an even-handed approach to the entire skills sector that provides choice to the next generation of Australian workers. While we support this legislation, we're keeping a watching brief on this policy area, because we know that Labor's record on skills is not one of success. When last in government, Labor delivered system-wide policy failures. Apprenticeship numbers took a nosedive. Apprentice and trainee numbers were in freefall, with the number in training collapsing by 22 per cent, or 111,300, between June 2012 and June 2013. This was a direct result of funding cuts by the Gillard Labor government in 2012. Labor's loose approach to wage supports oversaw widespread rorting of training incentive payments that were supposed to help apprentices get a skill but instead just subsidised existing worker salaries. Labor's VET FEE-HELP disaster saw the reputation of the Australian skills system hit rock bottom, as tens of thousands of Australians were loaded up with debt for doing courses that would never land them a job. The taxpayer is still picking up the tab for this enormous policy failure, which is now more than $3.3 billion. The VET FEE HELP scheme, established by the Labor government in 2008 and expanded in 2012, was plagued by systemwide rorting with the exploitation of these loose rules and charging students substantial debts for training that they never undertook or benefitted from. It also targeted people with disabilities and substance-abuse issues, public housing residents, non-English speakers and others with offers of free laptops and other incentives. The stories are quite harrowing. The young single mother who travelled to Cairns to enrol in what soon became apparent as a dodgy diploma, taught by a teacher that didn't have a clue, racked up $12,000 in debt with nothing to show for it. There are literally thousands of stories like this. After cleaning up the skills sector when we were in government, we handed the Albanese government a skills and training system, not just training up but powering ahead, on the back of record investments guaranteed by a strong economy. Our policies invested more than $13 billion in skills in our final years of government, but we didn't just clean up Labor's mess. We made the most significant reforms to Aussie skills in more than a decade. Guided by an expert review we commissioned the Joyce review and we got on with bringing our skills system into the 21st century. We overhauled and put in place industry led clusters to speed up qualification development, so our skills system could keep up with the evolving needs of our modern economy. We reformed and increased training incentives through new apprenticeship incentive systems, including introducing direct payments to apprentices to see them through their studies and into a job. Our policy settings got apprenticeship numbers up to record levels. For the first time in our history we hit more than 240,000 Australians taking up a trade apprenticeship. We did all of that while saving a generation of Australian workers from the biggest hit to Australia's workforce since the Great Depression. That's our record, and it's one which will stand the test of time. Today is part of that record as we vote to improve the accessibility and use of data across the skills sector. We will be watching the data closely, and it will be a test for this Albanese government as we look at this data. We will watch what happens to training numbers, and we will watch what happens to the numbers of apprentices in training. There is a reason why this Labor government should not maintain those record numbers that we were able to achieve. Labor talk a big game on skills, but if they cannot maintain the numbers of apprentices that we did then we will know that they've dropped the ball. That's why we support today's legislation, because the data does not lie, and, when you weigh up the numbers, the coalition's record is strong and Labor's record does not fill Australians with confidence. Once again, we will be watching. Debate adjourned. Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 15

Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 15 13:23 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga This is a very important matter that does need to be dealt with by this House. Of course, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill fixes the situation which enabled the member for Cook, the then prime minister, to appoint himself to multiple ministries, a situation that really goes to some of the fundamental tenets of our democracy, of how we see the role of this place, of accountability and of trust in the whole system of government here. We should never have ended up in the situation we did end up in under the previous prime minister. I think it's fair to say that no other prime minister would have considered this type of thing. I will come back to this later, but I do think it is imported to note that, when you are the prime minister, when you are the leader in this place of our country, it is very important that you understand your responsibility to the system of democracy that you are the leader of. That is a fundamental part of the job, and it is a fundamental part that the previous prime minister did not grasp. This country is poorer for that, so it is imported that this bill, which addresses some of the issues that were uncovered through this process, is put in place so that we do not see the situation happen again. It is important to note what happened in that previous time. The ministries that the then Prime Minister appointed himself to included Health; Finance; Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; Treasury; and Home Affairs. Of course, there have been some recent revelations of new areas that other ministers were appointed to also administer and colleagues weren't aware of. It is just astounding that this happened without colleagues—without cabinet—being aware of it and certainly without the parliament and this House and the Australian people being aware of it. What is also astounding is that after being kept in the dark by the member for Cook, the then Prime Minister, those opposite were not willing to join the House in censuring him. At that point, they still could not see the seriousness of this—the consequences for our democracy, for the way that we rely on knowing what is happening and who is in charge of what, for accountability and for trust. If we don't know who's in charge, how can we come to this place every day for question time and ask the questions that need to be asked? If we don't know who's in charge, how can the journalists whose job it is to ask the questions every day know who to ask? If we don't know who's in charge, how can the public, who elect us, know who is ultimately responsible for decisions that have been made? This is fundamental to the work we do. It is vitally important that this get fixed, and I am pleased that this is the bill that will do it. The bill introduces a requirement that there be a notification published as soon as practicable after the Governor-General of the day appoints someone to the federal Executive Council or to administer a department of state or directs them to hold an office. This notification will include the name of the person appointed, the department they have been appointed to administer and the date they are sworn in—all information that we lacked under the previous Prime Minister. It means there will be greater transparency for these appointments. We will know what is happening. I will also reflect that I think what needs to come out of this entire process is not just law change but also a very clear cultural change—a very clear recognition from this place that that can never happen again. Again, that's why I say it is a great shame that those opposite did not join the House in censuring the member for Cook, but I urge them, when they look at this bill, to consider this their opportunity to show that it wasn't good enough, to tell the Australian people that they have learned from what happened and to tell the Australian people that they too were misled by their own leader and kept in the dark and that they don't think it was good enough. Our government moved to try and clean this mess up as soon as we became aware of it. This is a key part of our response to the inquiry that we had, led by the Hon. Virginia Bell AC, a former High Court justice. She has done some very thorough work to get us to this point, when this bill is now before the House. Our government does want to restore the public's confidence in this place. We know that we can't do our job—we can't govern for Australians—if they don't feel like they know what is happening here, if they don't feel like they know that we are acting in a transparent and accountable way. We want to rebuild integrity in this institution. That is vital for our work. We want to rebuild integrity in its processes and in those who hold power. Australians need to know that there is transparency in the way that government operates. The checks and balances that our parliamentary democracy relies on are sacrosanct. We must respect them. They must be things that we uphold here. If we as MPs are not doing that, who is doing that? It is a fundamental part of our role. Our government went to the last election promising to restore trust and integrity to federal politics, and I can tell you it is something that people in my electorate raised with me again and again. They know that this place can do better. They know that it should not have operated the way it did under the former Prime Minister. They too were shocked to find out about the multiple ministries, shocked to find out that their Prime Minister of the time had kept them, his colleagues, his cabinet and the parliament in the dark about what was happening, about decisions that were being made and about who ultimately was responsible for making those decisions. This shouldn't happen again. This bill will ensure it does not happen again. This government knows this is a serious matter, and we will be acting to address it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member was interrupted, she will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 16 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Longman Electorate: Youth Organisations 16 13:30 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman Boys' Brigades, Girls' Brigades, Scouts and Girl Guides are just some of the team organisations for use in our nation. In Longman these groups are well attended and thriving. Although they have different names, they share many of the same values. Through these values, they help parents and educators and schools shape our future generations for the better. Research shows that adults who have been involved in one of these organisations growing up, on average, participate less in criminal activities and substance abuse and are more likely to volunteer in community organisations in later life. They are also more acutely aware of society as a whole and are more inclined to participate in programs or initiatives that improve our society. Last year I had the honour and pleasure of attending the ceremony where local Caboolture Scout Alexander Bromley received the highest honour a Scout can obtain, the Queen's Scout Award. On Saturday night I had the pleasure to meet three of the six local members of the Boys' Brigades who have received the Boys' Brigade Queen's Badge award. These recipients will be some of the last recipients of this award, as it will now and in the future be, of course, the King's Scout and King's Badge award. Congratulations to Cameron Coombes, Eric Jepson, Isaac Wierenga, Ethan Vincent, Phillip Hyde and Malcolm Matthews on your badge. It recognises your hard work and commitment over many years. Well done. Holt Harmony Gala 16 13:31 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Today is Harmony Day. This day and the message behind it serves as an important annual reminder to celebrate all that is unique in our community and how our differences make us stronger. We have come a long way since the first Harmony Day was celebrated in 1999, the same year I migrated with my family to Australia. Our country has changed and evolved while still celebrating our national values of mateship and a fair go for all. Whilst I'm away from my electorate on this day, I was so proud to have hosted the inaugural Holt Harmony Gala last week. The gala brought together many different communities from the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne under one roof, to observe how fortunate we are to live in a society that is diverse and welcoming. I thank the Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O'Neil MP, the gala's first special guest, for her strong words on unity and Australia's commitment to multiculturalism. I also thank Senator Jana Stewart for being a great MC and speaking on the vital referendum we will have later on this year. Once again, I want to say happy Harmony Week to everyone around Australia. Domestic and Family Violence 16 13:32 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson Today I want to highlight the importance of continued funding for domestic violence programs. Last week the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the 2021-22 personal safety survey. It revealed that an estimated eight million Australians have experienced physical and/or sexual violence since the age of 15, including 31 per cent of women and 42 per cent of men experiencing physical violence, and 22 per cent of women and 6.1 per cent of men experiencing sexual violence. The survey revealed an unexpected drop in the number of people reporting violence and emotional abuse at the hands of a partner they have lived with compared to the same study six years earlier. While these particular statistics are positive, it's important the government continues to provide strong levels of funding across early intervention, prevention response and recovery streams. I have spoken to multiple services and shelters across the country who all told me they experienced spikes in requests for help over the pandemic and who still desperately require resources. We need to ensure support services are funded to help those who are experiencing any kind of violence. Eight million Australians experiencing physical or sexual violence since the age of 15 is absolutely not acceptable. Bennelong Electorate: Persian New Year 17 13:34 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Today is the first day of the Persian New Year, Nowrouz Mobarak. In Bennelong, over the weekend, we celebrated Nowrouz with our first ever Persian New Year festival, delivering on an election commitment of mine to turn 'Top Ryde' into 'Little Persia'. Nowrouz has been celebrated for over 3,000 years and is an important cultural holiday for many people in Iran, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and other countries in the region. It is a time for families and friends to gather, exchange gifts and share a traditional meal. Nowrouz is a time of renewal and new beginnings. While there are many who are celebrating Nowrouz, we also know that many Persians in Iran have had a dreadful few months as they continue to face threats and persecution in their fight for full respect and their human rights. Just yesterday, the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced the single largest package of sanctions to be imposed on Iran by any country since protests began. The Albanese government has taken stronger action against Iran and the IRGC than any previous Australian government. As we celebrate Nowrouz, we acknowledge the pain of many in my community and many abroad who continue to suffer. I'll continue to work alongside the Australian Iranian community in Bennelong to address the challenges they face. Nowrouz Mobarak. Sale no Mobarak. Defence Personnel: Mental Health 17 13:35 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Ten local soldiers from Mayo are taking on the challenge of trekking the Kokoda Trail to help raise awareness about Defence mental health issues. They will begin their trek in mid-April to coincide their arrival at the Isurava Memorial on Anzac Day. That's 96 kilometres that they are trekking. To help them get there and raise awareness and funds, they've worked with many in our community and veterans groups. With Black Dog Ride, locals have been generous in providing both financial and practical support, as have groups such as the Macclesfield RSL, Meadows Community Association, Meadows Bowling Club and the Hahndorf Lions Club just to name a few. Countless sausage sizzles, and even a fundraising training walk, helped the soldiers to raise the profile of their activity and have open discussions with soldiers and others in our community about the challenges of mental health. It was a valuable experience for all involved, and for the soldiers it was a unique bonding activity and an opportunity to build mateship and friendship. What has been especially heartening is the way in which our Mayo community has rallied around these wonderful soldiers, our local troops from our community. I think we're going to see real impact from their walk for many years to come. To the soldiers who are doing that 96-kilometre trek: we are so proud of you. Stay safe. We are all walking with you. International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 17 13:37 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It is a great honour and privilege to serve in this House as a proud Malaysian-born Australian. We are a diverse government, representing the beautiful patchwork fabric of Australia's multicultural society. We have come a long way, but there are still people who experience discrimination for the colour of their skin and where they come from. Before I got elected, I went doorknocking every day for 10 months. The first few months were so hard. It wasn't because I was working full time as a police officer and doorknocking 30 hours a week, but because of how some people treated me when they opened their door. Some people shooed me off like an insect. Some people called me horrible names. Some ran after me, chasing me off their property. Others told me to go back to China, which is silly, because I was born in Malaysia. Though their words may have very been silly, they still burned me; it cut deep. So today I remind you to please treat your words with careful consideration. Your words have an impact, and you have a responsibility to choose them wisely. I invite you to perhaps have a conversation with someone who looks different to you or is from a different part of the world. Who knows, you may learn something new. You may realise that we have more similarities than we do differences. Islamic Museum of Australia 17 13:38 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I'd like to tell the House about the great work of the Islamic Museum of Australia. At a time of heightened Islamophobia in Australia, Moustafa Fahour decided to find a way to build bridges between Muslim and non-Muslim Australians. He realised that education and engagement were crucial to overcoming misconceptions about Muslims, and so in 2010 Moustafa founded the Islamic Museum of Australia, the first of its kind in this country. The Islamic Museum of Australia showcases the artistic and cultural heritage of Muslims in Australia. You can visit to discover Islamic architecture and even stand inside a minaret—the tower of most mosques. You can view artworks by renowned artists, including five-time Archibald Prize finalist Abdul Abdullah. You may even learn that some of your favourite inventions like coffee, hospitals and guitars originated from Islamic societies. You'll also learn that, prior to colonisation in 1788, Makasar fishermen from Sulawesi traded with Northern Australian First Nations communities. Importantly, you'll learn about the achievements of many notable modern Australian Muslims. The museum also played a key role during COVID by working with medical professionals in the Department of Health to promote accurate information to the community. Thank you for the hard work of those at the Islamic Museum of Australia. You make our community a richer, more creative and more inclusive place to live. St Patrick's Day 18 13:40 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Last week I got to represent Prime Minister Albanese at the Queensland Irish Association's St Patrick's Day dinner. I came on to speak after 10 pm, which was quite an experience! There were a lot of good speakers at the event, including the Irish Minister Simon Coveney and members of the Irish government delegation. He spoke well, as did Tim Mawe, the ambassador of Ireland, but the best speaker was a bloke called Andrew Slack, the rugby player, who happens to be my constituent. I also ran into someone called Aileen Cater-Steel, from the Darling Downs Irish Club, who came up after my speech and introduced herself as my relative. It turns out my mum, Peggy Morrissy, and my great-grandmother, Ellen Long, were all from the Darling Downs, from Deuchar, near Allora—just some of the 75 million people around the world who celebrate St Patrick's Day. I know there are many in this chamber. It was a great event, and I look forward to some great trade opportunities with Ireland coming up, as it becomes the gateway to Europe, as the United Kingdom has a slightly different engagement with Europe. I also particularly thank Minister Simon Coveney for, in his speeches, both there and at the Irish embassy last night, affirming that all Irish Australians should be backing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, that anyone with Irish blood could not be silent when it comes to recognising our First Nations people and that it was a sign of a very modern Australia. Happy St Patrick's Day. That's the end of the fortnight of St Patrick's Day events, surely! Bowring, Dr Brian, AM 18 13:41 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass It gives me great pleasure to stand here today and pay tribute to the wonderful Dr Brian Bowring, AM. Dr Bowring recently marked his last day as a GP, with the majority of his career—almost 40 years, in fact—spent as a local doctor in George Town. Graduating from the University of Tasmania in 1979, Dr Bowring spent some time with the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Broken Hill before settling into George Town. In addition to being a dedicated GP, Dr Bowring has been a passionate advocate for rural medicine and general practice, holding a number of positions, including as chair of the Rural Health Education Foundation board. In 2013, Dr Bowring was awarded an AM for his significant service to medicine in rural and regional areas and as a general practitioner. Former CEO of the Rural Health Education Foundation Don Perlgut praised Dr Bowring, saying: 'He has been a tireless campaigner for and practitioner of rural health. His ability to connect with rural and remote health practitioners is unparalleled.' Over the years, Dr Bowring has also supported community, participating in Movember and shaving his head a few years ago in support of a Relay for Life team, started by his patient Tania Flanagan, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2009. Above all, Dr Bowring is a loved husband, father and grandfather and someone I admire very much. Happy retirement, Dr B. Albanese Government 18 13:43 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Today marks 10 months since the Albanese Labor government was elected, and it's worth noting some of the achievements of those 10 months. They include cheaper medicines; a pay rise for millions, particularly the low paid; 180,000 fee-free TAFE places; and cheaper child care from 1 July. We've put in more paid parental leave. We've legislated for a National Anti-Corruption Commission. We've established a royal commission into the terrible robodebt. We're taking climate change action. We have Powering Australia up and running. We're fixing aged care. We're funding paid domestic violence leave. This week we're legislating for housing for veterans and vulnerable people. That's in the Senate, and we hope it comes back soon so we can get it through the House. Then there's the National Reconstruction Fund to get advanced manufacturing back on track in this country. We've repaired international relations, and we are delivering on national security. Compare that to the 10 years of failure of those opposite. They created robodebt, a scheme that stole from its own citizens—the people they had a duty to protect. They put forward 22 energy policies and delivered none. They had climate change denial all through their ranks, and that continues to this day. We have a skills crisis in this country, brought on by defunding TAFE. After their 10 years in government, there were fewer traineeships than when they started, in 2013, despite population growth. There were the multiple ministries of the former PM and a deliberate policy from those opposite to keep wages low. What a disgrace! (Time expired.) Early Childhood Education 19 13:44 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Earlier this month my good friend and colleague the member for Forrest and I held a roundtable with early childhood educators in Bunbury in the great state of Western Australia. We met around 20 educators from for-profit, not-for-profit and community services, and we discussed their concerns, their ideas and their experiences. Many of the educators told us that they had waitlists, struggled with staff shortages and burnout, and faced an increasing level of red tape. Many expressed concern about the government's cheaper childcare policy, as they don't currently have enough staff and will have to turn families away. They shared stories of struggles to recruit educators, especially in regional and rural areas, with one service saying—through tears, I might add—that they would soon close their doors, as they couldn't find staff to stay open. Two mothers from Augusta, Kylie and Melissa, shared the work they've been doing to establish an ECE service in Augusta, which is currently a childcare desert. During the last election, Nola Marino, the member for Forrest committed $400,000 to establish an ECE service in Augusta, and Labor refused to match it, which is an absolute crying shame. It's a shame that Labor only cares about you if you live in a major city. Labor thinks that all their early learning problems will be solved from 1 July, but, with services and educators struggling and families unable to access care, Australians deserve to know if they really will be better off under Labor. Thank Your Pharmacist Day, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 19 14:46 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Last Thursday, 16 March, was Thank Your Pharmacist Day, so I went to my local pharmacist and delivered Ferrero Rocher chocolates. My local pharmacist has been a really important part of my family. There are times of need when you just need a specific thing. That rang true to me, particularly during the pandemic. I remember going to the pharmacy and seeing lines and lines of people lining up there. There was a sense of fear, but the staff were so calm. They treated everyone with respect and worked methodically through all the people that were in the room. I think it's really important that we remember the role that they play in our society and in our families. The Labor Party fundamentally stands with pharmacists. We saw this with the reduction of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the reduction of the co-payment from $42.50 to $30. I remember standing in this place and seeing Assistant Minister Emma McBride talk about her experiences as a pharmacist and needing to speak with clients and say, 'Okay, you need to choose between this medicine or another medicine.' I can't imagine how challenging that would be, but, with this life-changing policy, Australian Labor is helping families, particularly during this cost-of-living crisis. Go pharmacists! Aged Care 19 13:47 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I rise to speak about aged care and at-home aged care. I note public comments from the aged-care minister that she won't be kicking down doors on 1 July to enforce mandatory 24/7 registered nursing care. Finally there is some recognition that you can't magic highly qualified nurses into existence. Finally those opposite are acknowledging that, in regional Australia, the pool of qualified people does not exist. In my electorate, small low-care nursing homes are being rendered unviable. Elderly residents are not able to live out their days in their own community. Large providers are dozens of registered nurses short of meeting the reform targets. Care facilities are worried about how the inability to recruit nurses will impact their star rating, and people in my electorate on home-care packages are unable to get the help they need because of lack of providers and staff. Given the aged-care minister's acknowledgement of the workforce challenges, why isn't the Albanese government investing in a great project we've got? If you want to do something positive, invest in the Goulburn Valley clinical health school. I've been asking for this. La Trobe University have been asking for it. Goulburn Valley Health have been asking for it. It's there. It will train heaps of nurses. We're ready to get on with training the nurses, midwives and allied health staff that my region needs. So, instead of saying, 'What did you do?', we've got a project on the table. Work together and help us fund it. Nicotine Vaping Products 19 13:49 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie The urgency within my community to have action to control vapes is increasing. When I speak with school students, it's on their agenda. When I speak with teachers and principals, it's on their agenda. And, when I speak with parents, it's definitely on their agenda. They all know that, while there's a need for good public health information, there's an urgent need for tighter regulation. It's well understood that not only can you get these products easily but they're also being directly marketed to children. Why else are they fruit flavoured and covered in pretty pictures like unicorns, and why are they disguised to be hidden in a pencil case? The industry has been left to run riot in the last few years, and the time to act on an issue is as it emerges, not when it is a full-blown menace. But those opposite wasted 10 years when they could have taken action. In the last 10 months we've done more than they did in 10 years to tackle this issue. We have already sought advice on how vaping laws can change, asking the Therapeutic Goods Administration to investigate. They've received thousands of submissions, and I look forward to their recommendations coming to government. The health minister has begun discussions with the states. They recognise this has to be done at two levels of government for there to be any effect. My community wants to be a part of the solution, and I look forward to working with my school students and my state counterparts to tackle this issue. Taxation 20 13:50 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn Labor wants to increase taxes on the nation's truckies to pay for road maintenance. This is despite cancelling, cutting and delaying road infrastructure projects in the October budget and failing to approve a single project under the north Australian roads program over their 10 months in office. Federal Labor's proposal to impose a 10 per cent increase in fuel taxes in registration charges on the nation's truckies will cost the sector in the vicinity of $2.6 billion over three years and add to inflationary pressures. Everything we make in this country, all the goods we buy that have come to the shops, all travel on a truck, whether it originates on a farm or a factory or enters the country via a port. I repeat: everything comes on the back of a truck, from a jar of Vegemite to a wind turbine. Our truckies keep this country running, and they get food on the table and goods into our shopping centres. With more than 197,000 people employed in the industry, Labor's reckless truckie tax proposal puts drivers' jobs and livelihoods at risk. It will also add to the cost-of-living pressures, as the cost of what we buy at the supermarkets will go up further. I stand by our truck drivers and call on the Labor government to scrap its plans to increase truck taxes by up to 10 per cent. Robertson Electorate: Early Childhood Educators 20 13:52 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to acknowledge the tremendous work of our early childhood educators undertaking education and caring for our young children in centres across the Central Coast. The early years are a formative period for our children's development, and educators play an important role in placing children on a path to success throughout the rest of their lives. Research says that the first five years of life are the most critical for building the foundations for lifelong learning, wellbeing and health, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds who are more likely to be developmentally vulnerable in language and cognitive skills when they enter school and who will benefit considerably from early childhood education. Here they form connections with friends, develop independence and learn new routines. On the Central Coast community we have recently acknowledged some outstanding childhood educators, and I want to place in Hansard my congratulations to these educators. They include the Central Coast's favourite childcare worker as voted on the community on the Central Coast, Carlee Lester, from Juniors At Wamberal; a very big congratulations and thank you, Carlee. There were three other finalist: Camilla Hall, from Little Miracles—Niagara Park; Eliza Mainland, from Milestones—Umina Beach; and Louise Reynolds, from Little Miracles—Niagara Park. My congratulations and thanks to all these finalists and, to all our early childhood educators, thank you. You are helping to shape the future for future generations in our nation. Censorship 20 13:53 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I've been booted off YouTube for a three-minute speech I gave in the other chamber. I was disappointed about that because, for me of all people to be booted off YouTube, it was quite a surprise to me. All I was doing was asking a question on excess deaths in Australia and quoting ABS, Australian Bureau of Statistics, figures. If you had a four per cent increase in excess deaths in Australia, you'd say, 'Well, that's like a one-in-100-year flood.' I suppose, if you got a 14 per cent increase in excess deaths in Australia, you'd have a tsunami on your hands, but I didn't even mention that in the speech. I mean, coming from a backbench in opposition in the Australian parliament, it's in the Hansard for anybody to read. It's about as low as you can go as a backbencher in opposition. There is one place further to go—that's probably out the door, and don't get excited about that too quickly! So I say to YouTube: why are you censoring an Australian parliamentarian for just reasonable remarks about ABS figures in this country? It's totally unacceptable when, after you genuinely upload a three-minute speech on mortality rates in Australia, an international company kicks you off. It's unbelievable, and I'm especially surprised because it was me. Who am I to be kicked off? Albanese Government 20 13:55 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck We celebrate 10 months of the Labor government today, and, as a new MP, here are the top 10 issues that I raised in my first speech last year. I spoke of integrity and standards of behaviour, and we have established the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act. I spoke of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and this week we will see proposed legislation on a referendum for a Voice to Parliament debated in the parliament, and a referendum will be held this year. I spoke of the criminalisation of people receiving legitimate government benefits, and the stories coming to light through the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme are an indictment of the former government. I spoke of the environment and climate change, and I'm proud to be passing legislation and taking actions to meet targets with the safeguard mechanism. I spoke of veterans, and finally they can access the services and support that they deserve and need through a simple legal framework. I spoke of the needs of seniors, and this is the government that is implementing the recommendations of the aged-care royal commission—no more secret files. I spoke of supporting green economic growth, and, with programs like the National Reconstruction Fund, our manufacturing and industry sector will be booming. I spoke of housing, and the government has introduced bold measures like the National Housing Accord and the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to address our housing shortfall Moreover, I spoke of stability and seriousness, and we now have a stable government led by a respected prime minister and we are once again a serious country that is taken seriously. With agreements like AUKUS, we are now a country that our region turns to help with serious problems, creating stability in our region. Energy 21 13:57 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler What a fantastic opportunity it is to attack those opposite for not delivering $275 reductions in electricity prices. The people that I represent cannot afford continued increases for electricity and for gas. They need well-paid jobs, and yet we see those opposite not only intervening in the market but capping it. They are capping the market, and what is the result? We have seen a forecast for a shortfall of gas. I say to the Victorian state Premier: how about you actually go and develop some? If you developed some gas, you might have some available. You can't go to Queensland and expect to shift the entire demand for the state of Victoria from Gladstone. It is not physically possible. The infrastructure doesn't exist, and you certainly can't do it for the same price as you would see from the Bass Strait. It is a statement of fact that the Bass Strait is in decline. There is less gas coming from the Bass Strait. It has been a great resource, but, if you do not develop your own resources as a state, you will run out. Who will pay the price? The people that live there. It'll be those who can least afford it. It'll be those individuals that can't pay their power bills, and we are seeing increase after increase after increase from those opposite, because they do not know how to manage the economy. So I say once again: why do you always pay more under Labor? New South Wales: Election 21 13:58 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta I rise to speak on behalf of New South Wales tourism. It is a lovely time of year in Sydney at the moment. Temperatures are perfect, and, as we head toward 25 March, you can get a real sense of the changing of the seasons—at least the changing of the political seasons. Tourists in Sydney are watching summer fade into autumn and the leaves turn a lovely shade of red—a beautiful shade of red—especially in East Hills, Penrith and Riverstone. I'm told the Upper Hunter is turning a beautiful shade of red this time of year as well. Tourists are also enjoying Sydney beaches, and, up on the Northern Beaches, the water has an emerald quality in the midst of blue. I think they call that colour teal. But, despite the beauty of New South Wales, there is one group of tourists we haven't managed to attract, and that's the opposition frontbench. Since November the Leader of the Opposition has been to Sydney once, and, when he was asked about this on Thursday by a journalist, a New South Wales Liberal jumped to his defence and he said, 'We've got problems of our own.' What a ringing endorsement of confidence in the federal and state branches! Opposition membe rs interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left will cease interjecting. Dr CHARLTON I8M The Leader of the Opposition has been so conspicuously absent from Sydney that New South Wales tourism is thinking of hiring Lara Bingle to ask, 'Where the bloody hell are you?' The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living 21 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister stated before the last election, and I quote: 'If I'm given the great honour of holding high office as Prime Minister, I won't seek to blame anyone else. I'll accept the responsibility that goes with that job.' Will the Prime Minister accept responsibility and admit he has broken his promise to provide cheaper mortgages and to cut power bills by $275 per year, a promise that he made on 97 occasions? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume! I remind all members not to interject before a minister or the Prime Minister has even begun an answer. If they continue to do that, they will be warned and asked to leave the chamber. 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Those opposite won't take responsibility for anything that they did when they were in government—nothing. The fact is that there was a price increase for energy scheduled by those opposite. Not only did they not only take responsibility for it; they hid it. They hid it through a special regulation to make sure that the Australian people couldn't find out. But what others have said about energy is this. The Business Council of Australia— Mr Dutton 00AKI Does your word mean anything at all? Mr ALBANESE R36 Mr Speaker, he's at it again. He was supposed to be nice Peter, but he can't survive to five past two without resorting to the old boofhead. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition! There's far too much noise on my left. The member for Barker is warned. I will hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, on relevance. All I interjected was: can anybody trust a word this man says? The SPEAKER 53517 That is not a point of order. The Prime Minister is in order and will continue with the answer and will be heard in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 What we've just seen is one question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 In between the interjections from the Leader of the Opposition, he then stands up and asks a different question while speaking about integrity and responsibility and taking into account what people say. He can't keep his word from one minute past two to two minutes past two. That's what we just saw from the Leader of the Opposition. But I'm asked about responsibility. The shadow minister for home affairs had something to say about responsibility during the week. She was asked about the fact that they not only had one minister sworn into her portfolio; they had another as well, because the member for Cook put in her extra. She said this: It's not okay to behave in the way that the former prime minister and others have in relation to keeping information secret. So far, so good. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. Opposition members interjecting— The 53517 When members on my left cease interjecting, I will hear from the member for McPherson. Mrs Andrews 230886 I did absolutely say that, so now maybe he can move on and answer the question— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The member for McPherson is a long-term member of parliament. It's the first question. The Prime Minister is in order. If this behaviour continues, people will be asked to leave the chamber immediately without warning. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANE R36 She went on to say: I think it's just extraordinary— All stacking up so far—the shadow minister is pretty right. Then she said: However, I think it's very disappointing that this information is coming to light now. That's what she had to say. Then it comes to the responsibility bit: And it does reflect very poorly on Prime Minister Albanese. This Prime Minister appoints not one but two people in her portfolio—and it reflects badly on me! That says everything about your incapacity to take responsibility for anything. (Time expired) AUKUS: Economy 22 14:06 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. What are the benefits of acquiring and building nuclear powered submarines for local industry, for jobs and for the economy? 14:06 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question and acknowledge the member as one of the great champions of defence in this House. Nuclear powered submarines are the most complex machines that humanity has ever built—more complex than the Saturn V rocket or any of the engineering around Apollo, even more complex than the Space Shuttle. At the heart of the AUKUS agreement is a commitment for Australia to establish the fourth production line in our three countries which will build a nuclear powered submarine, following on from Huntington's and Electric Boat in the United States and BAE in Great Britain. This production line will be one of the most significant centres of technology in our country; in fact, it will be one of the most significant centres of engineering in the world. It will see 20,000 jobs directly created over the next 30 years, $6 billion of investment over the next four years and $30 billion of investment through to the 2050s. While the production line will be based at the Osborne naval yards in Adelaide, in order for us to build nuclear powered submarines in Australia we will need to rely on our entire industrial base, which will see opportunities generated in every state in the federation. We absolutely need this. The Harvard index of economic complexity is a measure which has at one end of it the most high-tech manufacturing, sophisticated services economy, which turns out to be Japan. At the other end it has the most basic subsistence economy. It's not quite but it is almost an index of modernity. After the lost decade from those opposite, Australia now sits 91st on that index—sandwiched between Namibia and Kenya. If we are to hand on to our grandchildren in the middle of this century the prosperity we enjoy now, then the great national task for us is to climb that technological ladder. Where lies modernity lies prosperity, and building nuclear powered submarines is one of the great ways in which we can do this. This project will be on the same scale as the Snowy hydroelectric scheme. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. If he continues to interject, he will be asked to leave. Mr HWQ Just as it transformed our economy in the fifties and sixties, so, too, will building submarines transform our economy in this century. In elevating our technological base, we will generate and produce a transformational capability for our Defence Force, which will enable us to hand on to our kids and our grandkids a much more self-reliant nation. Economy 23 14:09 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House of the following: what the interest rate was 10 months ago compared to today; how much the average household electricity bill was— Honourable members interjecting— Ms LEY 00AMN Mr Speaker, the member for Sydney is shrieking so loudly that I cannot hear. The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right and left are not helping the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be heard in silence. That means that the Prime Minister, or whoever the question is directed to, will be heard in silence as well. Ms LEY 00AMN My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House of the following: what the interest rate was 10 months ago compared to today; how much the average household electricity bill was 10 months ago compared to today; and what the rate of inflation was 10 months ago compared to today? Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister has the call. The Minister for the Environment will cease interjecting. 14:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Well, I almost feel like channelling the member for Melbourne at this point in time, it's got to be said. The childishness of those opposite just shows, day after day, their incapacity to actually be a genuine alternative government for the country. The fact is that inflation is a global phenomenon that has led to an increase in costs, including that which began on their watch, with the first of the interest rate increases. Since then, we continue to have the Russian invasion of Ukraine and we continue to have inflationary pressure on the economy. But those opposite have voted against every single measure that's been aimed at providing assistance. They voted against the $1½ billion in direct bill relief that we put in— Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked a question about inflation. The Prime Minister is talking about inflation. I'll give her the call. Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker, I know numbers aren't the Prime Minister's strong suit, but— The SPEAKER 53517 No, resume your seat. I'm going to take action on this. Hon ourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has abused standing orders in a most grievous way, and she will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Farrer then left the chamber. Honourable members interj ecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will be heard in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 It will be a wasted hour for the deputy leader, because she can't call caucus members against this bloke while they're all in here. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 What this government has been doing is taking measures to put downward pressure on inflation. The member asked the question about inflation some months ago, when they were in office, and I'd ask them to give consideration as to whether the March budget that they handed down was inflationary or deflationary. Did it contribute more cash into the economy or less cash into the economy? Did it facilitate higher interest rates or lower interest rates? What they did, in the lead-up to an election, when they were so desperate, was promise a whole range of measures that all ended in May. Many of the measures that they put in place ended on 30 June or will end next year on 30 June. Looking at the measures and what we have to deal with, with the challenge going forward—measures such as the amazing work being done by Julie Inman Grant—do we really think that's going to end on 30 June next year? That's when the funding ends. That's the sort of nonsense budget that those opposite put together. That is the nonsense that they put together. (Time expired) AUKUS: Employment 24 14:14 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. What job opportunities will the AUKUS submarine agreement provide and how will the Albanese Labor government support workers to access these opportunities? 14:15 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I thank the member for Boothby for her question and her passion and interest in this issue. The truth is that the AUKUS pillar 1 announcement will produce around 20,000 high-paying, secure jobs for Australians, and they'll be spread throughout the entire nation. In Adelaide, for example, we'll see 4,000 jobs building the construction yard and another up to 5,500 jobs building the actual submarines—importantly, twice the amount that would have been allocated for building the Attack-class submarines. In Western Australia we'll see 3,000 jobs upgrading HMAS Stirling and another 500 jobs sustaining Submarine Rotational Force—West. Importantly, across both those great states we'll see 2,500 jobs sustaining our Virginia-class and then SSN-AUKUS submarines—all good-paying, secure jobs. Importantly, we'll see across the entire nation 1,900 scientists, engineers and technicians employed. This is probably the greatest new demand for scientists this country has seen in a long time. We'll also see 4,500 jobs across Navy and Defence. These job figures, the 20,000 jobs we're talking about, don't even include the supply chains—companies like Thales in Rydalmere, who could supply sonar components, and Pacific Marine Batteries supplying batteries out of Osborne. All great jobs, all driven by this nation-building visionary announcement by the Albanese Labor government. I'm asked how will we find the workers for these jobs. That's a really important question. The answer is simple: we will train them. We will train young Australians for these jobs, and it starts now. That's why we've allocated $6 billion over the next four years to start that effort and $30 billion over the life of the program to train young Australians. An apprentice starting their training tomorrow could work their entire career in this industry, helping safeguard the nation. We've committed to a skills academy in Adelaide that will train hundreds of apprentices each and every year, and we're also supporting science and engineering degrees. We're already supporting over 50 Australians in new specialised courses in the United States and the United Kingdom and helping establish new tertiary courses in nuclear engineering at UNSW and nuclear science at ANU. This is all critical to delivering the greatest capability uplift the Australian Defence Force has seen, as well as modernising our defence and manufacturing industries. This is an investment in the young people of Australia to help defend this nation. I'm so proud to be part of a government that's delivering this—20,000 jobs that will secure their future and help secure the security of the nation going forward. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 25 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Jamieson, Councillor Mark, McCallum, Mr Lance 25 14:18 The SPEAKER 53517 I am pleased to advise the House that in the gallery today is Councillor Mark Jamieson, the mayor of the Sunshine Coast Council and the president of the Local Government Association of Queensland; and Mr Lance McCallum, the state member for Bundamba and an assistant minister in the Queensland government. A warm welcome to you all. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 25 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Gambling 25 14:18 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Minister for Communications. Australians lose more than $25 billion a year to gambling. This harm is exacerbated by the use of credit cards for online gambling, meaning Australians are gambling with borrowed money. My question is: when will you ban credit card use in online gambling? 14:19 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for her question and acknowledge her ongoing advocacy in this area. The focus of the Albanese government, as with all kinds of harms in this area, is harm minimisation. That's why we are taking an evidence based approach to this issue, including being informed by the most reliable evidence as it arises through the current House of Representatives standing committee inquiry into these very issues. I would point out to the member that, in addition to the issue of credit cards, which has been considered widely and also has been the subject of several inquiries, we are currently considering the options that are available. We have long engaged with the banking sector and various advocates, including our regulators, in terms of what measures can be taken for amendments in this area which will provide the necessary levels of harm minimisation. I expect to say more on that very soon, but I do assure the member that not only are we very alive to this but we are implementing the recommendations and the framework that is currently there in relation to consumer protections, including on the 31st of this month when consistent revised advertising measures come into place. So I am working very closely with my colleagues, including the Minister for Social Services, who has shared responsibility in this area, and with my colleagues in relation to Treasury matters as they relate to banks to bring about meaningful change in this area which ensures that those harm minimisation objects are well realised. But I do stress to the member that we will have more to say on this very soon and I look forward to engaging with her as we take this forward. Regional Security 25 14:20 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Prime Minister. Following last week's AUKUS announcement, what is the Albanese Labor government doing to strengthen ties with our regional neighbours and friends, particularly in the Pacific? 14:21 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Moreton for his question and for his ongoing interest in our relations in the Pacific region. AUKUS is about promoting stability, security and prosperity in our region. We are investing in our capabilities on defence, but we're investing very heavily in our relationships in the region as well. That's why, on the way home from the AUKUS announcement in San Diego, I visited Fiji to congratulate the new prime minister, Prime Minister Rabuka, on his election at the end of last year and also to talk with him about the ongoing relationship that we have with our Pacific neighbours. We know that the government inherited a relationship that was in a bad state. We know that that occurred prior to the election with the issue in the Solomons of a breakdown in credibility and relationships. The entry fee for good relations in the Pacific is action on climate change. They take that issue more seriously than any other because it's a threat to their very existence. That's why these relationships are so important. I also thank the Prime Minister of Fiji for his support and work in putting back together the Pacific Islands Forum. We had had a breakdown in the relationships with the forum, with not all of the nations attending the forum that I attended, hosted by Fiji, last year. But the re-joining of Kiribati to the Pacific Islands Forum is very important to putting the Pacific family back together. We are investing in a stable and secure region. We have a signed security agreement with Vanuatu. We have committed to concluding another one with Papua New Guinea. In January, I was the first non-PNG citizen to ever address their parliament in Port Moresby, and I thank Prime Minister Marape for that great honour. We have also signed a bilateral partnership with the Cook Islands. In just nine months, we have hosted seven—tomorrow, it will be eight—Pacific leaders. Tomorrow, the Leader of the Opposition will join me on the forecourt to welcome the Prime Minister of Samoa as an official guest, and I will host her at the Lodge tomorrow night. These relationships are very important for Australia's future. They are important for the region. We'll continue to work constructively, and I pay tribute to the work of Senator Wong and Minister Conroy in particular for the work that they've done in this region. Interest Rates 26 14:24 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that around half of fixed-rate mortgages will end this year? With these interest rate rises, an Australian family with a $500,000 mortgage will have to find an extra $920 every month just to keep up with repayments. Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor? 14:24 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Hume for his question—question 4, as predicted. The member asks about interest rates. In a number of questions today, yesterday and in previous sitting weeks I have been asked about what happened, as if the circumstances changed completely from before the election to after the election. This is what his former leader said before the election: 'We know where these pressures are coming from. We know the pressures of rising costs of living, the pressures on interest rates are coming from not just the war in Ukraine, which has caused an energy price shock the likes of which we have not seen for many decades, but, secondly, the disruptions to supply chains that are coming from the pandemic. We are still feeling the effects of the rather extraordinary economic times that we are living in.' That was the member for Cook just before the election, less than a month before the election. The member for Hume would have Australians watching this believe that it was all hunky dory, that there was no inflation and there were no supply chain issues until there was a change of government. But it's just not true, as he himself said as recently as last September, when he spoke about interest rates bucking decades of downward trends and spoke about the inflationary environment. He says one thing in here and a different thing— The SPEAKER 53517 I haven't called you yet. I had a suspicion it would be that. The Prime Minister was talking about interest rates. The question was about interest rates. I am going to hear from the member for Hume on a point of order. Mr Taylor 231027 It's on relevance, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific: why do Australians always pay more under Labor? The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, a point of order: that's a deliberate abuse, an absolute deliberate abuse, and he added—if you want to specify where you think something is not being relevant, you specify where you think, where the question— Mr Burke DYW No. Simply running a slogan for a second time—it doesn't point to standing orders, and they know that. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The Prime Minister is in order. Member for Hume: if it happens again, you will be asked to leave immediately. Is that clear? I give the call to the Prime Minister. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thanks, Mr Speaker. Mr ALBANES R36 Yesterday, the member for Hume said that half of mortgages would change; today—he's just all over the shop. The truth is that the changes to interest rates began on their watch. The inflationary pressures had been there in the economy for a period of time, building up, as the former Prime Minister said, due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and also the supply chain issues that emerged from the pandemic. Now, they want to just wish those away, but you can't just wish these things away. You have to act on them, and that is why my government is acting on them. Climate Change 26 14:28 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the safeguard mechanism important to Australia's future, and what is standing in the way of getting it done? 14:28 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Today's report from the IPCC is a sobering reminder of the urgency of addressing climate change, and the Australian people understand there is a need to act. Last May, they sent a clear message that the decade of denial needed to end and we needed to act on climate change, that we needed to act in order to seize the opportunities for job creation in the new industries that will come. Those opposite had a decade of refusing to acknowledge that the cheapest form of new investment is renewables. We had, time after time, people standing up here talking about how Liddell was going to stay open and all these things were going to happen, and none of it did, of course. They talked about building a new coal-fired power station at Collinsville. They funded a study with the actual proponents of that private-sector project, using taxpayer funds, but, of course, that didn't happen either. Business wants certainty, and that's why they want the safeguard mechanism to be carried. How do we do that? We need the mechanism, which was in fact put in place originally by the former government. But they are so committed to saying no to everything and becoming a 'no-alition' they're even saying no to their own policies. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, on a point of order— The SPEAKER 53517 The manager will resume his seat. I ask the Prime Minister to refer to the coalition as the coalition. Mr ALBANESE R36 The wambulance raced up there! Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 The business community are crying out for certainty. The chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Andrew Mackellar, said this: For the sake of certainty and the achievement of our emissions reduction goals, the Safeguard Mechanism must pass parliament. Just this morning, the former energy security board chair, Kerry Schott—appointed by those opposite, not by us; by the former coalition government—said: It would be a great shame—in fact, it would be really awful—if the safeguard mechanism didn't get up. It really must be passed to be able to meet the 43 per cent target that the government has set. But those opposite just stand in the way. They are so determined to say no to absolutely everything that they're now even saying no to their own policy. In spite of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition told the Financial Review conference that all these businesses were saying they were okay with the coalition saying no, the truth is that they can't name any of the significant industry groups who are saying anything other than, 'Put this through.' AiG, ACCI and the Business Council of Australia all know that this has got to get done. The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the honourable member for Riverina. Government members interjecting — The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! Growing Regions Program 27 14:32 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Back by popular demand, obviously! My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. It has been ten months since the federal election and five months since the budget. Why haven't local councils been given the eligibility criteria and funding guidelines for Labor's promised Growing Regions Program? It's important. Is this just another Labor broken promise to regional Australians? 14:32 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Thanks very much to the shadow minister for his question. I know that, like all regional Australians, we are both very keen to represent our regions. As you know, the Growing Regions Program is part of this government's measures of integrity, bringing integrity back into the grants program after years and years of pork-barrelling and rorting on the part of the former government. We are taking our time to make sure that the guidelines are the best they can possibly be. We are undertaking consultation currently with the regional development sector, and I'll have more to say about the announcement and opening of the program shortly. Climate Change: Safeguard Mechanism 27 14:33 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean My question is to the Treasurer. Why is the safeguard mechanism critical for business certainty? What are the risks to this certainty not being provided? 14:33 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the member for Bean for his question about a crucially important topic. Future growth in our economy will be determined by whether or not we get the big trends and transitions right, whether it's the energy transition, the shift to the care economy and services, technology and how we adopt and adapt it in our economy, or how we invest in our people. This will determine whether we succeed or fail in our economy in this defining decade. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting. Dr 37998 How we get cleaner, cheaper, more reliable and, increasingly, renewable energy into this system will be absolutely central to our prospects in the years ahead. The Australian people understand this, and the Australian business community and investor community, as the Prime Minister said, understand this as well. This side of the parliament has done more to secure the future of our energy markets in 10 months than those opposite were able to do in almost 10 years. We legislated an emissions reduction target— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 progressing our Powering Australia plan and the Powering the Regions Fund and, in my own portfolio, establishing a climate risk disclosure framework and promoting sustainable finance. These plans are all about providing business with the investment certainty they need to help power new industries and create new jobs, while at the same time maximising our traditional economic strengths. Central to this, of course, is the safeguard mechanism, which is currently before this parliament and has the overwhelming support of Australian business and Australian investors. The AIG, ACCI and the BCA, as the Prime Minister said, are all crying out for this to be passed through this place. It's also a policy supported by the Productivity Commission. The chair of the PC said yesterday: That safeguard mechanism is essentially the best policy instrument available to drive reduced emissions. Here's another quote backing the safeguard mechanism: … that will help Australia's largest energy using businesses adopt new technologies that will reduce energy costs and emissions while maintaining or increasing their competitiveness. That's what the member for Hume said when he was the most embarrassing part of the former government. That's what the member for Hume said at the time. Australian businesses and Australian investors can't afford for this country to see the opportunities of cleaner, cheaper, more reliable energy continue to go begging. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Australians and Australian businesses have already paid too hefty a price for the wasted decade of denial and delay and dysfunction represented by those opposite. Those opposite have learned absolutely nothing from the wasted decade when it comes to energy. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. I want to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, on relevance: on a number of occasions, you've directed the minister to be relevant to the question. The question did not ask about the opposition. It did not ask about the opposition's record. The minister should be directed back to the terms of the question. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW The question asked about the risks of this certainty not being provided. The opposition are that risk. Governmen t members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition cease interjecting. The Treasurer's had a good go. I'm just going to ask him to return to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The point is this: after a wasted decade of missed opportunities in energy— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer is answering the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 this coalition of cookers wants to put our future prosperity and our future economy at risk. The nation needs this parliament to pass the safeguard mechanism. Cost of Living 28 14:37 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to my constituent Jason, from Robina, a 35-year-old father of two who has had to take a second job and cancel his children's swimming lessons, as his mortgage repayments are expected to almost double as he comes off a fixed-rate loan. He says rising grocery, energy and other price increases are a massive stress on top of the anticipated rate rise. Where is the government's promised plan to ease cost of living? The 53517 The member for Hunter is warned. 14:38 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. I also thank her for her interview—on Sky, I think it was—where the member blamed me for the fact that two people were appointed in her portfolio without letting her know, while she was the Minister for Home Affairs. But I say to the member: hang in there. You never know what might happen. I say in terms of interest rates and the cost of living, which the member asked about, that I know that she's very loyal to the Leader of the Opposition, so I'll quote him: … nobody wants to see interest rates go up, but it's a reality of a world where there's inflation. I think Australians understand that … there's a lot of pressure—upward pressure—on interest rates at the moment. That's what the Leader of the Opposition had to say when he was a minister. I think he was the only minister in his portfolio at that point in time, so obviously he had the confidence of the Prime Minister at that point in time. On that occasion he was right, in a moment of honest reflection, as to what was happening in the economy. We understand that there are pressures on the cost of living. We understand that, which is why the member for McPherson should have voted for energy price relief, should have supported the Fee Free TAFE plan, should have supported the cut to pharmaceutical costs and should be supporting the measures that this government is doing in order to take pressure off the cost of living. Housing 29 14:40 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Minister for Housing. How will the Housing Australia Future Fund benefit Australians? How has it been received by stakeholders? Why is it so important for it to pass the parliament as soon as possible? 14:40 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for McEwen for this important question. He knows that too many Australians at the moment are making difficult decisions around the kitchen table. They're dealing with increasing interest rates. They're dealing with rising rents. And they're making some tough decisions, which is why it is astounding that those opposite continue to oppose our Housing Australia Future Fund. They oppose the Housing Australia Future Fund, a reform that will deliver thousands of new social and affordable homes right across Australia for people that need them most. Fortunately they sat alone when this House passed our bill, with broad support from MPs across this House, including of course the member for Bass, who supported this important legislation. Mr Sukkar 242515 What have you done for 10 months? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Deakin then left the chamber. Ms COLLINS HWM Last week, housing experts from across academia, industry and community gave their views to a Senate committee on our housing package. PowerHousing Australia described it as 'transformative reform' that will enable the housing needs of more Australians to be met. When asked if the Senate should move quickly to support the package, the Community Housing Industry Association declared it was 'absolutely urgent'. They said, 'We have to put something in place right now.' The Urban Development Institute said, 'Every day that passes is costing them more and more.' The Property Council said, 'The quicker all of these mechanisms are up and running the better.' National Shelter described it as 'the most critical housing legislation to be brought forward for the past 10 years'. That's what people are saying about our Housing Australia Future Fund and our legislation. We have done more in our first 10 months than those opposite did in almost 10 years, particularly when it comes to social and affordable housing. Our Housing Accord will combine state and federal funding to deliver another 20,000 affordable homes over five years from 2024. We've unlocked up to $575 million immediately from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, and construction is underway on these homes around Australia. We're working with the states and territories on the future of the $1.6 billion each year under the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. Work is already underway on a National Housing and Homelessness Plan. We'll implement our Help to Buy Scheme, the shared equity scheme. We brought forward the Regional Home Buyer Guarantee, which is already helping thousands of Australians into homeownership. And of course the Industry Super Association just today have said: ISA urges the Senate to support the HAFF and the once-in-a-generation opportunity it provides to reform investment in social and affordable housing. They are urging the Senate to pass this legislation. Our broad reforms to housing are critical, and I would say to those opposite and to the senators: Australians that need it most need this bill to be passed, and they need it passed quickly. Climate Change 30 14:43 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Methane is 80 times more potent in capturing heat than CO2 in the first 20 years, yet Australia does not enforce international best practice when it comes to measurement and capture of methane. Will you support implementing international best practice in measurement and abatement of methane, as I've proposed in the amendments to the safeguard mechanism, in light of the dire but clear warning in the latest IPCC report that we are on track to catastrophic warming? 14:44 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question. Indeed, the IPCC report today does call for urgent, substantial and sustained emissions reduction—methane and all the carbon gases, all of them. That's exactly what the government intends to do, to lock in— Opposition members interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS Honourable members opposite might not like reducing emissions, but that's what the Australian people have voted for and that's what the world demands. That's what the world demands and that's what future generations demand, and that's exactly what we will do because what the IPCC report today reminds us is that there is agency and urgency. There is still time to hold the world as close as possible to 1.5 degrees, but we don't have long. We must act, and this week the parliament can act because in 100 days the safeguard mechanism reforms can be in place if the parliament approves them. This is the most important opportunity we have, 205 million tonnes of emissions removed from the atmosphere if the safeguard mechanism reforms pass. I know honourable members have raised fossil fuels and resources. Today, as we speak, emissions from fossil fuel facilities covered by the safeguard system are 73 million tonnes a year. With business as usual and no reforms, they are projected to grow to 83 million tonnes a year. But if the reforms are passed, it will be 52 million tonnes, and that's the choice the parliament has—83 million or 52 million. That's the choice of parliament this week and next week, and I'll say this: last year the parliament passed the government's Climate Change Act. I thank all the members of the crossbench who supported it in this place and in the other place. This was important, and some honourable members have said, 'Forty-three is not enough.' I understand that and respect that. I respect their point of view, and I thank them for coming together with goodwill to pass that. But know this: our projections are very clear that if the safeguard mechanism reforms are not passed then 43 per cent will not be met. Our projections show it will be 35 per cent, so if honourable members are going to call for higher targets, they are obliged to vote for action to get those targets achieved. That is the obligation for honourable members— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will resume his seat. Mr BOWEN DZS you can't call for higher targets and then— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Wright, I want to hear from the member for Warringah on a point of order. Ms Steggall 175696 On relevance, Mr Speaker. The question went to methane specifically. The SPEAKER 53517 I ask the minister to return to the question, which was a specific question. I bring the minister back to the question. Mr BOWEN DZS We do want to see methane emissions reduced. We want to see all carbon emissions reduced, and that's why I want to see the safeguard mechanism reforms passed. I know this: there will be no constraint on methane, there will be no constraint on the CO2, there will be no constraint on any carbon gases unless the safeguard reforms pass the parliament this fortnight. That's the case. The honourable member is correct: methane is a very important gas for us to measure and to work with industry to see emissions reduced. That is very important, and if there are good faith suggestions I have and will continue to listen to them. But the most important thing is that these reforms pass, or it will be business as usual and business as usual is not acceptable. Domestic and Family Violence 30 14:47 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Minister, what is the Albanese Labor government doing to increase crisis and emergency accommodation for women and children leaving family and domestic violence? Why is urgent action needed? 14:48 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I thank the member for her question and ongoing advocacy for her community and for communities right around Australia when it comes to domestic and family violence. Domestic and family violence is the main reason women and children leave their homes in Australia, and it's the leading cause of homelessness for children. A woman shouldn't have to choose between being homeless and being in an environment that is dangerous to her or her children. The government is progressing significant investment to increase the availability of crisis accommodation through the Safe Places Emergency Accommodation Program. In the October budget the government committed $100 million of extra funding to deliver 720 additional safe places for women and children leaving violent situations, and work is underway at the moment with partners that will partner with the government in this, including family and domestic violence services, state and territory governments and, importantly, victims-survivors. This new round will seek to specifically help those that have an increased risk of experiencing domestic and family violence, including women living with disability and First Nations women. This is a significant investment, but it's not the only investment that our government is making. The Housing Australia Future Fund will deliver the Albanese government's election commitment of 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the fund's first five years. The allocation of 4,000 houses and $100 million from the returns of the Housing Australia Future Fund will complement the Safe Places Program, providing affordable housing for women and children affected by family violence, for older women and for women at risk of homelessness. It is important that the legislation to create this fund passes the parliament. Those who are delaying the passage of the legislation are delaying these homes being built. The opposition and the Greens must support us on this measure that will help millions of Australians. Housing for women and children escaping violence should be above politics. We should be able to put our politics aside and get on with the job. I urge everyone in this place and in the other place to support this legislation so we can have action now. Energy 31 14:50 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie My question is to the Prime Minister. Kazik is 81 years old and lives with his 78-year-old wife, Tatiana, in Griffin within my electorate of Petrie. Kazik and Tatiana's latest gas bill is 72 per cent higher than their previous bill. This increase means they'll have to make difficult decisions this winter about whether to eat or whether to stay warm. Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Lyons is warned. 14:51 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Petrie for his question, which goes to the price of gas, which we had a vote on in this parliament. Those opposite voted against a price cap on gas of $12, and they also voted against providing assistance of $1.5 billion. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! If the member for Bowman interjects one more time, he will be leaving the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 They've also indicated they're going to vote against the safeguard mechanism, which business is saying is absolutely essential to create investment in the energy sector so that we drive down prices, due to supply-demand issues. Businesses are saying that they desperately want that signal, which was established by the former government. Those opposite can't vote against assistance for people and then tell them that they want to support them, because the truth is that if they wanted to do that they could have voted for the support that was in here when we resumed parliament in January. In another place, in New South Wales, the coalition and Labor all voted for lower power prices together, to their credit. That is what a responsible opposition did. You were an irresponsible opposition and just opposed it for its own sake. Victorian Parliament House: Protests 31 14:53 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Attorney-General. Why is it important to condemn public displays of right-wing extremism and Nazi symbolism? 14:53 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Macnamara for his question and I acknowledge his recent statements on this matter. What we saw on the steps of the Victorian parliament on the weekend was abhorrent. There is no place in Australian society for public displays of Nazi symbols or the Nazi salute. These are markers of some of the darkest days in the world's history—of ghettos, deportations and mass murder—which touched my own family. Six million Jews perished in the Holocaust. We must never, ever forget. And thousands of Australian service men and women died fighting the Nazi regime. Sadly, the sort of behaviour we saw on the weekend and its accompanying antisemitism is on the rise in Australia and around the world. The Victorian government was swift in its response. The Premier condemned the behaviour of a group of cowardly black-clad men who travelled to Melbourne's CBD seeking notoriety. The Victorian Attorney-General pledged to reform Victorian law to ban displays of the Nazi salute. And, when it was revealed that Victorian Liberal MP Moira Deeming had attended the protest, the Victorian opposition leader announced that he would move to expel Ms Deeming from the Liberal Party. But what have we had from those opposite—in particular their leader? Complete silence. We all know that bigotry and hatred breed in silence. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Attorney-General will pause. Mr McCormack 219646 You called Josh Frydenberg stateless over his mother's citizenship problem. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina will cease interjecting. I would like to hear from the member for Wannon, and it's got to be on a point of order. Mr Tehan 210911 A point of order: what the Attorney-General has said is absolutely false. The SPEAKER 53517 It's not a point of order, but I'm just going to call the Attorney-General. Mr DREYFUS HWG The Leader of the Opposition has failed to join his Victorian counterpart and take action to expel Ms Deeming from his party. He has failed to condemn the display of the Nazi salute on the steps of the Victorian parliament. He has been invisible since the weekend. He has done no media. Why? What is so difficult about this? Who is the opposition leader afraid of offending here? Maybe it's Senator Antic, who said in the Senate yesterday, 'Moira did nothing wrong.' For the leader of a party of government to not even condemn the public use of the Nazi salute is astonishing, and it is shameful. The Leader of the Opposition is the most senior Liberal in Australia. Moira Deeming is one of his own, and he's been silent, and he's done nothing. This speaks volumes about the leadership qualities of the Leader of the Opposition, and Australians will take note. 14:57 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—I want to join with the Attorney-General in the remarks that he's made so far as they go to condemnation of any use of Nazi symbols, of the salute and of any glorification of that period of history. I would support any legislation in this parliament that he chooses to move—noting that he has not chosen to move any legislation—to make illegal in our country the display of any aspect of Nazi glorification. I find the response today to be quite remarkable and over the top—to use this issue to political advantage. I've been in this place for 22 years. You can look at my history in every comment that I've made in relation to making sure that we never, ever repeat the mistakes of history, particularly during that period. The slaughter of Jews and the treatment by the Nazis of people during the Second World War, and the treatment today of people of the Jewish faith, is an abomination, and it is equally condemned. That it would be used for political purposes in this place is a very poor reflection on the Attorney-General, if I might say so. As Minister for Home Affairs, as Minister for Defence and as a member of the National Security Committee, I supported every decision—in fact, I encouraged to the nth degree the Director-General of ASIO to use every resource at his disposal to make sure that those who would seek to propagate this hatred be charged according to the law. I won't take a morals lecture from that man or, indeed, that one. He might get up and make a statement himself. Honourable members interjecting— The 53517 Resume your seat. The House will come to order. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Gellibrand is warned. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The House will come to complete silence. That includes the Leader of the Opposition, immediately. I want to hear from the member for Indi in complete silence. If there is one more interjection, people will leave this chamber. Telecommunications 32 14:59 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the Minister for Communications. My constituents battle with poor phone reception every day. Last weekend, over 2,000 people attended the Swanpool Motor Festival and struggled to get mobile phone and internet access. Event emergency coordinator Ross Coles asked me, if there had been an emergency, what we would have done. This isn't good enough. Can you guarantee that with the Mobile Black Spot Program that opened yesterday critical black spots in rural and regional Australia like this will be fixed? 15:00 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for Indi for her question. She, of course, is a very strong advocate, in terms of ensuring that her constituents have equitable levels of communications as compared to their metropolitan cousins. The member raises two really critical issues. The first is in terms of public health and safety when it comes to communications, and that, of course, is paramount. As more and more people rely on mobile communications, it has never been more important. The second is in terms of the tourism and other small- and micro-business opportunities that the best mobile services and also broadband services can provide, and I am aware that she is acutely interested in these issues. I'm very pleased to inform her that, as she rightly points out, yesterday applications opened for two new funding programs, of $150 million of federal co-investments, and they include four mobile black spots. The Albanese government believes that irrespective of where you live in this great country everyone deserves the best access to communications services. In particular, I would point out, in relation to the member's question, the Mobile Black Spot and Regional Connectivity grants unleash new opportunities for mobile infrastructure in remote and very remote parts of Australia, particularly, as I'm sure many others would be interested, in First Nations communities, because they offer additional financial solutions targeting these very underserved areas. This is in response to feedback that previous schemes did not provide enough incentive for this. So the guidelines that we consulted on from December last year until February this year really sought to improve a number of those elements that had been lacking in previous rounds. Applications are open until 31 May. I encourage mobile network operators, communities and other interested parties, including all members of this place with rural and regional representation, to work together during what we call the application development period, to devise multicarrier solutions, including ones that utilise sharing technologies. As the member will be well aware, one of the real frustrations in regional Australia is the patchwork of coverage depending on who your carrier is at any given point. But, unfortunately, under the previous rounds, under the former government, only eight per cent of the Mobile Black Spot Program towers actually provided support to more than one carrier. We have changed the incentives in the guidelines so that this is substantially improved. The guidelines in this round emphasise that support for multi-carrier outcomes, to ensure that communities receive the maximum benefit from that public funding. These programs provide part of the most significant regional telecommunications investment packages since the inception of the NBN, and the Albanese government's Better Connectivity Plan for Regional and Rural Australia is providing more than $1.1 billion to regional communities. I look forward to the member's full participation in this program. (Time expired) Trade with India 33 15:03 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question as to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Tourism. What were the key outcomes from the minister's recent visit to India and how will this benefit Australian exporters seeking to diversify their trade? 15:03 Ms MADELEINE K 102376 Brand ING (—) (): I thank the member for Reid for her question and recognise that in her electorate there is a vibrant and growing Indian Australian community. When I travelled to India with the Prime Minister and the minister for trade recently, our message was clear. A stronger India-Australia partnership is good for the stability of our region. It also means more opportunities and more trade and investment and mutually strengthening our economies and directly benefiting our communities. India is a key trade diversification market for Australian exporters, and India sees Australia as key to their trade diversification aspirations. Today, Australia and India have around $46 billion of two-way trade each year and we have a shared ambition to boost our trading relationship to around $100 billion each year. The Albanese Labor government is working hard to make this happen. Labor's trade minister, Senator Farrell, ensured the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement was ratified by this parliament in November last year. The urgency of this Labor government to put AI-ECTA in place means that tariffs on around 85 per cent of Australia's exports to India have been cut to zero. In the month of January this year, Australian businesses benefited from tariff cuts on over $2.5 billion worth of exports to India. But we can and we must go further. A key outcome from our recent visit to India was to make further progress on our next free trade agreement with India—a comprehensive economic cooperation agreement. Both Prime Minister Albanese and Prime Minister Modi agreed to make swift progress in negotiations for an early conclusion of this ambitious trade agreement, and both our trade ministers did the same thing. Another outcome was an excellent meeting with the honourable Minister of Commerce and Industry, Mr Piyush Goyal, alongside the trade and tourism minister. I thank Minister Goyal for his wholehearted engagement. Minister Goyal joined the Taste of Australia event and introduced me and the trade minister to the world famous dabbawalas that deliver tiffins right across Mumbai, while we had the important opportunity to introduce and promote Geraldton crayfish to the massive market that India represents. It's a very important market, and I acknowledge how important this is to the member for Durack and the fisherpeople in her electorate. This is a very important outcome indeed. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker and the member for Forrest will cease interjecting. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 By working together, the two nations will grow employment opportunities, raise living standards and improve the general welfare in both countries while we deepen economic ties. Deeper economic ties with India mean more opportunities for Australian business to diversify their trade. More trade means more and higher-paying jobs for Australian workers. The Albanese Labor government will continue to work with India to progress our trade relations well into the future for the benefit of both of our nations. Cost of Living 34 15:06 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes My question is to the Prime Minister. On Sunday 12 March, Caruso's Italian Restaurant, an institution in the Sutherland Shire, was forced to close its doors permanently. Owners Rocky and Kerrin Pitarelli have cited rising electricity costs, rising labour costs and staff shortages as reasons for their closure. Prime Minister, why do Australian families and businesses always pay more under Labor? 15:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Hughes for her question. Indeed it is very regrettable that any small business closes. Caruso's restaurant in— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition! I cannot hear what the Prime Minister is saying. Honourable members in terjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will return to the question, and he has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 That is why we are conscious of these issues. That is precisely why we've taken action to take the sting out of power prices and to make sure that the legislation that's before the parliament at the moment—the safeguard mechanism—is also aimed at promoting investment in the energy sector. The business community say that that's the case. But I hope that the member for Hughes is also regretting voting against the $1½ billion in direct bill relief. I hope that the member for Hughes regrets voting against price caps on gas. Fortunately, the Liberal representatives in New South Wales did vote for price caps on energy, along with the Labor opposition in New South Wales. The truth is that we were left with an energy grid built for the last century. They had 22 energy policies and they didn't land a single one—not one. We are paying the price for a decade of neglect, but this government is determined to act. That's why we have legislation before this parliament. I'd encourage the member for Hughes to vote for that legislation and vote for, therefore, an increase in the supply of energy, which will have an impact. You had the opportunity to vote for lower prices last December, and you chose to vote against them. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting. National Apology for Forced Adoptions: 10th Anniversary 34 15:09 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga My question is to the Prime Minister. Today marks the 10th anniversary of the National Apology for Forced Adoptions. Why was the apology necessary and why is it still important 10 years later? 15:09 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Ten years ago today, on behalf of the government and the people of Australia, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said sorry to all those affected by forced adoptions. Tonight, there will be a commemorative dinner at the National Portrait Gallery for those affected by these experiences. And tomorrow the Minister for Social Services will deliver a statement in the chamber. The national apology offered on 21 March 2013 was an honest, humble and long overdue acknowledgement of the harm and loss and grief and trauma inflicted on mothers separated from their children and on children separated from their mothers. It hailed, as we do today, those affected who fought so hard for the justice they were due and it recognised, as we do today, those who did not live to see the truth told. Prime Minister Gillard's speech also dealt unflinchingly and unsparingly with what drove and allowed that separation. In Julia's words 'holding the mirror to ourselves' reflecting on the imagined moral superiority which inflicted its judgement and its cruelty on vulnerable people. Today, again, we remember their suffering and loss, and we reflect on a culture that enabled and facilitated the practice of denying mothers even a single moment with the baby that they had brought into the world. As Prime Minister Gillard said: … they did not see their baby's face. They couldn't sooth his— or her— first cries. Never felt her warmth or smelt her skin. They could not give their own baby a name. And this is not ancient history, not some distant tale from the vanished past. The Australians affected are with us still, from two generations. Mothers who, through the years, paused in quiet moments to think of a child who would be taking her first steps, or waving at the gate for his first day of school or beaming proudly on graduation day. And children who were left uncertain as to how their path on life's journey began. Today, a decade on, we pay tribute to all those who, in the face of decades of callous indifference, demanded that the people of Australia apologise for the harm that was done in their name. We remember those whose lives were cut short, who did not live to witness that moment of healing. We salute the leadership of Julia Gillard and the advocacy of Jenny Macklin and those such as Steve Irons who played such an important role in those events of 10 years ago. And we vow to heed the lessons of this chapter in our nation's history, to reach for empathy, humility and humanity before we leap to judgement. And we remember that strength in leadership is not defined simply by the exercise of power. Strength is about accountability and telling the truth, even when that truth isn't comfortable or is hard to bear. Long may Australia remember this anniversary, which will be commemorated this evening with a dinner. And then we in the parliament tomorrow will commemorate it across both sides of this chamber. But long may we honour those who, even though it was so difficult for them, gave us one of the finest moments in this parliament's history. 15:13 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—I want to associate the coalition with the fine words of the Prime Minister. It was a proud day for this parliament that we were able to stop, to pause, to apologise, to recognise and to reflect on the history and on the impact it has had on generations of Australians, many of whom will still suffer today with those scars. The impacts on their own relationships and their own children and the psychological impacts just can't be underestimated. The Prime Minister has pointed out the work of many people in this parliament, including Prime Minister Gillard as well as Minister Macklin and Steve Irons. Scott Morrison, later to be Prime Minister, and many others were involved in making sure that the parliament dealt with this in a respectful way. There are many who are still involved in that fight and who are still seeking to make a connection. It is a torture for them ongoing. We really respect those people, and we'll have more to say on the topic in the parliament tomorrow. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. CONDOLENCES 35 CONDOLENCES Sattler, Mr John William 35 15:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—Like every South Sydney supporter, I was very saddened to hear of the passing of the legend John Sattler at the age of 80. Satts was the toughest person that has ever walked onto a rugby league field, but he was an absolute gentleman off the field. He had a magnificent playing record: 195 games for Souths. He played in six grand finals and won four premierships as captain: 1967, 1968, 1970 and 1971. He famously played 77 minutes of the 1970 grand final against Manly with a broken jaw, pushing his bottom jaw back into place and clamping down with his mouthguard to just keep it there. He represented, prior to State of Origin, both Queensland and New South Wales. He was captain of Australia. He was a leader who made his teammates walk taller. For all the courage and inspiration he provided in the front row during his career, he showed that same determination when he was one of the leaders of the marches through Sydney to Sydney Town Hall that resulted in South Sydney's reinstatement to the National Rugby League competition. He was a gentle and a generous person. One of my deeply cherished mementos that I found when I was moving house after last May was my autograph book with the signature from John Sattler. I've now had a look at the date, in 1970, when he went, as many sportspeople do, to the local school, St Joseph's, Camperdown, for the presentation of trophies. You've got to remember, Mr Speaker, that these people were paid almost nothing. They worked full time. They had to work so hard. But he was greatly respected, he was deeply loved and he will be long remembered. I pay my sympathy, as well, to his family, including, of course, Scott Sattler, who followed in his footsteps and took a memorable tackle in the grand final for Penrith all those years ago. He will be missed. I pay tribute to him today—to a legend who bled red and green or, more accurately, cardinal and myrtle. 15:17 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—John Sattler epitomised what sport is all about in Australia. He was as tough as nails on the field, and in that premiership of 1970 he stoically played on after his jaw was broken, as the Prime Minister pointed out and as has been graphically detailed in the newspapers. It was stomach-turning to read it in the newspapers this morning, Prime Minister, and I could hear some stomachs churning on the other side as you went into some of the detail, so I'll spare further detail. But he was seemingly immune to pain. He stayed on after the siren to give a speech. He received cheering, roars and applause from the crowd, but he took no prisoners himself. His style of play earned him 15 send-offs and 30 weeks of suspension. There are some in this chamber who go close to that record, but not quite. He captained Souths for four premierships and led the Kangaroos on three occasions. He was rightly named in the 100 greatest players list. He was a giant of his era. He helped rugby league become the great game that it is today. Importantly, off the field he was known as Gentleman John—a man who stayed loyal to his beloved South Sydney until he tragically lost his toughest battle, with dementia, on Monday at the age of 80. It's an opportunity to give a shout-out to all of those families who are going through the same torture with that evil disease for somebody that they love. Our sporting champions are heroes to many. Many Australians lost a hero this week. On behalf of the coalition: we remember a man who was mighty on and off the field. Our thoughts are with John's family and friends and all those who support the beloved Rabbitohs. DOCUMENTS 36 DOCUMENTS Presentation 36 15:19 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 36 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Matters of Public Importance 36 15:19 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr BURKE DYW As is normally the case under page 592 of Practice: The terms of a matter of public importance … are made known to the Leader of the House or the Manager of Opposition Business, as the case may be, some time after 12 noon … When we received it today, it's in the normal form described under Practice, where Practice, on the same page, goes through that you have to say 'in accordance with standing order 46' and you have to propose exactly when you want it to take place. The member for Fairfax has proposed that today's matter of public importance should take place on Thursday 9 March. The Practice presumes that you can request it, as it says, today, tomorrow or on a subsequent day. This is the first time anyone has requested that it be two weeks ago. Previously, in similar circumstances, when we were in opposition, we'd been advised that the MPI would be ruled out, and I simply wish to draw this to your attention. The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B It is correct. There was a clerical error, but it is a factual matter—for which I take full responsibility, I hasten to add. The fact of the matter is that a letter was delivered to the Speaker today proposing a matter of definite public importance, and none of those facts have been changed by reason of the fact of a mere clerical error. 15:21 The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. It was a clerical error with the MPI. I'm pleased to advise the House that the member for Fairfax has corrected that clerical error. I will allow the MPI to continue because it is important that matters of public importance are debated. But, before I call the member for Fairfax, I give the call to the Leader of the Opposition. STATEMENTS 37 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 37 15:21 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DUTTON 00AKI Most definitely, I do. The SPEAK 53517 You may proceed. Mr DUTTON 00AKI During question time today, the Attorney-General launched what, in my judgement, is an unprecedented, completely unfounded attack, and on a topic which— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Gellibrand will remain silent while the Leader of the Opposition is on his feet. Mr DUTTON 00AKI It was on a topic, Mr Speaker, of the highest sensitivity. If there was some foundation to his claim, if there was some shred of truth or credibility to what he had said, then I would be happy to take the criticism, but it is the complete opposite of what I believe in and of what I have practised my entire life. I have been to many Holocaust museums, and I find it one of the most emotionally difficult issues to deal with, when you read through the history and see the consequences, even today, on people of Jewish faith. That somebody of the Attorney-General's standing would seek to use this issue to his political advantage, I think, reflects very poorly on him. I bring that to your attention because I find it the most egregious breach that I have seen, frankly, of the standing orders and the standards of decency in this parliament. Honourable members interjecting— The 53517 The member for Lalor and the member for Moreton will cease interjecting and are both warned. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Wannon has not indicated to me that he is seeking the call for a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Wannon has been here long enough to know that that is not the process that occurs. But, out of respect for him, I will give him the call. Personal Explanation 37 15:23 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Can I just join the Leader of the Opposition— The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Wannon, do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TEHAN 210911 I do. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr TEHAN 210911 The Attorney-General accused not only the Leader of the Opposition but all members of the coalition of not having done anything when it comes to calling out Neo-Nazis, Nazis et cetera, So it was directed not only at the Leader of the Opposition but at every member of the coalition. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW While respecting the sensitivity of the issue, it has generally been the case that if the comment refers to a party or an opposition generally then this standing order is not available—otherwise, at the end of question time, we'd all be up. The SPEAKER 53517 I just remind members: if you want to seek an explanation, it is a courtesy to let the Speaker know beforehand. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 37 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Energy 37 15:25 The SPEAKER 53517 I've received a letter from the honourable member for Fairfax proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Prime Minister's broken promise to cut energy bills by $275. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:25 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Thank you very much, Mr Speaker—including a thank you for your ruling. It's a reminder to all of us to be very mindful of the importance of dates in this place. I start this MPI by reflecting on the date of 3 December 2021, for that was the day the Labor Party launched its Powering Australia plan. That was the date when the now Prime Minister first made his promise to reduce household power bills by $275. That promise—broken. On 5 December 2021, in making Labor's 'Plan for a Better Future' speech, the now Prime Minister promised the Australian people that household power bills would be reduced by $275; that promise is broken. On 9 March 2022, the now Prime Minister, in a speech to the AFR at its 'new platform for growth' conference, promised the Australian people that household power bills would be reduced by $275. That promise—broken. On 1 May 2022, the now Prime Minister promised the Australian people he would reduce power prices for households by $275; that promise is broken. On 7 May 2022, the now Prime Minister promised at another Labor launch that they would reduce power prices for Australian households by $275; that promise has since been broken. On 18 May 2022, at the National Press Club, the now Prime Minister made it very clear to the Australian people that he had a solid bond with them, and he made a promise to reduce household power bills by $275; that promise has since been broken. You see, Deputy Speaker Claydon, dates do matter, and so, too, do promises. All I've rattled off here is half a dozen of the times when the Prime Minister and the Labor Party had promised the Australian people to reduce household power bills by $275. On 97 occasions this promise was made to the Australian people. It's not just the Prime Minister who is at fault here; every single member of the Labor Party who sits opposite is at fault and is guilty of breaking this promise. Every single Labor Party MP and candidate went to the last election promising constituents in their electorates that their household power bills would come down by $275. Every single time they made that promise, they were making a promise that would not be delivered—a promise that, instead, would be broken. Yet we have question after question from the coalition put to the Prime Minister during question time, raising issues on behalf of constituents—families that are struggling, small businesses that are struggling—asking the Prime Minister if he will commit to the $275 promise. But the Prime Minister refuses to make that commitment. He won the election of the back of that promise and now he is breaking the hearts of Australian households and their budgets by breaking that very promise. Every single Labor MP that is going to stand up as a part of this debate and try and defend their record, try and defend their Prime Minister, is standing up as part of a protection racket, trying to protect a prime minister who has told an untruth to the Australian people. He sits here at every single question time and seeks to bat away questions that come on behalf of constituents, on behalf of Australian families, who are amidst a cost-of-living crisis today. This prime minister is completely removed, completely out of touch, and the protection racket no doubt will continue over the next 20, 30 or 40 minutes as Labor MPs come up and try to defend the fact that they broke a promise of a $275 reduction in household power bills. The Prime Minister is from New South Wales. There are parts of New South Wales that, by the end of next financial year, will have seen their average power bill go up by $933 since the Prime Minister made that promise. Mr Wallace 265967 How much? Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 'How much?' the member for Fisher very wisely asks. Power prices will go up by $933. Do you know how much they promised to get them down by? Mr Wallace 265967 $275! Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 The member for Fisher wins the prize today. If you add the $275 to the $933 and round it off, basically the Prime Minister has promised to reduce power bills by $1,200 more than they are actually going to pay. That's the variance: $1,200. So anybody in Sydney, especially Western Sydney, which is represented in part by the minister responsible, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, next time you see the minister, make sure you tell him he owes you $1,200. Next time you see the Prime Minister, make sure you tell him he owes you $1,200. Anybody in New South Wales, next time you see a Labor MP, tell them they owe you $1,200. There was a Western Sydney mum of three who was reported on in the Daily Telegraph last week. This mum of three has already made the decision that in winter, especially if it gets tough, she won't be able to turn on the heating. This is a mum of three kids. She won't be able to turn on the heating, so instead it's blankets and socks. She's already planning ahead for the winter because this government has broken its promise of a $275 reduction in household power bills. Ms McBain 281988 In 10 years, a decade, you didn't land one. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 I take the interjection from the minister at the table here, talking about a decade. She's right. She's right in two parts. Firstly, it was a decade that saw power prices come down. In the last term of government alone—this is probably why the minister is so interested—household power bills came down by eight per cent, businesses by 10 per cent, industry by 12 per cent— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Fairfax, just be quiet for a moment, please. There are a lot of interjections going on, and I am finding it quite difficult to hear. I'm hearing a lot of interjections. Just dial it down, otherwise I will rule on you. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 In the last term of government alone, household prices went down by eight per cent, business prices down by 10 per cent, industry prices down by 12 per cent. Under this government, prices are going up. We've already spoken about how much they're going up. The draft DMO was announced last week. These are retail prices that are going to be going up from 1 July this year: in New South Wales households, there'll be an increase of $564; in South Australia, it's $485 up; in South-East Queensland, it's $383 up; in regional Queensland, it's $430 up; in Victoria it's $426 up. We're talking about a decade—a decade in which the Coalition was able to get the balance right. We reduced emissions, kept the economy strong and kept prices down. Labor had a decade of dithering, a decade to put a policy together. And what do they do? They put a policy together, the core promise of which is a reduction in household power bills by $275. Has that promise been delivered or broken? It has been broken, and every single Labor MP is guilty. Last Christmas people were told they would receive relief from this government flowing in April. We've since heard they're not going to get that relief in April at all. This government is breaking promises in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, and there is no greater promise they have broken than that of the $275 reduction in household power bills. 15:35 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I, too, rise to speak on this MPI, and I start by noting the fact that the opposition got the date wrong when they put this matter of public importance in. They put 9 March 2023, but do you know what? They may as well have put 1800, because that's where their views are when it comes to climate change. You know what they'll probably say? Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 If members are going to leave the House, leave quietly. If you are going to yell as you leave, I will call you back. Mrs ELLIOT DZW They'll probably say it was somebody else's fault, because they never take responsibility for anything at all. I can't believe they actually come in here and lecture us after their decade of inaction, especially when it comes to energy policy and climate change, and their lack of responsibility. It's a fact that, due to their decade of inaction, we find ourselves in the position we are in today. That's the reality of it, and Australians know it. I thought that, first of all, they might have got the date right when they put in their MPI. But maybe they could have talked about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Did you read that? I thought they might have come here and wanted to discuss that. It highlights the urgent need for ambitious climate action—action we are taking. They didn't bring that up. No. The IPCC report highlighted the importance of getting on with the job of ambitious reforms in climate and energy, which we are doing. That's the reality. The fact is that we've taken action to take the sting out of power prices and to invest in the cheapest form of energy: renewables. That's a fact. Of course, as I said, they failed to do that for the entire time that they were in government. Let's take a bit of time to look at the record of the Liberals and Nationals. It's quite a long track record when it comes to their inaction. Firstly, they voted against the $1.5 billion in direct bill relief to those Australians who need it the very most. They voted against price caps, which are already having an impact on prices. And of course, as we know, the member for Hume hid the price rises before the election and then misled Australians about it. We all remember the 22 energy policies, and they just didn't land one. Every other week there seemed to be some other different plan, and they never actually landed one. It was always just bits and pieces here and there, but never any concrete action. One of the worst things is that the former government refused, absolutely refused, to invest in the cheapest form of energy: renewables. And they left us with an energy grid built for the last century. Yet here they are now opposing the safeguard mechanism—their own policy. Businesses and industry want this. They need the certainty and they need stability. The opposition should be listening to what the business community is saying with that. So we—everyone, all Australians—are now paying the price for their decade of neglect, delay and denial on energy policy. In fact, those opposite are frozen in time whilst the world warms around them. I particularly want to note the inaction of the National Party. As I've said many times in this place, National Party choices hurt. That can be seen across a whole range of policy areas, but their lack of action when it comes to climate change has been incredibly detrimental to those in regional and rural Australia. They consistently fail those in the country. And on this action—an issue that is so important to those in the country—time and time again they fail them. Even now they continue to fail them. And don't forget that the Liberals and Nationals in New South Wales sold off the poles and wires as well, which has added to the crisis. So we've seen that, across the board, at a federal level and at a state level, those Nationals have walked away from the people in rural and regional Australia. As I mentioned before, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was released last night and confirms what we already know: that there is a rapidly closing window for transformative climate action both here and around world. We know we have to see action, and we are acting in relation to that. We've seen the increasing number of devastating climate events that we've had in recent years. In communities like mine, which have suffered so much, with the devastating floods we had just over a year ago, we are living the fact that there has been a decade of inaction on climate change by the previous government. So many in our community are still suffering because of the impact of the floods. Now, after this decade of denial and delay, Australia has a federal government that is committed to taking serious action on climate change. I find it unbelievable that, even today, those opposite won't support the reforms to the safeguard mechanism before the parliament. This is the first opportunity in over a decade for action to bring down emissions from Australia's largest emitters. The parliament has a choice to seize this opportunity or to absolutely squander it. Of course, if passed, our safeguard reforms will come into effect in just over 100 days from now. With only 82 months left before 2030, it's critical that we seize every possible day of the remaining time to drive down emissions. We have to be doing that. As I said, we've had this decade of denial, but now we have a government that is acting. We're very proud that we've legislated Australia's target of a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, along with net zero by 2050, supercharging a new offshore wind industry and delivering the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation investment to decarbonise our grid and take us to 82 per cent renewables by 2030. We're doing that because on this side of the House we understand how important action is and we are so committed to investment in renewables. We are delivering huge investments in renewable energy, and record investments are being put forward by the private sector as well because of our policies. We're also working hard to deliver on the $400 million in community batteries. This is in addition to the $176 million from ARENA for eight large-scale batteries. Since we've come into power, large-scale wind and solar farming investment has grown significantly. We have also seen a huge take-up in rooftop solar, with over 300,000 families investing in these systems in the second half of last year. We are working hard. In the last 10 months, we have set Australia on a credible path to net zero because our national interest absolutely depends on it and, importantly, our economy depends on it for the jobs and growth of the future. This is what our community voted for. One of the many reasons they voted the previous government out is its inaction on climate change, and we are delivering on our commitment to take action. We are absolutely focused on transforming Australia's economy to a low-carbon economy. It is the most important thing that we can do to support the ambitious international action that is necessary to contain global warming. Australians deserve protection from the impacts of climate change. This is an issue that I hear about every day in my community because we have lived the devastating effects of inaction. It resonates through a community for a very long period of time. In fact, in my area it will take years and years to recover from the devastating floods. It is often hard to articulate how that impacts throughout the community. There are the obvious distressing examples of people losing their homes, their businesses and all their possessions, but when communities are destroyed there is a huge impact upon individuals. They are triggered often by so many things. These events create much sustained trauma when they hit. Yes, we can look at it in purely bricks-and-mortar terms and financial terms, but the trauma throughout families and communities goes on for years and years. That's why taking action is so incredibly important. People in areas like mine and in the areas of many other members in the House have lived through that. That's why action is so immensely important and why we as a government are taking action. As I say, Australians voted for action on climate change because we know how vitally important it is. It was without a doubt one of the biggest issues at the election, time and time again. People were frustrated for many years, with many different prime ministers under the previous government refusing to take action. There were just weasel words after weasel words and no set planning at all. Here we are now with business demanding certainty. They need to have that certainty in place. They were calling out to the Liberals and Nationals to provide that certainty to them, and the Liberals and Nationals are still refusing to do it after all of these years. They still just keep digging in. As I said at the beginning, it may as well be in the 1800s, the way these people think about things. They need to start listening to the community. They need to start talking to people. In particular, members in the National Party should start talking to people in regional and rural Australia. What they will tell you clearly is that, when the Liberals and Nationals were in government, they failed the people of regional Australia when they didn't act. Here they are now, still refusing to act. You should start listening to people in the country, in the cities and everywhere, who do want to have action on climate change. The fact is we are focused on delivering that. We are doing that and we are very proud to be delivering, finally, real action on climate change in this country. 15:45 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I think it's important that I actually read out the topic for the MPI. It's: The Prime Minister's broken promise to cut energy bills by $275. It was put forward by the member for Fairfax. I'm not sure the memo got to the other side. Hopefully, the other speakers will actually address the topic. I didn't hear anything about electricity or energy prices for struggling families, struggling pensioners, struggling single mothers and single fathers, and small businesses who may question whether they can still stay open. It wasn't addressed at all. Instead we got the usual slogans—slogans like 'decade of denial and delay', 'the cheapest form of energy is renewables' and 'serious action on climate change.' Those slogans aren't going to help the young families, pensioners and small businesses in my community pay their power bills. Slogans won't help. It's easy for us in this place. We're paid well. We're paid enough that we don't have to worry or sweat when the power bill comes in. Most Australians aren't. They're on a lot less money than we are. It may give you comfort on a politician's salary to talk about slogans, but it doesn't give comfort to Australians who are struggling. We heard in the election last year a lot of lessons. Whenever you're in opposition, you must eat some humble pie, and we did. One of the top issues was integrity, and the most important part about integrity is trust. You trust what people say, and the test is what they do. On that, we will never forget what the Attorney-General did in this place. What he did was disgraceful. When Australians looked the Prime Minister, the then opposition leader, in the eye, he looked down the camera and gave them that promise so many times—97 times. We've heard the reply about the war in Ukraine and supply chain problems. Of course those are challenges, but they were challenges when he made that promise. To still go ahead and make the promise in those circumstances is either dishonest or desperate or maybe a bit of both. In the desperation to move from these benches to those benches, he looked down the camera and told Australians what he thought they wanted to hear, not what they needed to know. What they need to know now is that the government has their back. In question time we had many of my colleagues speak directly to the Prime Minister and the other ministers about people in their electorates who are struggling. They've named them, and they have to ask permission for that. There are many people who write to us and would prefer that their names aren't read out in this place. They're real people with real problems who, when we use their names, tune in and listen to the response, and they note that there is no answer in the response. There is no answer to their problems. I'm a Victorian, and there are particularly concerning statistics for Victorian energy prices. In a week and a half we'll have a by-election in the seat of Aston. There are many families in Bayswater, Ferntree Gully, Knox, Rowville and Scoresby who are struggling and small businesses that are struggling to pay their bills and will question whether they will stay open. Here are the statistics for Victoria. The number of affected customers for the draft determinations—and the finals will be made in May—is 2,666,000. For small businesses it's 289,474. That's so many. That's almost three MCGs of small-business owners who are really struggling. I'll give an example from my electorate: Fratelli Engineering. We talk about making things in Australia; we hear that a lot from the other side. Fratelli Engineering actually makes things in Australia. They are a small business that employs people in huge numbers in my electorate, but they don't know whether they will survive past this year. There are many pressures, but No. 1, after wages, is the cost of energy. If that business closes, that's a great tragedy. That business opened in the 1990s, set up as a family business. In fact, it's in their name: Fratelli means 'brothers' in Italian. To that company, to Sam Leo, who's the owner and managing director: I'm sorry that you were given that promise. Anyone in small business knows that when you hear a promise and you rely on it, you make plans. So, when Australians heard the promise by the Prime Minister, they made plans, and they also gave a commitment, the most important commitment that they could give, which was their vote. A vote is trust. That trust has been abused by this Prime Minister and this government. 15:50 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari As I rise to speak on this MPI, I'm getting a sense of deja vu, standing here speaking on this issue. I feel like I've spoken to it before. I guess this is what happens when you have a directionless opposition, an opposition who are desperate to try and get one over a government which we all know is doing all it can do to address the cost-of-living challenges facing Australians. If the opposition wants to keep throwing mud and playing cheap politics—because that's what it is—I'll keep reminding them, particularly being from the Northern Territory and holding the seat of Lingiari, who caused this mess. The foundations for the energy price problems we see today were laid by those opposite. When you have an incompetent government like the Morrison government was, you see long-term issues take root. When you fail to plan and prepare for the future, you create a mess. Luckily, the Albanese Labor government is stepping up to clean this mess. A high cost of living and intractable effects of energy prices are a hard thing for anyone to cope with, but are particularly hard in regional and remote Australia. I know, in my electorate of Lingiari, my constituents are hurting right now. I hear about it on the way to the shops. I see it in our communities. I see it on the shelves of my local shopping centres. I see it on the street. I know just how tough Territorians, particularly in Lingiari, are finding things, particularly amongst some of our families. With these challenges, it has been important to be part of an Albanese government that is implementing its key cost-of-living reforms—cutting the cost of child care, making medicines cheaper, investing in our regional economies and working on our new remote employment program. All of these will go towards easing the cost-of-living burden on families in my electorate of Lingiari. Unlike those opposite, the Albanese Labor government has an agenda. It's an ambitious one but one that will greatly benefit the people of Lingiari and, indeed, all remote and regional Australia. Part of our government's agenda is to work on energy prices but also on energy more broadly. Last year, in a special sitting of parliament, we passed legislation that would cap the price of energy. This meant that Australian homes would be spared huge increases in energy prices. I remind those opposite that they voted against this price cap and rebates for working people. Recently, we had a by-election in the Northern Territory. Energy prices were part of the discussion we had, and I can tell you the result of that by-election was to vote against what those opposite stood for. Those opposite voted against any changes that would benefit people in regional and remote communities. So I echo the words of the Prime Minister. You don't come in here as opposition, talk about energy prices and then stand up and vote against measures to curb them. Be honest with the community and tell them exactly what you do outside of this House. Talk about how what you vote against are measures that can actually help some of those families. The member for Fairfax talked about protection rackets. I think that the biggest protection racket is how the opposition protected the member for Hume, who hid a certain policy and information from the community before the last election. You talk about protection rackets, and that is the biggest protection racket. They should be honest with their electorates and their constituents, but they are being dishonest on a number of fronts. One of them is their policy that they hid when they went to the last election. The reason so many families are doing it tough is that those opposite did not know how to do the hard yards. We know what good policy is all about. We are revitalising the national energy grid, we are investing in clean energy for the future and we are building a skilled workforce to go with it. But, for now, we will work to help Australians with energy costs and we will continue to ease the cost of living for people. 15:55 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I rise today to remind the Prime Minister of the broken promise to Australians. The Prime Minister promised a reduction of $275 to Australian power bills if Labor was elected into government. This was no accident, and it wasn't just a slip of the tongue. It was promised 97 times—not 10, not 20, not even 50, but 97 times. Like many Australian kids, it was instilled in me to always stick by my word. The people of Dawson were expecting the Prime Minister of Australia to stick to his word, and, in this cost-of-living crisis that we are experiencing, every dollar counts. When I was elected, I promised the people of Dawson that I would stand up for what was best for them, and I intend to honour that promise. Residents in Dawson are suffering from the rising cost-of-living crisis and are tired of the Albanese Labor government's growing list of broken promises. As we face the cost-of-living crisis, it is important for those sitting opposite to understand, whatever is happening in the cities, the regions are doing it tougher. Let me give you just one real-life example of what it's like to live in the regions. Tashia has recently moved back to Mackay from Brisbane, where she has lived for over 18 years. Here is what she told me, and these are her words: 'I was shocked moving back to Mackay. In Mackay we are subject to extremely high insurance rates, 100 to 400 per cent higher than in southern cities, much higher council rates, higher electricity prices with zero energy retail competitors, lower feed-in solar tariffs and rising interest rates.' That's like the rest of the nation. 'At what point do we get a break? At what point is Mackay a place where families can settle for the long term? It is cheaper to rent in Brisbane than it is to buy here in Mackay for a lesser property. Something needs to be done. It should not be unrealistic to live in Mackay, but due to the exorbitant cost of living we now have a floundering social and community presence. People are struggling just to live, so they don't have an opportunity to spend money eating out at restaurants. The town can't thrive. If there was cost-of-living relief, residents would be investing back into the community, into local businesses, local hospitality, making the town a more attractive place to live. It's so sad to see a place I grew up in now as an adult. Mackay is a beautiful place. The community just needs to be given a chance.' Tashia's email to me is just one example of thousands highlighting the struggle that people in regional electorates and in my regional electorate are facing. Yet the Albanese government are telling us that a 30 per cent increase in energy prices is an excellent outcome and there is nothing to worry about. On top of this, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy are spending their time pushing through another carbon tax. This is being done by stealth, via the changes to the safeguard mechanism, which will make the cost-of-living crisis even worse. Labor promised us lower power prices, promised us lower mortgages, promised us our mining jobs were safe, promised us a full-time nurse in all aged-care facilities. They promised our super would be safe: all of these promises—broken. Labor also promised no-one would be held back and no-one would be left behind, but 30 per cent of Australians who live in regional areas have been left behind. On top of all these Labor broken promises, we've had cuts. Under Labor we've seen a cut of over $6 billion in dam funding—opportunities just taken away. We've seen mobile phone black spot funding and road infrastructure funding slashed. Multibillion-dollar regional programs have been scrapped under Labor, including the Energy Security and Regional Development Plan, the Regional Accelerator Program, community development grants and the Building Better Regions Fund. All gone! As we can see, history shows us that the Labor Party are very good at making promises, they're just no good at keeping them. Australians always pay more under Labor. 16:00 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell It takes some serious front from those opposite to put forward an MPI about cutting energy bills. They must really have a low opinion of ordinary men and women across Australia who have been struggling with the cost of living for years under their watch. They governed for all those years—it was almost a decade—and I challenge any member opposite to identify the date at which people started feeling cost-of-living pressures. When did the cost of living become an issue for ordinary Australians? Was it a month ago? Six months ago? A year ago, perhaps? I challenge any of you opposite to look any one of my constituents in the eye and tell them, 'Things were good for you more than a year ago.' I challenge any of you opposite to say that a year ago cost of living was low, that you never had to worry about your mortgage. That a year ago power bills were low and keeping the lights on was never a factor for household budgets. That a year ago going to the supermarket was a breeze. My constituents would surely give those opposite a reality check. It has actually been a decade of lost years under the watch of those opposite—a decade where power bills were high; a decade where cost of living meant you had to choose between one household item over another. Those opposite would have you believe that things have only just started to get difficult for my constituents, so they either have a low opinion of themselves to be able to put forward such a proposition, or a low opinion of the Australian people. I dare say it's both. We didn't see any policy from the coalition governments that even began to address the real cost-of-living concerns. Cost of living is a huge concern to my constituents, and two of the most expensive but essential items on the family budget are power and petrol. The previous government's inaction did absolutely nothing to arrest the escalating costs of essential resources. That's why people in my electorate know and understand the importance of a functioning government. They know that it is critical for government to intervene and put forward policies that reverse negative trends. The importance of providing secure and stable settings for energy is not lost on my electorate in terms of their household bills and for local jobs in established and emerging industries. So while the Albanese government prioritise households, businesses and industry, the Liberal-Nationals have voted against every dollar of price relief, choosing higher bills over protecting Australians. The only relief provided by those opposite was actually them moving across to the other side of this House because this country could not to afford another decade of a Liberal-National government. Facts are important to any debate, so I'd like to run through some. Treasury projected a 20 per cent increase in 2023 and a 36 per cent increase in 2023-24. The draft default market offer is up to 29 points lower than the AER projected in late 2022—more than halving the increase that was expected before the government acted on skyrocketing coal and gas prices. This is up to $341 less for households in my electorate than the increase that would otherwise have occurred. This shows that urgent government action to shield Australians from the worst energy price rises is working, and I support this government's commitment to further action that will be critical to help households and businesses, including energy bill rebates. Calwell has a history of being a hub of manufacturing industry. And while our economic base has evolved enormously, we still have innovative industries, particularly in food production. The government is delivering coherent policies to accelerate investment in renewable energy transmission and storage. And after a decade of neglect from those opposite, it is this government that is sending a message to the private sector who have wanted to invest in renewable energy but have been held back because of a lack of clear signals when those opposite were in government. All this puts downward pressure on power bills, and the only way to ensure equitable and affordable access to power now and into the future is through urgent action and policy settings that take the sting out of energy price rises, including gas and coal price caps. The reduction in price expectations shows that our plan is working, a plan that is putting downward pressure on power prices and a plan that is making a material difference in the lives of ordinary Australians. 16:05 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I agree. Facts are important. So let's look at some of the facts of the last 10 months. Energy prices: up. Inflation: up. Mortgage rates: up. The member for Calwell is correct: life has been and is tough for Australians. Yet we have an out-of-touch prime minister who stands at that dispatch box in question time and says, 'It has been a good 10 months.' It's been a great 10 months for the Prime Minister! We clearly know it hasn't been a great 10 months for the member for Calwell's constituents. I wonder if she's taken those concerns to this Prime Minister. It's definitely been a tough 10 months for the constituents of Casey, who have energy prices rising, inflation rising and mortgage rates rising. It's amazing to hear those opposite stand in the MPI and talk about how tough it is on the cost of living, yet yesterday and today there was not one question from government backbenchers to the Prime Minister or Treasurer about the cost of living. You need to remember, with this government and the ALP it's not about providing solutions. Let's go back to the quote from the ALP national secretary, Paul Erickson. He said, 'You must look like you are responding, first and foremost.' That's an interesting quote. So you don't have to provide a solution; you just have to look like you're providing a solution. And that's what we're seeing from this government. We also see many opposite get a little bit frustrated and angry when we hold them to account for their promises. Guess what? That's our responsibility: to hold you to account. You were all happy during the election to go to your constituents and talk about $275 reductions in pricing, but let's go through the facts—because the member for Calwell is correct: facts matter. That promise was made in December 2021, based on modelling that the ALP commissioned. And well done on them for getting modelling. But then something pretty important happened in March last year. What was that? We're now hearing the Prime Minister talk about what happened in March. He didn't talk about it in the campaign. Russia invaded Ukraine, absolutely. Did that happen? Yes. Did that impact energy prices? Absolutely. So what happened from March to the May election? These are the facts that those opposite don't like to talk about. The Prime Minister, members of the ALP and candidates continue to repeat the $275 price reduction. The Prime Minister himself—30 times—made that promise after the invasion of Ukraine. So facts do matter. We will continue to hold this Prime Minister and government to account because it is a broken promise. If he hadn't issued it afterwards or if he'd gone to the campaign talking about Ukraine, it may be a bit different, but he didn't. After the election, he has not said it once. And there is no doubt Australians are doing it tough. We have a prime minister who continues to fail to take responsibility for the cost-of-living crisis that Australians are facing. He made a good point, and I was shocked when he made it. I don't think he meant it. It must have been an accident. He talked about how increased energy prices increase supply chain pressures, drive inflation and make it harder for all Australians. That is absolutely correct. That is why this Prime Minister does not have a plan for energy. He talks about his gas cap, which is a bad policy. In his own words today, in question time, he talked about how business wants certainty, and business needs certainty to invest. AEMO were talking about a warning on a shortage of gas, because business knows if they invest capital in the gas market there is a risk that this government will intervene and change the rules, because business knows if you change the rules once as a government you're prepared to do it again. By driving uncertainty, they are reducing investment in gas, which reduces supply. And guess what? When you reduce supply, prices of energy go up in the long term. I know they don't like to talk about it, but this is a prime minister that won't take responsibility and that doesn't have a plan. Australian people are struggling because of this Prime Minister. 16:10 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence It's been a while since I put myself in the trenches for a matter of public importance. I have missed it; I really have! It looks like we're doing another one on energy; it's almost as if I never left! I'm a sucker for nostalgia, and I know those opposite are too. This is the extent of the bipartisanship we can learn to expect from those opposite. I've always wondered whether these topics were generated by those opposite sitting in front of a computer with ChatGPT open, but I think this topic was brought to us by their chief parliamentarian tactician—a Konica Minolta beta printer. There will be carbon copies under an opposition they lead! To use a turn of phrase often used by the member for Cook: how good would it have been if his government had an energy policy, or if he allowed the leader he was ambitious for to have one. Maybe we would have had a fighting chance on the supply side. All we were asking for was an energy policy. In nine whole years, a big fat 'no' does not count as a policy. Every MPI, whether it be interest rates, cost of living or energy prices, is totally devoid of responsibility—and, frankly, it's only Tuesday. You'd think those opposite would have a bit of energy in them for a debate on energy! I can only imagine how uninspired their talking points must be. If they don't believe in them, I hope they at least believe in themselves. It must be hard, and it's not going to get too much better with the status quo but I'll keep checking in with them at MPI time just to make sure. Those opposite appear coyly naive to any actions they took in government—or, as was often the case, their emissions instead. Those opposite persist on blaming our government for nine years for Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government failures, when they should instead be taking advice from Taylor Swift and coming into this place exclaiming loudly, 'It's me, hi, I'm the problem, it's me!' Those opposite will stare into the sun but never in the mirror. Why didn't the Prime Minister stop their government fast enough? You saw them breaking it; now you've bought it. I'm sure those opposite think reality is a bit broken. Their friends are abandoning them. On the NRF bill we had scores of business leaders and business groups supporting the government. Even on energy we had the Business Council of Australia president publicly expressing disappointment with the opposition's stances. There is a very broad adult table on public policy now, and it looks down on the opposition choosing every single hill to die on along the way. They have zero credibility on this issue. I do not blame the opposition for Russia invading Ukraine—not one bit; even I'm not that critical of them! But it would have been nice had they possessed a cogent energy policy in the years or even months in the lead-up to Russia commencing their illegal invasion. We knew there would be one big mess to clean up when those opposite moved out of their old home on the treasury benches, but nobody could have expected it to be this bad. We all know the member for Hume was so embarrassed that he decided to kick the mess underneath the couch on his way out. But the Albanese Labor government saw the domestic settings going against us due to the policy void left by those opposite, intersecting with pressures from abroad, and the government acted on it. We had an energy policy through the parliament within months. It didn't take us nine years, only not to have a policy at all. Those opposite can see the same numbers we can showing the default market offsets, showing that, as a direct result of government intervention, they are substantially lower than what the Australian Energy Regulator advised. I'm sure this was by accident. They'll use figures to distort the picture, but everyone has woken up to the game that those opposite are playing: the smoke and mirrors and political immaturity. With the way they are going, forget their best day in opposition; they're still to experience their worst. 16:14 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom It's a great joy to have the member for Spence back on the rotation. I always make an effort to try and find one point I can agree with the last speaker on. I'm wholeheartedly all-in on the line, 'It's not going to get too much better.' I think that's very much the situation Australia faces right now. It's not going to get too much better. I'm sure that, if we reach across the parliament and we speak honestly, we'd all be of the same view as we go out and meet our constituents, be it doorknocking, by phone or out and about at the shops: cost of living is the No. 1 pressure. It's the No. 1 thing impacting families and small businesses. It's forcing some very difficult decisions to be made, and we're seeing the impact of that right across the economy. But in the midst of that, I'm so pleased to hear from the Prime Minister not to worry, because, to quote him, 'It's been a good 10 months.' That leads to two questions, the first of which is: for whom? For whom has it been a good 10 months? I'll tell you what: if you were happy to see the ABCC abolished; that was probably pretty good. If you're happy to see the IR legislation that forces people from individual agreements onto enterprise agreements; that was probably pretty good. It might give you a very clear view of who it's been a good 10 months for. It certainly hasn't been a very good 10 months for the Australian people, who've been struggling through this cost-of-living crisis. In fact, it's been some of the hardest times in memory. I will just turn to a few of the headlines that have been talking about how much this is the case. A CourierMail headline from 7 March is 'House of pain: rate rises, soaring prices add $1150 a month to bills'. That's year on year. That is talking about how this is hurting. Protea Place was named in that article This is a charity that looks after homeless women in my region. This year, for the first time ever, they've been unable to sell enough tickets to their fundraiser. This is the main vehicle they have to keep their organisation going. It has not been a good 10 months for them. Here is a Channel 9 headline: 'Here's what Aussies are buying less of as cost-of-living crisis bites'. John, in my electorate, owns a spa in Southtown. He tells me the story of his regular customers coming in. They're older, vulnerable women coming up and quietly, almost whispering, saying to him: 'Do you sell this product in a smaller size?' I can't afford this one.' It has not been a good 10 months for them. Another Nine news headline is 'Credit card spending reaches record high levels amid cost-of-living crisis'. I spoke to Tristan in my electorate, from Wantima. He has done a fantastic survey amongst Aboriginal youth in my area and just a bit to the north, and No. 3 on the list of issues affecting them was mental health as a result of debt levels that they were carrying. Across this last year, as costs rose, these debt levels were rising, adding to the difficulties of these people living through it. It has not been a good 10 months for them. I can go on, and I will. The previous speakers are very right: this is an issue you've heard about before and it's an issue you'll hear about again and again and again. This is the No. 1 issue facing the Australian people right now. It was a very good promise to have made to reduce energy bills by $275. It was a terrible promise to break. We will go on. A news.com headline reads '"To the wall": iconic city restaurant falls victim to cost of living crisis'. This is Caruso's, which had been operating for 17 years. The No. 1 issue they raised as to why they had to shut their doors was rising electricity prices. The member for Hughes raised this issue in question time, and when she raised it the Prime Minister's response was, 'Why don't you go back and tell him that you didn't vote for our legislation?' I think this gives you an insight into how out of touch this Prime Minister is. Why didn't we vote for legislation that has failed? Yes, it has not been a great 10 months. I said that the statement, 'It's been a good 10 months,' raises two questions. The first one was: for whom? The second one is: if this is what a good 10 months looks like, what does a good three years look like? That's the question for the Australian people: what does a good three years look like? More of this. More rising prices and higher inflation keeping that pressure on families and small businesses. Every time we raise with the Prime Minister an example of someone from our constituency and the pressures that they're under and he turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to the challenges that are being faced, it shows how out of touch this Prime Minister is. 16:20 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur The member for Fairfax gets a prize in my book. He should be the shadow minister for confected outrage. They had a government—his party—for 10 years that did nothing about climate change policy, that did nothing about energy policy. In fact, when I first came into parliament, the minister for energy—the member for Hume, my neighbouring electorate—struggled to even admits that climate change was happening. I live and work in Western Sydney. We know what climate change is about. Frequently we have summer temperatures over 40 degrees. We know about the cost-of-living crisis. We know what happened in the 10 years of policy stagnation in energy policy that occurred under the Liberal-National government. We know that, and they did nothing. They didn't even admit there was a problem. Energy has been a focus for the Labor Party over the last 10 years. We have been faced with a lack of acknowledgement of climate change and a lack of commitment to effective emission controls by the previous governments, and yet now in opposition they still vote against policies that would help our energy costs and that would help our emissions policy. Just as an example, they criticised us heavily for imposing a cap on coal and gas prices. In the face of energy companies such as Woodside—which were paying a return of 12 per cent when I last looked, increasing to over 16 per cent with franking credits—the Liberal-National coalition did not want us to put a cap on a coal gas prices. That's absolutely shameful. They are a joke, and the member for Fairfax, the shadow energy minister, can come in here with his confected outrage and yet continue to vote against policies that would help the Australian people deal with energy prices and the cost-of-living difficulties that they're facing. The fact is that Treasury predicted an over 50 per cent increase in energy prices over the next couple of years without our intervention to cap coal and gas prices. It now looks like those prices will not increase by 50 per cent. There's a 29 per cent reduction in projected increases, and that is what energy policy is really about. Yet those opposite did nothing. We recognise, and have done so for years, that energy prices are very high for businesses, individuals and families. We acknowledge that power price increases have added to the cost-of-living pressures throughout our entire economy. In my electorate of Macarthur we now have very large manufacturing companies, and their energy prices have been increasing exponentially over the last 10 or 12 years. Those opposite did nothing, yet they come in here today with their confected outrage—and I must admit the member for Fairfax has many apprentices in the confected outrage stakes. It's hard to keep a straight face. The Colonel Blimps opposite going on about— Mr Hill 86256 Shakespearean! Dr FREELANDER 265979 It's just been suggested they are Shakespearean in their ability to act like this, and it's hard to keep a straight face. All we get is the lack of policy and confected outrage. It's almost like we're in another universe when they talk about energy policy. The shadow Treasurer, who was previously the Minister for Energy, continues on his laissez faire, 'I don't really understand what's happening but I can jump up and abuse the government anytime I want,' attitude. It is not appropriate. They need to develop proper policies before people can take them seriously. Labor is committed to dealing with the energy crisis. We are committed to policies that will reduce cost-of-living pressures. We're committed to the Australian people. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. MOTIONS 47 MOTIONS Climate Change 47 16:25 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Melbourne on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The bells shall now ring. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion moved by the member for Melbourne to suspend standing orders be disagreed to.  

The House divided. [16:29]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

56 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Broadbent, R. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. King, C. F. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. Pasin, A. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. van Manen, A. J. Violi, A. A. Watts, T. G. Zappia, A. 12 NOES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. (Teller) Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 48 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Business: Rearrangement 48 16:35 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Mr Speaker, I have something to raise with the House. I've had preliminary conversations, but, because we're about to go to the next bill, the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, this will be the only chance for me to deal with it. What I may do is explain it now and then come back in an hour, because it relates to the bill that's before us, so the speech will still be valid. The government wants to deal with this bill this week. At the moment, in terms of the length of the speaking list, we will get through it in the normal time, but I'm very conscious that members have the right to add themselves to the speaking list, and frequently that has happened. I'm trying to avoid a circumstance where we have to cut the speaking time or cut the number of speeches in any way, and I know that people will want there to be full time for consideration in detail. The resolution that, I want to advise, I'll return to the House to move in an hour—if people want to talk to me about it, by all means, and I have spoken to the Manager of Opposition Business about this and I want to thank him for those consultations—is the following procedure that we would follow today, and then I'll put something on the Notice Paper to deal with tomorrow: we would keep speaking times at the full time; tonight between 7.30 and eight o'clock we would still do the normal adjournment debate, so people who've prepared speeches would get to give them, but we would not in fact adjourn; and then, from eight o'clock until 10 o'clock, there would be speeches on this bill. Then we'll have a look tomorrow at how many people want to speak to see if we need to do a similar extension tomorrow night. To do it otherwise, we would have been in a circumstance where either tomorrow night would have to go very late or we would have to cut the speaking times, and I don't want to do either. So that's the nature of the resolution. The resolution I would move today only refers to today, and it allows the adjournment debate to happen and then, between 8 pm and 10 pm, speeches to continue in that time. There would be no vote tonight and, if we ran out of speeches, the bill would still be listed for tomorrow; we wouldn't take that as being that we were ready to go. It would simply allow an additional eight speeches to be sorted through tonight without members having to remain, and we will have the normal rules about divisions and quorums: from 6.30 on, none of that would take place. So I've advised the House of that. If we work on the basis that, at the first opportunity after 5.30, I intend to move that, hopefully we won't have a debate, so we will not be interrupting any more time on the bill itself. BILLS 48 BILLS Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 48

Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 48 16:37 Mr A9B Whitlam JONES (—) (): I rise to speak on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. I'm speaking on this bill as a representative of some of the people who have the most to lose from poor climate change policy and who have the most to gain from climate change policy's success. First, it's worth going through what the bill does. The bill updates the objectives of the national— Mr Burke DYW On a point of order, if I may. The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Thanks, Mr Speaker. The member for Warringah was in continuation on the bill, and I think we missed that. Is it possible for leave to be granted for the member for Warringah to continue her speech and then the Assistant Treasurer to— The SPEAKER 53517 Sure. My apologies to the member for Warringah. Leave granted. 16:39 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Last year Australia signed the Global Methane Pledge: to cut 30 per cent of methane emissions by 2030. The International Energy Agency found fossil fuel companies in Australia are emitting about twice the methane that the government reports to the UNFCCC. We know from the report that was just released by the UN IPCC that the window of time to reduce emissions is closing and we must act with urgency. Not only are we losing our resources through these methane emissions but we're risking energy supply and cooking the planet, as methane is over 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over the first 20-year period. If we were in a drought and had a leaking tap we would fix it, not open a new well. So it's time the government put in some gas leakage restrictions. The safeguard mechanism reforms are an important opportunity for the government to bring in sensible measures for capturing and using that gas. The effectiveness of the safeguard mechanism will depend on the accuracy of the data it is based on, but the current reporting framework is too lax to ensure accuracy. Most oil and gas activities report based on national averages rather than actuals, and this needs to change. I've proposed amendments to ensure that Australian facilities adopt international best practice to ensure that we address this problem. I'm also proposing an amendment to cap fugitive emissions from coal and gas facilities within the safeguard mechanism. This is an opportune moment to address energy sector methane emissions. If we don't get this right, we will lose the economic opportunities, with capital, workers and investment flowing to other jurisdictions such as the US, since their passing of the Inflation Reduction Act, and the EU, who are passing commensurate legislation as well. Australia will be penalised when trying to export goods. The European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will come into force in October this year, penalising carbon-intensive Australian exports. Australia's largest gas importer, Japan, has indicated it will preference low-emission gas. In the context of this debate in relation to the safeguard mechanism, there are important amendments before the government, and I urge the government to come to the table and pass those sensible amendments. It is incredibly important at this time, with such a dire warning from the IPCC, that we establish a cap on gross emissions, that the government accept amendments and recognises the principle that gross emissions need to come down from this point, and that we set up a hierarchy of emissions reduction to ensure that the market and facilities prioritise on-site abatement, offset projects and then purchase offsets. We absolutely can do better. 16:42 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I'm speaking on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, and I do so as the representative of some of the people who have the most to lose from poor climate change policy and the most to gain from climate change policy's success when we get it right. It's first worth going through what the bill does. The bill updates the objectives of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 to ensure net aggregate safeguard baselines decline, increasing industry and investor confidence to take action. It allows for the creation of a new unit type called the safeguard mechanism credits. It deals with matters like the issuance, transfer and ownership of the credits from facilities which beat their baselines. Through its use of credits, the bill will create an incentive for facilities to reduce their emissions if they have cost-effective opportunities. By doing so it will help to deliver Australia's climate change targets at lowest cost. The bill also allows rules to be made about interactions between the safeguard mechanism and the Emissions Reduction Fund. In this way it will support the integrity of both the safeguard mechanism and Australian carbon credit units. The bill, in essence, is about certainty. It'll provide certainty for emitters so that they can plan for the future with a fuller and more stable understanding of their emissions obligations. It'll provide certainty for investors across the broader market, who will know that Australia is once again serious about climate change and that we're pursuing our climate targets at the lowest possible cost. It'll provide certainty for people who go to work every day in our large industrial facilities, and it's on their behalf in particular that I have taken an interest in this bill. Nobody should need any reminding of the importance of the steel industry to Wollongong and the Illawarra region, but I'm going to do it anyway. From my back balcony at home, I look north across Lake Illawarra and see the stacks and smoke of BlueScope's Port Kembla steelworks. It's the biggest integrated steelworks in Australia and it's my constant reminder of the heritage of the region that I represent. Generations of men and women have made their living at Port Kembla and made a life in the Illawarra. Steel is at the centre of how the rest of Australia sees us, and it's not too much to say that this is central to how we see ourselves. Right now, there are 3,000 people in the Illawarra who make their living directly from BlueScope's Port Kembla steelworks. That's a big number on its own but it's even bigger when you consider that there are thousands and thousands more who rely on it—suppliers, contractors, service providers and other local businesses—who get a share of the income that the steelworks brings to our region. I'll also remind the House that steel remains a crucial strategic industry for Australia as we move into a global net zero economy. If we're going to build wind farms, transmission lines and other technology vital to our energy future we need steel. End of story. If you lost the Port Kembla steelworks, then thousands of people in the Illawarra would lose their jobs. With that, Australia would lose all its steelmaking know-how and experience. Clearly, climate change is a great challenge to the steelmaking industry. BlueScope are the largest industrial carbon emitter in New South Wales. But between the financial year of 2012 and financial year 2022, over that 10-year period, the Port Kembla steelworks reduced its scope 1 emissions by 18 per cent. According to data from the World Steel Association, the Port Kembla steelworks ranks in the best-performing quartile for emissions efficiency of the 65 blast furnace and basic oxygen furnace facilities surveyed globally. This all paints a picture of a steelmaking process that is carbon emission competitive, by global standards, but it has a way to go if it's going to play its part in reducing its carbon emissions. BlueScope are up to the challenge. They've announced a goal of absolute net zero missions by 2050 for all of its global operations. That overarching goal is supported by two interim emissions intensity targets for 2030. The first is a 30 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions intensity for their non-steelmaking activities. The second is a 12 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions intensity for their global steelmaking operations. What does this all tell me? It tells me that BlueScope gets it, that they want to do the right thing. They are well aware of their role in our emissions reduction program. They're at the table, in good faith, working to find a way through to a lower emissions future. And the government is sitting across the table discussing these issues and listening. This is the real business of government, listening to understand the challenges and then finding a way through them, with reason and with calm. That's what my colleague the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has done, day in, day out, since the government was elected, and he's done it in a way that those opposite repeatedly showed themselves incapable of doing over the previous eight years. The opposition's campaign against the bill treats us all like idiots. The bill concludes a process that they started. It was their energy minister, who is now the shadow Treasurer, who proposed it, and they continued it when they accepted the recommendations of the expert panel in 2020. There are things in this bill for which they allocated funding in their very last budget, not 12 months ago. But now they'll oppose it as part of their relentless substitute campaign, their relentless campaign to substitute rhetoric for reality. People say that the politics of climate change has moved away from the politicians. But let me put this another way: the people have moved away from the coalition and its politics on climate change. The Australian people said so—resoundingly—in May last year. So long as the coalition go on television and talk about the lessons learned from the last election but then come in here and ignore those very same lessons, the people of Australia are going to continue to mark them down. There is a message here for the Greens as well. Our objective is to decarbonise our economy, not to de-industrialise it. The technology for zero emissions steelmaking does not yet exist. There is hope. Emerging techniques on trial in Sweden and Germany are being piloted, with enormous government subsidies. They're about 10 years away from the large-scale commercial operations that would be necessary. This tells us that, to take the path to decarbonising steel, a credible plan will require a balance of reductions and offsets. Relying heavily on one or the other will undermine our national effort or impose unsustainable cost. The balance is everything. I note the comments of Dr Kerry Schott, who chaired the Energy Security Board from 2018 to 2021. She told the ABC this morning, and repeated the message at the National Press Club later today: It would be a great shame … it would be really awful if the safeguard mechanism didn't get up. She's dead right. We know the board of BlueScope are carefully considering the application of the safeguard mechanism as they approach approval for the blast furnace relining, and it's important that they do so. Our message is clear: we want Australia to be in the steelmaking game and we want BlueScope to be at the forefront of steel manufacturing. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy have met with BlueScope, and I thank them for that. They have shown a sincere and persistent concern for the issues that have been raised with them. They show an absolute understanding of the people that I represent in this place and that the member for Cunningham represents in this place, and it's founded on an understanding of how important it is for this industry to continue and how important it is to our part of the world. The design proposed in this bill has a mechanism to adjust baseline decline for trade exposed industries such as steel, and it will offer additional funding support through the Powering the Regions Fund. The bill will also set up a review looking into the risks of carbon leakage for industries such as steel. That review would look at the need for a carbon border adjustment mechanism to complement the safeguard reforms and to help industries like steel and cement. This is important. It will ensure that we support the decarbonisation of critical industries, of which steel is undoubtedly one. The bill sets us on two paths at the same time. One is the path to net zero emissions by 2050; the other is the path to a sustainable, viable, reliable and long-lasting steel industry and manufacturing sector, based in electorates like mine but serving all of Australia. I commend the bill to the House. 16:53 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor While I rise today to speak against the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, it's good to follow the Assistant Treasurer, who spent the last 10 minutes seemingly apologising to the people of the Illawarra region for the pain that is about to be inflicted on BlueScope Steel. Of course, even though BlueScope Steel sits in the member's electorate, as he quite rightly says it provides steel all across Australia, including in my electorate. It seemed like the Assistant Treasurer was foreshadowing problems ahead for BlueScope under the safeguard mechanism. If, indeed, they are forced to close their doors due to the requirement to reduce emissions by around five per cent per annum between now and 2030, we will simply see those emissions replaced and in fact increased, because that steel will simply be imported from North Asia, which is where the bulk of our steel currently comes from. Today I rise to talk not about the Illawarra region or BlueScope Steel, where the Assistant Treasurer mentioned one business that will be dramatically impacted by the safeguard mechanism; as a proud Western Australian, I am here to talk about Western Australia and the impact the safeguard mechanism is going to have on my home state and my electorate in particular. With 10 per cent of the nation's population, Western Australia produces 50 per cent of the nation mercantile exports. I'm very proud of that. Much of that comes from my electorate, but a great deal of it—in fact, the majority—comes from the member for Durack's electorate; I know how proud she is of those hardworking people and those businesses that operate in her electorate. We have 50 per cent of our nation's mercantile exports and 10 per cent of the population, and Western Australia will cop 32 per cent of the impact of the safeguard mechanism. On a per-head-of-population basis, we're copping three times the hit other states are copping. I will run through the very long list of businesses impacted in Western Australia. I will start with statewide businesses that provide services to people across Western Australia and mention some of the impacts they will have on the individual consumer. In this place we've heard the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy stand up and talk about the Business Council of Australia supporting this, and other large businesses are calling for the introduction of this carbon tax. But I don't hear them talk about individual consumers calling for higher costs of, for example, gas. ATCO Gas Australia, a distributor of gas, is one of the companies that will be required to reduce their emissions by five per cent per annum—at a cost; these things don't come cheap. Centurion Transport, which distributes most of the groceries around the very large state of Western Australia—and transport costs are important—will be forced to increase their costs, which will mean the consumer will have to pay more when they go to Woolworths, on top of increased energy prices and other supply chain issues which are forcing up the cost of fruit and vegetables in the supermarket. Goldfields Gas Transmission Pty Ltd, another business which reticulates gas, and Alliance Aviation, which provides air services to regional towns across my electorate, are other businesses that will be caught up in this. The Kwinana CSBP facility—I don't know much about anything else, but I know a little bit about agriculture. I know that when you force up the price of fertiliser, which is a key component particularly across the poorer soils of Western Australia, the cost for farmers goes up and the price of food goes up. Once again, you've got the consumer unaware of what's coming their way; they are already dealing with significant cost of living issues today, and they will pay more when they go to the supermarket. We've got fuel refineries across Australia that will be caught up in this, which means people will be paying more when they fill their tanks. Aurizon rail freight are caught up in this safeguard mechanism; that's the business that carts the bulk of the grain Western Australia produces—26 million tonnes this year, our second record crop in a row. Our farmers are doing an amazing job of producing the best, cleanest, greenest product in the world, but their costs are going up and their fertiliser prices are going to go up under this bill, and the cost of getting that product to a port to go on a ship is going to go up. There's a lot in this bill that Western Australians need to be aware of and need to be very wary of. Coming back to my electorate in particular, I've counted around 20 businesses that will be impacted. It's not one business, it's not just BlueScope Steel; there are 20 businesses that will be impacted. I will name a few of them because some of them are quite iconic. The Kalgoorlie Nickel Smelter is an iconic business in Kalgoorlie. Many local people did their apprenticeships there and grew up working at the nickel smelter. That will be caught up in this particular new carbon tax. We've got the Super Pit, which sits at the top end of Hannan Street in Kalgoorlie and employs over 1,000 people. That will be caught up in this tax. Moving away from the Goldfields, we've got the Murrin Murrin nickel operation, which is between Laverton and Leonora. It's a very important business out in that part of the world. At Boddington in the south-west part of the electorate, which is a long way from Kalgoorlie, the largest gold mine in Australia will be caught up under this safeguard mechanism. Many, many important businesses will be affected but none more so, in terms of local jobs and people's employment prospects, than the Worsley Alumina refinery in the Shire of Collie. Owned by South32, Worsley employs about 1,800 people directly at the alumina processing plant, and there would be many hundreds more contractors and others that are supported by that business. So these are really important businesses that employ a lot of people. Production of aluminium, in particular, and alumina is a highly energy-intensive business. I have spoken to South32 about their plans to reduce emissions. They can get to 12 or 13 per cent, I believe, but, beyond that, it becomes more and more difficult. At the moment they are currently importing—can you believe it?—coal from Newcastle to run the plant because the Collie coalmine, under the WA Labor government, can't provide coal either to the power stations in Collie or to South32. This is a business that employs almost a couple of thousand people directly and then many other hundreds more indirectly. If they chose to offshore that business—perhaps, move it to South Africa where they do their smelting—that would be 2,000-plus jobs that would be gone from my electorate. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how they're going to achieve this 35 per cent reduction in emissions over the next seven years that is required under this particular legislation, and that means that those jobs are at real risk. It will devastate that particular region if those jobs go. Bizarrely, the Prime Minister, in question time today, linked the safeguard mechanism with somehow reducing the cost of living. I've really got no idea, whichever way you cut, dice and spin this, how you can suggest that that would result from increasing the price of aluminium, increasing the price of petrol, increasing the price of cement—all of these key commodities that we consume, whether it be a young couple looking to build their first house or the state government embarking on an infrastructure project that requires a lot of cement or steel. These costs are going to go up. There is no other way you can spin it. The whole carbon tax is designed to drive the cost of these products up; that's what it's designed to do. So how anybody can come into this place with a straight face and try and claim that this is going to reduce costs for people is beyond belief. I would say it is bordering on misleading the parliament. One of the perverse outcomes of this particular policy is that these companies will be required to purchase carbon credits if they can't reduce their emissions. They've got to go and buy a carbon credit at $75 a tonne. Are the companies going to absorb that or are they going to pass it on to the consumer? They are going to pass it on to the consumer. That's what these businesses do; that's how they survive. But the real threat—and we're already seeing this under the current carbon reduction efforts by these companies—is that they're now going out into prime agricultural production areas and buying up productive farmland to plant trees under a 70-year covenant, which means that farmland will never be available for productive farming again. In my home area, farms have been around for 150-plus years, and they've never been more productive. Yet here we have the situation where companies are producing gas or iron ore or products that are finite products. Don't get me wrong. I support these industries to the hilt, but to take out productive farmland that will still be producing food in 150 years time—probably infinitely more than we're producing today—to meet these obligations of these companies to reduce their carbon emissions is, quite frankly, the definition of insanity. I think when the Australia people wake up to what is being proposed here, they will pretty quickly change their mind. By way of observation, in the Netherlands on the weekend, where similar types of programs have forced farmers to reduce their emissions and nitrogen use by up to 50 per cent, we saw that the BBB, which is the farmers and citizens party—importantly, the citizens as well as the farmers—won the largest vote of any party in the regional electorates in the Netherlands. The government party that has tried to introduce this particular imposition on the Dutch farmers has now lost its majority, and the Prime Minister there will be in serious trouble. I want to conclude with those comments on where this policy is headed and where it may well end up, and on the impact on Western Australian consumers, farmers, and, most importantly, the householders who are going to be paying more for their electricity and gas and paying more for food when they go to the supermarkets. I proudly stand here today opposing this particular piece of very bad legislation which seeks to impose a new carbon tax on the Australian people. 17:06 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The latest IPCC report that was released only in the last day or so could not have been more clear. It reiterates that climate change is real; that temperatures have increased by 1.1 degree Centigrade since the pre-industrial era; that the earth is on track to reach an increase in temperature of 1.5 degrees Centigrade by around 2030, which is much sooner than had been previously expected; that, over the past three decades, atmospheric carbon levels have increased exponentially; that developed nations, as the highest per capita emitters, must do more to reduce emissions; that extreme weather events already costing the world billions of dollars each year in damage will continue to increase in frequency and severity; that environmental degradation is already so extensive that it is making a difference of the planet that we live on; and that climate change already causes food shortages and, indeed, an incredible amount of health costs associated with both food shortages and health related climate change impacts. The cost of that alone should be sufficient to say to people that we need to reduce carbon emissions—if not for the environment and for all the other reasons that we should do it then for no better reason than that it will create a much healthier society. The reality is that global action has been way too slow for the last three decades, ever since this issue was raised as an international issue of concern and there was consensus that it was an international issue of concern. Whilst countries have come together over the years to talk about it, and certainly there have been a lot of changes made, we have simply not acted fast enough and sufficiently to constrain the effects of climate change. The reality is that the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 is timely, in that right now, when that IPCC report is being discussed and debated, we in this parliament want to pass legislation that moves us forward in terms of reducing the amount of emissions here in Australia. The reality is that the global response, including our response here in Australia, must be not only escalated but also measured and realistic. If it's not realistic, we simply won't achieve the targets that we set. The targets that have been set by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy are, indeed, realistic if we are prepared to do the work that is required. In the last three decades, the research and analysis of climate change throughout the world by literally tens of thousands of scientists has become more precise, more reliable and more credible. Yet, listening to members opposite, I hear so many of them, in my view, still questioning the science and the credibility of climate change. Quite frankly, I believe that most of their opposition to this legislation comes because they are still sceptical about the science that underpins the arguments on climate change. The truth is that time is ticking and the world must do more to reduce both the rate and the impacts of climate change. Australia, as one of the highest per capita emitters of carbon, has both an obligation and a responsibility to play its part in reducing global emissions. If we don't act, why would other countries who, per capita, emit much less than us respond in the way that they possibly can? They will say, 'Well, if you folks, who are among the highest emitters, are not prepared to make some drastic changes to your own way of living, why should we?' This legislation attempts to do that in a very responsible way. It places limits on the largest emitters here in Australia—the nation's highest emitters—and it provides credits to them for the reductions they achieve. The Albanese government has set, I believe, a very responsible emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030 on 2005 levels. That's the baseline. Certainly, if we can do better than that, I'm sure we would all want to, and we should all strive for that. But at least setting ourselves a 43 per cent target gives us something to aim for. This legislation, I believe, allows us to achieve that. Those entities who do better than reducing their emissions by whatever their limit is will get credits which they can in turn pass on to those other industries that, sometimes for very good reason, have not been able to reach the limits that were set on them. I think that that's a responsible way to deal with an emissions reduction strategy, because not every entity or every business is in the same position as another to make reductions. For some it will be easier than for others, and, where that is the case, they should, in a sense, share the load of reduction. Indeed, the notion of sharing the load was one that was raised some 13 years ago when we tried to introduce into this place the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, you would recall the debates in respect of all of that, and that was all about trying to share the load where you can in fact have carbon trading as a marketable item. The reality is that this legislation—and I will come back to this in a few moments—does what is possible in this country. In fact, by doing what is possible, we would be able to make a huge difference to the amount of carbon that is currently being emitted in Australia. I want to make a couple of other points that I think are relevant to this whole debate. The first is this: if Australia acts to reduce emissions by providing encouragement to industry to do so, there will be huge economic opportunities for those companies and other entities that get on the front foot. That has been proven time and time again. Those companies that are prepared to show initiative upfront are likely to be the ones that benefit the most in the years to come. So I believe that encouraging companies to follow that route means that, in the long term, they will actually benefit. Secondly, the longer we delay, and the longer the world delays, the more difficult it is to transition and, quite frankly, the more costly it will be. So, if members opposite are concerned about the cost to their individual communities and their individual businesses, I can tell you that there is universal consensus that the cost will be much greater the more we delay this issue. Thirdly, if we don't act there is every likelihood that those countries that do act will start to impose penalties on our products because we have not done our fair share in reducing carbon emissions. The fourth point I make—and I've made this point on other occasions—is that one of the areas causing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is the additional consumption that the globe has embarked on—consumption that accrues from an increase or an improvement in the standard of living of people around the world. If we all consume more then there is more carbon produced. Combined with that is also the fact that increased population levels in total across the world make a difference to the amount of carbon that's in the atmosphere. Yet we very rarely talk about what we can do to reduce consumption and to perhaps look at the impact that population growth is having on carbon dioxide levels throughout the world. I want to finish on this note. I mentioned the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme earlier on. It truly amused me this morning when I saw the Greens come into this chamber and talk about the need to do so much more to reduce carbon emissions in this country and how this legislation doesn't go far enough—they've been saying that all the way through—and how we need to act urgently and time is running out et cetera. In 2010 the Greens did not support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Had they done so 13 years ago, it would not be the same race against time that we are facing right now. Carbon emissions in Australia would have been much lower. The transition ahead would have been much easier, less disruptive and less costly. All the crisis rhetoric from the Greens is simply not matched by their actions. We see their hypocrisy and their double standards again with respect to this legislation. Whilst they call for more action to be done, the truth is that, when it came to voting on measures that could be achieved, they were nowhere to be seen and, in fact, voted them down. In my view, they should be held responsible for the situation we are in right now and for the climate crisis that we supposedly face here in Australia and across the world, because they opposed legislation which would have made a difference. It's always easy to come into this place, make claims about what we should be doing, grandstand—as the Leader of the Greens did today—and call for unrealistic changes when you're not in government. But when you're in government you are responsible for all of the people of this country and you're responsible for the impacts of legislation across all sectors of society. That is what this government, the Albanese government, is trying to do: bring in a responsible policy. I finish on the words of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy in the debate earlier today, when he said: These are the stakes. There are 205 million tonnes of emissions, between now and 2030, at stake in this vote. That is the equivalent of taking two-thirds of the cars off Australia's roads … fossil fuels covered under the safeguard mechanism emit, currently, 73 million tonnes a year … without a change of policy, this will grow to 83 million tonnes, but, with a change of policy, it will be a net 52 million tonnes. That's the question facing the parliament. It's a 205-million-tonne question facing this parliament as to whether we pass these reforms or not. That is the choice facing this parliament. I think that those comments from the minister say it all, and I urge members to support this legislation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I now call the member for Bonner. 17:19 Mr 300120 Bowman PIKE () (): Bowman. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Apologies—Bowman. Mr PIKE 300120 That's alright, Mr Deputy Speaker. They're right next door to each other and both held by the same party. One of my coalition colleagues called me over the weekend and told me he was having a nice, quiet Saturday evening. He'd just come back from a community event and was now sitting down to watch the second Godfather movie with his wife. The Godfather Part II, of course,is regarded as one of the greatest films ever made. I'm sure many members would agree. It is one of those incredibly rare sequels that is better than the original film. Sequels rarely surpass the original, and in this bill we find the same rule applies. The Labor government's carbon tax 2.0 will be far worse than the original. I can't really say that the carbon tax mark 1 was much of a box office hit either. Labor still has many of the same cast over there, many of the same actors perhaps playing different roles. I doubt the public will be any more receptive to this horror movie the second time around. The coalition supports action on climate change but understands that a balance must be struck between reducing emissions and ensuring the continuation of a strong, prosperous and sovereign Australia. It is easy for critics to say, 'We need to do more,' 'We need to go faster,' 'We need to go harder.' We've heard that from some of the crossbench and government members today. But governments have to operate in the real world. When dealing with an area of policy like this, which has such wide-ranging implications across our economy, we need balance. We need proportionality. We need action but nuanced in a way that ensures our long-term best interests. When last in government the coalition grew the economy by 23 per cent, while also exceeding Australia's Kyoto targets, pledging net zero by 2050 and reducing Australia's emissions by more than 20 per cent compared to 2005 levels. The coalition understands how important it is to manage the needs of our environment and economy simultaneously. But what is clear from this bill is that this minister and Prime Minister do not. The fine balance that Australia needs to strike is being forsaken for political grandstanding. While there were years of balanced and sustainable emissions reductions that reliably met and even exceeded targets while maintaining strong economic growth, under the coalition, this government is attempting to distort the purpose of the safeguard mechanism—from a system that caps emissions to one that penalises businesses, imposes taxes and costs jobs. Let's be fair dinkum about this bill. It does not tweak the emissions safeguard first introduced by the coalition. This bill, effectively, destroys that mechanism completely and replaces it with a souped-up version of the Gillard era carbon tax at more than three times the cost. This bill will impose a super carbon tax—carbon tax 2—on the Australian economy, on Australian businesses and on Australian households. All this is at the very time there are cost-of-living and inflation concerns, particularly concerns about higher energy prices, which are having a massive impact right across our nation. All this bill will do is make Australia weaker and poorer. Anything that leaves us weaker or poorer or in any way less able to rapidly build the capability that we need for close cooperation with our friends and allies, over the next few years, is not something we can either justify or reasonably afford. Labor's new carbon tax will require 215 of Australia's largest industrial enterprises to each slash their carbon dioxide emissions by almost five per cent, each and every year, to 2030. These companies will be required to pay $75 per tonne of carbon dioxide that they emit over an arbitrary baseline set by the government, and, of course, this underlying carbon price will increase as the years go on. Recent modelling by RepuTex reported in the Australian shows that annual baseline reductions will need to significantly increase, from 4.9 per cent to between 5.8 and 8.9 per cent from 2024 to 2030, if Labor's target is to be met. It is becoming clearer that even the 4.9 per cent year-on-year reduction required of our biggest emitters by this bill may itself pale into relative insignificance compared to where this mechanism may take us between now and the end of this decade. The threats climate change poses will not be overcome by imposing draconian penalties on businesses, crippling our economy or increasing taxes. More tax and more government is rarely the remedy that results in greater innovation. Only policies that work with business and encourage technological innovation will help solve the climate problem. It is unfortunate that this Labor government fails to understand this critical point. The bill has been referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has not yet commented on it. Stakeholders have expressed concern about the limited time frame for the consultation and the staggered release of key documents, particularly of the Chubb review, which they regard as limiting detailed consideration of the proposed amendments. Given all the virtue signalling and all the claims of transparency from Labor on this bill, it is somewhat perverse for this Labor government to deliberately stagger the release of the bill's draft. This approach has meant that many stakeholders have failed to adequately assess the full impact of the proposed changes. In fact, due to the sheer number of legislative instruments in this bill, there is not much for stakeholders to comment on at all. This tactic by the government is both highly irresponsible and potentially dangerous, especially when it relates to changes as important, as impactful, as the provisions that are contained within this bill. This government and this Prime Minister are running away from scrutiny, and the use of excessive legislative instruments is clear evidence of this. According to the Environmental Defenders Office and the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, this approach leaves too much power in the hands of the minister and the Clean Energy Regulator. Of the two principal amendments made by this bill, neither was included in the exposure draft, and both conflict with stakeholder opinions. This is a government that aims to shirk parliamentary process to avoid detailed scrutiny of the controversial aspects of its policy. This is a dangerous precedent to be setting so early in the life of this new government. The minister informed the Senate just last week that he will not be releasing the Australian carbon credit units modelling. Of course, the previous government released the equivalent modelling when we adopted the policy to reach net zero by 2050. The question must be asked: what is the government hiding by failing to release this modelling? What does this modelling say that the government doesn't want the Australian people or the Australian parliament to know? The Liberal-National coalition will work in parliament this week to force the Albanese government to release modelling of its climate change policy or deny its legislation being considered in the Senate. The move is necessary because of the government's refusal to comply with the Senate order to release modelling on the impact of the safeguard mechanism. Labor simply refuses to tell Australians how its reforms to the safeguard mechanism will impact families, businesses and jobs. Amidst a full-blown cost-of-living crisis—and we've heard a lot of mention of that this week in this place—Labor wants to introduce a super carbon tax and then hide modelling of its impact from those who will be forced to pay more for everything, from fuel to food and everyday materials. I make a point of doing a lot of doorknocking in my electorate—I've knocked on about 20,000 doors in recent years—and the conversations that I have with the constituents of Bowman are very much centred around concerns about the cost of living. We saw the default market offer come out last week, which outlined significant increases to energy costs for businesses within South-East Queensland. The conversations that I've been having at people's doors, at shopping centre mobile offices that I've been holding, at sporting fixtures, at community events, at retirement villages that I've been visiting, have all been the same. They've all been focused on the cost-of-living crisis that is occurring across this country. We need to take consideration of that when we're considering such a massive bit of legislation that has such broad impact across so many of our major sectors, which will of course trickle down to having an impact on household budgets and businesses all across this country. Electricity prices are continuing to spiral out of control under Labor, with new increases of up to 23.7 per cent for households and 25.7 per cent for small businesses now announced. A proposed increase to the default market offer revealed last week will ensure that households in my electorate will be worse off by up to $383 a year, far from the promise of a $275 decrease that we had from the now government during the election period. Of course, we haven't heard much from them in defence of it since then, despite the coalition's best efforts during question time every day. Labor's new carbon tax 2.0 will increase the price of everything of everything from food to fuel, at a time when households are already struggling to make ends meet. The safeguard mechanism is one more example of Labor weaponising recently legislated reduction targets. The changes proposed by this bill essentially disrespect the will of the Australian people by reimposing the Gillard-era carbon tax on Australians almost 10 years after Australians comprehensively rejected it. While the government argues the mechanism will not affect businesses, this is blatantly untrue. Business groups may be too scared to publicly condemn the new government, but they are certainly sharing their views on this bill when they meet with us. Big business groups are sharing those views with us, and the small businesses within our electorates are sharing their views, as well. I can tell you that some of our nation's most important industries have a deep concern about what this will mean for them. Australians will be hard-hit by these changes. Increased production costs will result in an even higher cost of living, and a significant decrease in our international competitiveness will damage our economy, destroy jobs and erode our strength. One final point that I would like to make is on Australia's security over the coming decades. A lot has been made of that in recent weeks, and we acknowledge the changing strategic landscape that our nation faces. We welcome the AUKUS announcement made recently by the Prime Minister in San Diego and the subsequent announcements and details that have been revealed. Of course, it was the former coalition government that established the AUKUS concept and struck the original deal. We welcome the moves by the federal government to take that threat seriously and prepare Australia for the challenges that we'll face over the next few decades. Nations that seek to cast themselves in competition with us have no interest in hampering their economic growth through climate action, and we need to be sure that when we do take action it does not cost us our global competitiveness and ability to respond to threats as they emerge. We must ensure that we continue to produce what we need to produce, at a cost that's reasonable, for us to be self-sustaining and able to maintain our way of life despite the pressures that we'll be facing over the coming decades. We must ensure we remain prosperous enough to maintain and grow our defence capability while withstanding the economic pressures that will be brought to bear. I congratulate the Albanese government for thinking long term about our national security, but we need the same long-term thinking about our economic capability and our domestic industry. We cannot risk the sovereignty of Australia or sacrifice the livelihoods of Australians simply to meet the self-indulgent demands of those who are well off enough to afford it. It may be an inconvenient truth, but this is precisely what the bill aims to do, what the Labor Party aims to do and what the government aims to do. For a time, we may cop some criticism for taking a firm stand against this bill and not embracing the faith of those opposite, but dark days are coming. While the coalition sees the dangers and understands the tough decisions that must be made, only the government has the power to implement these decisions. The government needs to understand that my constituents and most everyday Australians want reasonable and measured action to address climate change. We want action based on evidence, balanced action, action that serves Australia's immediate and long-term interests. This bill is far from a balanced approach, and I will certainly not be supporting it. 17:33 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022: (1) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm on Tuesday, 21 March, the bill being called on for further consideration, with the second reading debate continuing until either: (a) no further Members rise to speak; or (b) 10 pm; at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Wednesday, 22 March at 9 am; (2) from 6.30 pm on Tuesday, 21 March until the adjournment of the House: (a) any division called for being deferred until the first opportunity on Wednesday, 22 March; and (b) if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker announcing that he will count the House at the first opportunity on Wednesday, 22 March, if the Member then so desires; and (3) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. In short, the impact of this motion is exactly as I explained to the House earlier. You'll all still have the same speaking time; none of that has changed. This action will facilitate getting through as many speeches as possible tonight, taking it through until 10 o'clock. There will be no votes or quorums tonight after 6.30, and debate on the bill will continue tomorrow. At the moment, in terms of the number of speakers on the bill, we will get to consideration in detail tomorrow and be able to have a consideration in detail process of a decent length. It may even spill over into Thursday. Obviously, I'm aware that we could end up in a situation which will mean that more people add themselves to the speaking list. If we have to deal with that, we'll deal with that tomorrow. For the moment, hopefully, this means that we'll be able to deal with the bill in the normal way. I want to thank in particular the Manager of Opposition Business and the opposition for their cooperation in making sure that this course was available. 17:36 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills In May last year, Australians voted for real action on climate change. They voted for a government that takes real action on climate change and makes it something which is significant and real and which will make a difference to the next generation—not just empty words. Climate change is an existential issue for Australia and for Australians, as well as for people across the globe, particularly in the Pacific. The Albanese Labor government is taking leadership in making a real commitment on this issue because this government is acutely aware of the urgency and the need to act. The IPCC report that has just been released reaffirms what we've all been concerned about all along. It reminds us of our agency. It also reminds us of the urgency to act and reminds us that we should have taken this action decades ago. This country was dealing with a decade of denial and delay—a decade of dysfunction. Of course Australians are right to be concerned. People in my electorate of Wills are contacting my office because they are worried. They're worried about their kids' future, and they're worried about the world that their kids and their grandkids will inherit—as am I, as a father of two young children. We're worried about the prediction that temperatures will likely rise 1.5 degrees in the early part of next decade and that the impacts from climate change will be more severe than estimated in previous IPCC assessments. We're worried that the climate crisis is quickly altering the earth's atmosphere, oceans, land and frozen poles, which will mean that Australians will experience extreme weather, including heat waves and catastrophic flooding. We're worried that our children and our future generations will continue to suffer if we don't seize the opportunity this week in this place to make a real start on climate action. This is what the Australian people voted for last May. The Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 provides for a safeguard mechanism that will provide this country with key building blocks as we work towards net zero by 2050 at the latest. We've always said that we can get there faster if we're permitted to make those investments in renewable energy. It's a floor, not a ceiling. The safeguard mechanism helps ensure that our largest industrial facilities reduce emissions in line with our national targets. It provides us with a system that encourages emissions reductions from our top emitters. That is crucial to reaching Australia's updated emissions reduction targets of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050. More than 70 per cent of safeguard facilities and 80 per cent of safeguard emissions are already covered by the 2050 net zero target, which these reforms will help them achieve. As part of the Powering Australia plan and funded in the last budget, the Albanese Labor government is investing in the decarbonisation of existing industries and creation of new clean-energy industries through the $1.9 billion Powering the Regions Fund. At least $600 million of this will assist safeguard facilities in reducing their emissions through energy efficiency upgrades, shifts to lower carbon processes or switching of fuels to electrification, hydrogen and biofuels. Why you would oppose that I'm not sure. I haven't heard a cogent or rational argument from those opposite. These reforms help Australian businesses remain competitive as the world decarbonises. Why would you oppose that? They enable industries to be supported during this transition. Why would you oppose that? The crediting element will enable businesses to be provided with tradable safeguard mechanism credits that will incentivise more efficiency, and other businesses with limited abatement options will be able to purchase credits to help meet their emissions reductions. Why would you oppose that? Crediting and trading will actually help Australia and our industrial businesses to meet our climate targets. Why would you oppose that? It's a cost-effective way of enabling us to continue to work toward our larger goals—and we've got to start. This parliament debated targets last year. We agreed to a 43 per cent target. That's our starting point. It passed through this parliament—that's democracy in action. Unless the safeguard reforms are passed, our projections will be lower than 43 per cent. Why would you oppose that? Is that why—because you want us to underachieve? You want to block business and industry from reducing their emissions? Is that what your opposition is about? This is real action and real reform. Maybe you oppose it because of that—because you did nothing for nine years. You went backwards for nine years. Maybe you want to oppose this bill because of that. Maybe you just want to oppose reducing emissions, which will alleviate pressure on households and energy bills and will actually create renewable energy jobs. That's a really good start to make sure that we're headed on a path, in a direction, that will help us transition into a renewable energy future. Why would you oppose that? Is it because there are still elements within the opposition party room that don't believe in any of the science, that don't think that we should take any action, that were responsible for torpedoing, for blowing up, for destroying I've forgotten how many— Dr Aly 13050 Twenty-two. Mr KHALIL 101351 Thank you; the member for Cowan has pointed out correctly that 22 different energy plans were completely blown up by the Liberal party room over a number of years. Maybe you want to oppose us getting on with it because you couldn't get on with it. For the first time in a decade, this parliament has an opportunity to put measures in place to reduce emissions from our biggest emitters. Some honourable members may call for higher targets—we've heard that from many here—or feel that this isn't enough. To those members and those parties, I say: this government will work together with you in good faith towards emissions reduction. We would all agree that it would be great to have 100 per cent renewable energy by tomorrow, but our massive continent demands a network that covers thousands of kilometres and all types of terrains and climates. Our electricity system, our grid, is hopelessly and desperately outdated and cannot yet properly integrate the full capacity of the growing renewables sector. So let's unlock the potential. That's why we have a plan for $20 billion of investment into our electricity system, our grid, to make it up-to-date for renewable energy. That's what that is about. We know that the opposition and others might want to make this a political issue. Maybe they're opposing because they want play politics, again. They want to move out of their party room and the destruction of their 22 energy plans over how ever many years to blow up any chance of us moving forward as a nation. But let's be sensible and rational here. We'll never make a start if we don't have people on the other side make the commitment and understand the need for the national interest, and for their kids' future as well. That's why we need real action on climate change. This government is the only party that is delivering action on climate change. We need people to get behind this. We need the opposition to understand the importance of this for the future of Australian business and Australian industry, and that the transition is going to happen whether they like it or not. We need others who feel that this is enough and to get behind this and not make the perfect the enemy of the good. I have always found in politics that, if you are being attacked from each end of the spectrum with people on both sides saying it is either not good enough or they'll never support it, if you are somewhere in the sensible centre, you're doing the right thing most of the time or pretty much all the time. That's where we are right now. We are in the sensible centre looking towards reducing emissions and transitioning to a renewable energy future while making sure the transition is feasible for Australian industry and Australian business. And yet we have people, members on either side of us, who wish to not support this sensible step forward. We need crossbench support, we need everyone's support, even the opposition's support. A few of them might see the light here and put the national interest ahead of their party and political interest. Maybe—stranger things have happened. But if the parliament votes against this policy, those opposite will be voting against emissions reductions. They'll be voting against a plan to transition Australian business and industry. They'll be voting against a future where we transition to renewable energy and all the benefits from that for our nation and for our climate. They'll be voting against any action on climate change. They'll be voting against a safe future for Australians. I call on the members in this place to consider the safeguard mechanism, to consider this bill on its merits and everything that it does for the future of Australian business and our reduction in emissions going forward. Maybe, just maybe, some might see the light and understand the importance of this bill for the national interest. I hope they do, and I hope the crossbench do as well, and that we get the support we need to move forward so that we can start investing in the transmission grid, getting it ready for the renewable energy future that is inevitable, despite those who think it will never come. I call on the members opposite to consider this bill in good faith and consider the important elements of this bill for business and for the future of renewable energy in this country. Hopefully, some of them might actually vote for it. 17:48 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak against the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 for many reasons, and the first is it's designed to increase global emissions, perversely. This is a bill that will drive industrial activity out of our economy to other economies that emit much higher levels of carbon. This is a bill that doesn't properly understand the challenges that heavy industry have, in particular, and expects them to achieve things that industrial chemistry and science are yet to actually develop and discover for them to apply to their sectors. These are sectors like the steel industry and like the cement industry, with their very complex industrial processes that are yet to find commercially viable solutions to the carbon emissions that those heavy industries undertake. By the by, I might indicate that I was very excited to be a part of the successful application for the HILT CRC, the Heavy Industry Low-carbon Transition Cooperative Research Centre application, led by the University of Adelaide, amongst other institutions, in my home city of Adelaide. It's looking to take on those exact challenges and to find solutions, commercial solutions, to the emissions that come from heavy industry. That's because a lot of those industrial processes are yet to have viable commercial pathways and processes that can decarbonise. We're in a situation where this bill, a bill from the government, says to Australian heavy industry and high emitters: 'We are going to hold you to an unfair and unreasonable standard that we won't apply to your competitors, particularly those that, perversely, will be importing product into our country to compete against you. We will put a restriction on you that we won't put on the same production that occurs somewhere else.' This safeguard mechanism crediting scheme will have no impact on cement produced in China. It will for cement that's produced in Australia, so Australian cement is now going to be more expensive than, say, Chinese cement. I've got nothing against Chinese cement. I just think it shouldn't have an unfair advantage against Australian cement that's produced by employing Australians and that's invested in by Australian superannuation funds. Perversely, for companies like Adelaide Brighton from my home city of Adelaide, an iconic business, this legislation will put an impost on them that their overseas competitors selling into the Australian market against them won't have. The reality is that cement produced somewhere else is produced at a higher carbon intensity than Australian cement produced in Australia. Under this bill, emissions go up; Australian jobs go down. We have a government that has a bill to increase carbon emissions across our planet by moving industrial production from a responsible economy like ours to anywhere but Australia. There's nothing in this bill that says, 'Equally, we will put some kind of mechanism on importing competitors.' If you're going to do it, at least be fair about it. What government in the world right now is disproportionately advantaging production from somewhere else against their own economy? This is treasonous. This is a bill that says we want to take Australian jobs, give them to another economy and increase carbon emissions at the same time. And that's something— Mr STEVENS 176304 exactly—that the government will not be honest about with the people of this country because they know, if they were honest about that very simple proposition and equation, what the consequences would be. Instead, we have this surreptitious attempt to pretend that something is being done through this legislation to reduce emissions when, in fact, it's increasing emissions but also costing Australian jobs. We're in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. At the moment cement produced in this country is competing against cement that's being imported, with all the additional costs through that supply chain. Once you run Australian businesses out of business what's going to happen to the price of imported cement? I just wonder. Once we don't produce it and there's no competition from Australian production against sources of cement from other countries, I wonder what will happen to the price of cement in this country? Apart from the fact that it's continuing to emit carbon at a higher rate than Australian produced cement, we'll also have a situation, because we don't have sovereign production capability in this country, where we'll be completely at the mercy of prices being dictated to us by importers that have 100 per cent control over the market. We're destroying Australian sovereignty, destroying Australian jobs and increasing global carbon emissions through this bill. Cement's not the only example, obviously. We know that in a lot of heavy industries there's high carbon intensity. We know that in steel, in aluminium, in a vast variety of industrial processes. Achieving carbon neutrality means tackling the challenge of those industries decarbonising. But the perverseness of the solution being, 'Let's just shut down that industry in our country and give it to someone else, let's just let all of the high-emissions industries exist not in Australia'—in success, that's what this bill achieves. That's the whole point of this bill. The point of this bill is to penalise those exact types of businesses so they shut down in this country and so those same businesses in other countries increase their production output jobs in those economies, earn that income in those economies and increase their emissions, because they don't have anything like the standards we have in this country. And that's the outcome. It's a bill to increase global carbon emissions at the expense of Australian jobs. We do not support the lunacy of that proposition whatsoever. When in government we invested heavily in looking for the research and development opportunities to decarbonise these industries in a way that keeps those jobs here in Australia. So if the HILT CRC that the Adelaide university are leading can develop—and we all hope that they can—transformative industrial processes to decarbonise elements of the supply chain in things like steel, cement and aluminium, then that would be a fantastic outcome. That's the pathway to decarbonise, doing it through R&D and growing the economy of this country, in the same breath. Green steel, if and when we can produce it, means that it will happen in Australia. It will co-locate the production of green steel with where the iron ore is. If you're trying to get carbon zero or net zero green steel, you're not going to dig up iron ore and transport it somewhere else; you're going to process it in situ. Green steel, in the right circumstances, is extremely exciting for this country, because out there at the Pilbara you will take the iron ore, there where it is, and transform it into steel at that exact point. That will be the lowest carbon footprint of green steel, co-locating it with where the iron ore is. If people like those at Adelaide university who are working on those industrial processes can decarbonise steel production and produce green steel, that will be an absolute jobs bonanza for the Australian economy. We all know, because of our mineral wealth in this country, that this can be the case across a whole range of industrial products and processes. The only thing that will stop it is if these industries are gone before we get to that point and if we drive all of our heavy industrial processes off to another economy. That's, essentially, what this bill seeks to do. Major employers in my home state—I mentioned Adelaide, Brighton and Nyrstar at Port Pirie, which is a very significant lead smelter that my family has been very connected to through the Broken Hill North Mine. My grandfather was a mining engineer and had capital works there before and after the Second World War. All that lead goes to Port Pirie. The member for Braddon would know well that the zinc from there goes to Tasmania. These are exciting businesses that are very successful employers, and we want to keep them here in this country. We don't want to send that oxide off to be processed somewhere else because those businesses are being told, 'You're not welcome in Australia and we're going to put a huge tax on you and penalise you until you leave.' Some people feel good that the accounting trickery of this shows a reduction in Australia's emissions. But when that is at the expense of a greater increase somewhere else and, at the same time, the loss of Australian jobs, then it's a completely unacceptable path to take. The government, at times, like to talk about an orderly transition towards net zero by 2050. Sometimes they have arguments with members in this House, particularly from the Greens party, about the pace in which they're moving. This is the most frightening element of all the things they're proposing: de-industrialising our country. When those jobs are gone—they've been pretty important to our economy for a long time. We wouldn't be much of an economy if those sorts of industries weren't the backbone, as they have been for decades—in fact, centuries in the case of some of these complex mining and mineral processes. It's happened across the country and it's one of our great endowments and one of our great assets as a nation—the mineral wealth we've got and the industrial opportunities that raw material provides to our economy. Regrettably, here in 2023, we are faced with the prospect that the government of this country, for the first time ever, is turning its back on that industry and saying: 'We don't want you anymore. We don't want those jobs in our economy. Instead we'd like someone else to have them.' It's disguised by this ludicrous proposition of reducing emissions when emissions will go up if this policy succeeds. If that production leaves this country, which is comparatively a much lower carbon intense economy, with much higher standards across the board environmentally and the like, and we move that production—which will still happen. The rest of the planet won't say, 'Now we want less steel and less cement and aluminium and less copper and less minerals'; in fact, hilariously, the transition to net zero needs a lot more minerals and metals to facilitate it. But we are, in essence, saying we don't want those industries here in Australia. In the coalition, we have to stand up against that. We have to stand up for those industries, for their value to our economy, for the fact that it is more environmentally friendly for those industries to continue on and succeed and thrive in this economy than in someone else's. We cannot and will not stay silent and fail to call out the perverseness of what is being proposed here—that is, that we say we want to de-industrialise elements of our economy, lose jobs and, at the same time, increase global carbon emissions, and put ourselves in a position where we are turning our back on the sovereign capabilities and sovereign industries that have been vital to the growth of our economy and to the security of our economy into the future and where we're now happy to be completely reliant on 100 per cent imports of all kinds of vitally important product that we currently proudly make in this country. To the workers that will lose their jobs in these industries: in the coalition, we stand up for you, we back you and we are proud of the contribution you make to our economy. You're not doing anything wrong. You've got nothing to be embarrassed about. In fact, we appreciate you and what you're doing to create wealth and to grow the standard of living in our economy. We regret that we've got a government that holds a different view, but we will do all we can to support you. Fundamental to that is us opposing this bill. 18:03 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi The Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 presents an important opportunity for Australia to head in the right direction when it comes to reducing our emissions and acting on climate change, especially when we have not been heading in the right direction for such a long time. The bill aims to reduce the emissions of our top national polluters. These 215 or so emitters, called designated facilities, are responsible for almost a third of Australia's emissions. For Australia to reach its national emissions target of 43 per cent by 2030 and to reach net zero emissions by 2050, these designated facilities must cut their total emissions by 43 million tonnes this year alone. Under the bill, companies can reach these targets by trading safeguard mechanism credits—or SMCs—which are generated by designated facilities for reducing their own emissions. SMCs are intended to incentivise companies to maximise low-cost abatement opportunities first. The bill also allows companies to offset their emissions through the purchase of Australian carbon credit units, or ACCUs. The minister, in his second reading speech for the bill, said: 'The time is now to address climate change by tackling the emissions of our biggest national emitters, and this bill gets it done.' The minister is mostly right, because we must act now and we cannot wait any longer. I will support the passage of this bill, but I do so with caution. I grew up on a farm. I live on a small farm now. Like millions of people in regional Australia, the climate has never been an abstract concept for me. During my first election campaign, in 2019, people across my electorate came to me, passionately wanting our parliament to address climate change. They knew then, as they know now, that, as long as greenhouse gas emissions continue, our temperatures will rise, our rainfall will fall, our bush will become drier and our fires will become bigger and hotter. In Indi, it's not only our fear of more frequent and intense bushfires that drives our calls for climate action; it's concern for our health, for our economy and for our connection to our magnificent natural environment both here at home and around the world. The effects of climate change are already here, and as people are facing a higher cost of living I know that they are feeling the monetary cost of climate change—it's hitting them. Record rainfall last October has damaged our roads, requiring more and more money to fix them. Businesses in the high country of my electorate are already finding it impossible to get insurance, putting their very viability at risk. As these concerns grow, so, too, does the number of people that are dedicating their time and energy to fight for meaningful climate action. In Indi, the community group Wodonga and Albury Towards Climate Health, or WATCH, has more than 1,000 members. The local branch of the Australian Conservation Foundation also has more than 1,000 members, and the young people's group, School Strike 4 Climate, has over 2,000 members. These community groups based in my rural and regional electorate are non-partisan but are deeply concerned about human induced climate change. In Indi we also have the most community renewable energy projects of any electorate in Australia. People are volunteering multiple hours a week to support their communities to be powered by 100 per cent renewables. They do this to improve energy reliability in times of emergency and build the local economy and also, importantly, to make a contribution towards emissions reductions. With these groups I co-designed the Local Power Plan and then introduced my Australian Local Power Agency Bill, which could achieve community energy scaled up right across the nation. My constituents' calls for meaningful action on climate change are loud and clear. And this is why I successfully amended the government's Climate Change Bill last year to ensure that regional Australia is at the forefront of climate change policy for decades to come. It's also why, in the last parliament, I fought for more Commonwealth support for home electrification through my cheaper home batteries bill. These proposals are practical, effective solutions to invest in renewable energy as a pathway away from our reliance on fossil fuels. I spent my last term in parliament advocating on solutions to the climate crisis and I continue to do so in this parliament, including under this bill. I support this bill because, like my constituents in Indi, I want to see action on climate change. However, I hold genuine concerns that this bill and the safeguard mechanism don't go far enough towards genuinely reducing our national emissions. And I know I am not alone in those concerns. Under the bill, Australia's top polluters will be required to reduce their emissions by 4.9 per cent each and every year. The government says that for them to do this the scheme must provide flexibility by allowing companies to offset emissions. When the offset scheme was first designed it was intended to be a last resort. Companies were supposed to avoid, minimise, and mitigate their emissions first through technological and operational changes, and only when nothing else could be done could they turn to offsets. Under this bill, however, there are no limits on offsets and that means, for a company to succeed in reducing their emissions by almost five per cent each year, it can offset them 100 per cent. Companies can effectively buy their emissions reductions. Allowing emitters to offset 100 per cent of their emissions is no substitute for genuine, lasting emissions reduction. We should not allow unlimited use of offsets, and the bill should incentivise companies to abate emissions first. I will support the amendments of my crossbench colleagues that limit the amount of offsets that can be used; require the safeguard mechanism credits, or SMCs, to be used by designated facilities before they can purchase ACCUs; remove any price cap on the ACCUs; and ensure any new entrants into the scheme are at net zero from the start. These are sensible amendments, and I hope they succeed. I also support calls to prevent any new coal and gas entrants to the safeguard mechanism. If we allow new entrants, our emissions will only get higher, blowing the safeguard mechanism's carbon budget and the burden to reduce emissions will fall on everyone. Instead of subsidising new fossil fuel projects, the government must continue to invest in renewable energy to facilitate a smooth transition towards a clean energy economy. Scientists and researchers have also sounded the alarm about the integrity of the ACCUs in the current carbon market, and I take these concerns very seriously. Shortly after the election last year, the government commissioned a report by former Chief Scientist Ian Chubb to independently review the ACCUs. The review found that the ACCU scheme was fundamentally well designed, but Professor Chubb made 16 recommendations to enhance governance arrangements and transparency. This is just part of the story, though. Research by the Australian National University found that at least 70 per cent of ACCUs are not resulting in real emissions reductions. For example, credits can be claimed and sold for not clearing land that was never going to be cleared in the first place. There are clearly issues with the scheme's design. If offsets are a key part of the path for emissions reductions and net zero, we must be able to hold the ACCUs up to the light, and we can't do this if the companies that are in the business of ACCUs have ties to the fossil fuel industry while also advising the government on their climate change policies. There is a real risk that some companies may seek to exploit this system to increase their own profits while failing to deliver the environmental outcomes this bill is designed to achieve, and that our country so desperately needs. For as long as I've been fighting in this place for action on climate change, I have also been fighting for integrity—integrity in parliament and in every decision and action of parliament. So, too, the ACCU market must have integrity. ACCUs must be based on scientifically backed and trusted methods. The regulator that approves ACCUs must be independent. If they're not, Australians should not and will not have faith in this government's safeguard mechanism as a cornerstone of its climate change policy. Professor Ian Chubb found that the government agency, the Clean Energy Regulator, should be stripped of some of its roles running and overseeing the system in order 'to enhance confidence and transparency,' and it should be replaced with a new body that would have increased responsibility and independence. I call on the government to fully implement the Chubb review recommendations as soon as possible. I also call on the government to heed the concerns of scientific experts about the integrity of the ACCU. If this bill passes, it is likely that the demand for ACCUs will increase—in fact, it certainly will. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy admits that the agricultural sector will play an important role in meeting ACCU demand under the safeguard mechanism. Unfortunately, so far we've been given very little information about how the agricultural sector will meet these demands. Our farmers currently generate 16 per cent of Australian emissions, and right now countries all around the world, like the European Union, are considering tariffs on Australian agricultural imports because, in their minds, we have not done enough to tackle climate change. We know that farmers can earn credits through specific land management practices which increase and sustain carbon in soils, improve significant remnant native vegetation on their properties or reduce methane with herd management. They can sell these credits on the carbon market, potentially to our largest national emitters. Many farmers I speak to across Indi tell me that they want to mitigate the impact of climate change and play a part in reducing national emissions, but not at the expense of their own livelihoods. They talk to me about the challenges in balancing these factors. The government has clearly fallen short of supporting our farmers in recent times, but we can change this. Farmers tell me that agricultural extension plays an important role in navigating farming enterprises' farming practices in times of great change. The government's $20 million Carbon Farming Outreach Program is a good start. The program intends to develop and deliver a training package for farmers and land managers on carbon market participation and low-emission technologies and practices. It's a good start, but it's not enough. I'm calling on the government to fully fund a network of 200 agricultural extension officers over four years around our nation. The Parliamentary Budget Office have costed this policy at $132 million over four years, and I really do say to the government you must significantly expand on your initial $20 million to support farmers. They're calling for additional support, and this is a way you can do that. These extension officers would advise farmers on the technology, products and farming practices that would help them lower emissions, access carbon credits—either for offsetting or, indeed, insetting—and achieve net zero. These agricultural extension officers would be trusted and independent, and would know the farm's specific environment. And it's not just farmers calling for this. In fact, the Carbon Market Institute, an independent body focused on the transition to net zero emissions that includes a wide range of members like Qantas and Wesfarmers, recommended to the Chubb review the establishment of an extension program that supports carbon market literacy amongst farmers and landholders. They need support to make the right decisions. I've spoken to the minister for agriculture about this policy, and to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, and I know there is an appetite in government to take this on. If the government want the agricultural sector to play a part in the success of the safeguard mechanism they must support agriculture to make decisions that are good for their business and good for the environment. We must get the safeguard mechanism right, and we must do it now. We must not wait for another review. I urge the government to tighten the framework that is before them by adopting amendments that aim to genuinely reduce emissions. If they don't, the worst of climate change will be inescapable. The alternative—a healthy, safe, productive economy and society to leave behind for our future generations—is still within our reach, but only just. My constituents in Indi, like many other Australians around the nation, are watching this bill closely. This parliament was elected with a mandate to take meaningful and ambitious action on climate change—'meaningful and ambitious'. Let's not miss the chance to deliver a bill that delivers on this mandate. 18:17 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest As a farmer, I've always supported the coalition's very practical and effective approach in dealing with climate change, particularly in relation to water and water security. For us, as farmers, it's the most important part of our businesses. I've supported what we did with Landcare and clean energy technology as well. In government, we reduced emissions. We were on track to achieve a 30 to 35 per cent reduction when we looked at our 2030 targets. We also beat our Kyoto targets and we saw $40 billion invested in renewables in our time. We also made sure that Australia remained strong, that its economy remained strong, and we were a prosperous nation growing the economy by 23 per cent, even during the time of natural disasters, COVID and a range of other issues that we had to deal with. In government we supported and achieved practical emissions reductions in a system that rewarded businesses that were reducing their emissions in the understanding that transition takes innovation, significant investment and time to achieve. Instead, the Labor government is punishing businesses and industry by imposing a carbon tax—one of the highest and most punitive in the world—with mandatory reductions that will be both difficult and costly to achieve, particularly in some sectors and with some businesses. This additional carbon tax on businesses and industry for things like fertiliser, cement, gas extraction, manufacturing, plastic, steel, lithium, silica and our remaining fuel refineries will have to be passed on to consumers through higher electricity prices, higher food prices and higher prices for building materials. That will drive up the cost of living at a time when Australian families and workers can least afford it. I read recently that the IMF has said that Labor's 43 per cent emissions reduction target could cost the equivalent of at least 4,500 per household every year by 2030. In contrast, a big US survey showed the average person was prepared to pay an additional US43c a week to mitigate climate change. As I said, the five per cent year-on-year to 2030 reductions for business in hard-to-abate industries will be difficult, will be expensive and will actually take longer than expected to achieve, particularly when the technology needed to drive the reductions in those businesses is still in the innovation and development stage. I don't want Australia to lose jobs, businesses or industries. I think there are only five cement manufacturing facilities in Australia, which is 1,300 jobs and 20,000 downstream employees. Many small and medium civil-works businesses in regional, rural and remote Australia depend on the cement industry, and we can't afford to lose these companies and these jobs overseas. They are competing with cement imported from China, a country which produces over half the world's cement, has vastly lower production and labour costs and definitely doesn't have one of the most punitive carbon taxes in the world. Western Australia's resources sector is definitely in the firing line with the carbon tax. This is a sector that achieved a record $230 billion of sales in 2021, accounting for over half of the national goods exported in that year. They support more local jobs and play a critical role in carrying the nation's economy, particularly through the pandemic. As a reward for their billions of historic investment, the inherent financial risks and their hard work providing for over 156,000 people, the federal Labor government is punishing them with one of the highest carbon taxes in the world, on top of increasing energy costs, potential industrial action, strikes and pattern bargaining—all increasing the costs of doing business. And this is at a time when the shortage of labour is actively driving up costs and increasing sovereign risk to projects. Equally, business and industry have to be able to apply the lowest and most cost effective emissions reductions. My understanding is that around 32 per cent of the companies affected by Labor's carbon tax are based in WA—companies such as Woodside Energy, Chevron, Worsley Alumina, Alcoa, Iluka Resources, Tronox and CSBP. Mining companies have actually warned the government about the potential for closures. They are also concerned about the damage to exports for the trade exposed industries, given many of the companies they compete with globally are producing in countries where there are no carbon taxes at all. This, of course, means they will bear an even higher cost of production than their competitors. Those of us who live and work in and are passionate about rural, regional and remote parts of Australia know this is where these companies operate and provide the jobs. It is our communities and local jobs that are most affected. We know that the east coast LNG sector is still coming to terms with Labor's gas price caps, putting at risk new investment in LNG at a time when AEMO has said there will be serious shortages of gas and energy on the east coast. Adding to this risk, if any potential new LNG proposal considers that carbon capture and storage and/or hydrogen are their lowest cost options, this will need policy certainty but long lead times—this is the time and transition factor—however, the Labor government is actively preventing new CCS projects at safeguard facilities from being able to qualify for ACCUs. I want to talk about some of the affected companies in my electorate that will have to pay Labor's carbon tax. I don't want to lose any one of these. I don't want to see them become unviable and have to close. At Kemerton in my electorate, Simcoa operates the only silicon manufacturing operation in Australia. It is one of the largest and most modern silicon smelters in the world. The plant produces a superior high-purity silicon metal. It provides unique advantages in producing semiconductor silicon chips, solar panels and lightweight aluminium to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. However, Simcoa is caught between two conflicting policies: federal Labor's safeguard mechanism emissions reduction requirements and state Labor's ban on hardwood logging in Western Australia. Hardwood is essential to maintaining the quality and high purity which drives Simcoa's subsequent market advantage. Simcoa uses charcoal as a chemical reductant critical for stripping the oxygen atoms off the silicon dioxide—the conversion process itself. So here we have a domestic and global demand for a critical mineral necessary to help reduce emissions across a range of sectors, but Simcoa will have to comply with federal government safeguard mechanisms at the same time its processing and quality product is being compromised by WA state Labor government policy. So we can see here that, for practical purposes, there is a conflict between carbon emissions reductions and the barriers directly in the way of what is a critical mineral, silicon, needed to reduce emissions. There is no doubt that silicon is playing now and will continue to play an important and increasing role in emissions reduction in the future. The Safeguard Mechanism was originally designed to incentivise businesses, as we know, not to add to their cost of production through a punitive carbon tax. The former government was working with business and industry, really through technology and innovation, not taxes. Under Labor's carbon tax, should emissions intensive sectors not be able to reduce their emissions year on year, and if they are not able to secure enough ACCUs up to $75 a tonne carbon tax, there are penalties of $275. Albemarle in my electorate is producing another critical emissions reduction mineral, lithium, the lightest of all minerals, used in batteries, aircraft, you name it. They're in Kemerton in my electorate. When the five trains of production are commissioned, this plant will be one of the world's largest lithium production facilities. But it will have to pay Labor's carbon tax. One of the other affected industries will be the aluminium industry. There are several smelters in Western Australia. This industry is an important Australian industry, our highest-earning manufacturing export, contributing around $16.9 billion in exports to the economy each year. The three parts of this industry are primary aluminium, alumina and bauxite. We are a major global player and, more importantly, it's an economic powerhouse in regional Australia, directly employing 17,000 people and indirectly supporting 60,000 families, mostly in regional Australia. It's an industry that is affected by this Safeguard Mechanism carbon tax. Given that the primary aluminium sector in Australia is the seventh largest global producer, electricity accounts for 30 to 40 per cent of a smelter's cost base and is a key driver of competitiveness. So why make it more expensive for them? But the industry already has some of the lowest emissions intensity of alumina production in the world. They are doing what they can—some of the lowest emissions intensity in the world. We are the largest producer of bauxite, a high-earning manufacturing export and, as I said, important in employing local people. They are committed to sustainable production and recycling, whether it's bauxite, aluminium or alumina. I often feel as though the Labor government is determined to create the impression that the 200-plus entities covered by the Safeguard Mechanism are not actually committed to emissions reduction, when the opposite is the case. Our alumina industry has some of the lowest emissions intensity in the world. The sector's key global competitors in refining are China, Brazil, India and Saudi Arabia, none of which have a mandatory emissions target or a carbon tax at all, and certainly not one of the highest in the world. The two refineries in my south-west will be affected, Alcoa in Wagerup and Worsley Alumina near Collie in the member for O'Connor's electorate. The Australian Aluminium Council has indicated that aluminium is and will be one of the most widely required elements in the global clean energy transition. It is a critical mineral, and it should be added to Australia's critical minerals list along with copper and nickel. That would identify Australia as a supplier of choice, one with significant experience and success in delivering a quality product in any market. That's something positive that could be done. The Wagerup alumina refinery is one of the world's most environmentally and technologically advanced refineries, and one of the lowest emitting refineries in the world because it runs on gas. They employ so many people in my part of the world in secure, well-paid jobs locally that have set up families and workers for life and retirement. Local businesses and regional contractors have also benefited from their presence. So we can't afford to lose or compromise their operations because of this carbon tax. Over the years, there have been industries that have had challenges. We used to have about 300 dairy farmers in the Harvey shire alone. Now we're down to between 110 to 115 in the whole state. Many who were historically workers in this area have taken up jobs at the refineries. There are businesses operating in hard-to-abate sectors where deployable technology is still evolving and not yet available. What regional Australia cannot afford is to see any of our existing businesses caught under Labor's carbon tax and either forced into offshore processing and manufacturing or lost altogether. That's the 'technology, not taxes' approach that we need. The alumina industry underpins the economy of the Bunbury port. It's a major export out of that port and very important. It's a beautiful, fine white powder, for anybody who's never seen it. It is a beautiful product and one that's handled very efficiently through the port of Bunbury. It is a product that I'm particularly proud of when I see it in that form. I also see where there are serious concerns as well around a number of the businesses that come to us, not necessarily just to their peak bodies but to us as local MPs, telling us about the difficulties that they're facing and will face through this carbon tax, particularly if they're in an industry where it is very difficult and will take time and they're relying on technology and innovation. We really need at all times, for those businesses as well, affordable, reliable, dispatchable and accessible power. That underpins our manufacturing and even our households. It's something that we certainly have concerns about in Western Australia, given the state Labor government's indications about power in Western Australia as well. 18:32 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Concern about climate change is central to the make-up of the House of Representatives today. It's one of the reasons we have the crossbench we do. We were elected to tell the truth, to tell it like it is. So I'll be direct. I am concerned that under this legislation actual carbon emissions will not go down. I want this legislation to pass and to work. I really do. The IPCC's AR6 synthesis report released today builds on the already large pile of evidence that current climate policy around the world is inadequate. The report found that current nationally determined contributions, including Australia's, make it likely that warming will exceed 1.5 degrees and make it harder to limit warming to two degrees. The consequences of this are dire. True action matters for the environment, our health and our future prosperity. After extensive discussions, I supported the government's Climate Change Bill, putting into law a 43 per cent emissions reductions target. It's not enough, as I said at the time, but it was a big step forward, and the Goldstein community welcomed my amendment to make it clear that 43 per cent was a floor, not a ceiling. The government states that the legislation now before this House is a crucial building block for Australia's transition to net zero. I agree wholeheartedly that it could be. With the legislation promising to tighten the limits on safeguard facilities year on year, this could theoretically work to reduce Australia's emissions. The legislation is designed to force Australia's 215 biggest polluting facilities, those admitting 100,000 tons or more of CO2 equivalent annually, to cut emissions by almost five per cent a year through to 2030. They're so big and so polluting that between them they contribute a full 28 per cent of our total carbon emissions. But this legislation raises a big question. That is whether it's really about incentivising polluters to reduce their emissions or fostering creative accounting that allows them to offset their way out of doing so. This is a particular concern when it comes to sunset industries in the fossil fuel sector. Gas and coal companies may be incentivised to go for broke to profit while they can, buying unlimited carbon credits to offset their pollution until they phase out—carbon credits that may not even reduce emissions as they claim to. Experts have long raised concerns about the integrity of Australia's carbon credits. Some of these concerns have to do with additionality—that is, carbon credits are being issued for projects where the emissions reduction activities would have happened anyway, without the incentive of carbon credits. This means that companies purchasing carbon credits can claim they're reducing their emissions when in fact there's no net reduction taking place. This is particularly dangerous under the safeguard mechanism, where Australia's biggest polluters will be allowed to purchase unlimited offsets for their millions of tonnes of emissions—offsets that don't really offset anything. The recently completed government-commissioned Chubb review into the integrity of Australia's carbon credits recommended that projects issued with credits meet requirements that, if adopted, would go a long way to addressing their present lack of integrity. The minister has declared that the government supports all 16 Chubb recommendations in principle. Therefore I will later be proposing amendments to the legislation concerning two of the methods by which Australian carbon credit units, or ACCUs, are issued: human induced regeneration and the landfill gas method. The amendments relating to human induced regeneration and landfill gas are consistent with the recommendations made by the Chubb review—as I said, recommendations this government has agreed to in principle. The human induced regeneration method is about issuing carbon credits to projects that allow cleared native forests to regenerate. Research by experts at the ANU has found that carbon credits have been issued in instances where land was never cleared in the first place. The legislation should exclude carbon credits issued to projects under the human induced regeneration method except where they meet four criteria: one—that the land area must previously have sustained forest, which was lost at some point from clearing or another event; two—regeneration on the land must have been stopped by grazing pressure or another suppressor during the 10 years prior to the project's registration; three—the proposed reduction in grazing pressure is necessary to regenerate the area; and four—the area must not contain any mature trees and shrubs at the project commencement. These conditions, in fact, are already required of projects under the human induced regeneration method, but they're not currently being enforced by the Clean Energy Regulator. Projects are being issued with ACCUs in circumstances that are contrary to the law. Unless they meet these conditions, carbon credits issued under the human induced regeneration method should not be available to safeguard facilities. The second method my amendments deal with is landfill gas. In this case, projects that capture and destroy methane, a greenhouse gas from landfill, are issued with carbon credits. Most carbon credits issued under this method come from a handful of projects. Seventy per cent of credits for landfill gas projects are issued to just 20 sites. These projects are old, large sites using the landfill gas capture to generate electricity, also known as generation based projects. At present, regulation around baselines for the landfill gas method is inadequate. Baselines are supposed to represent the portion of methane that would be captured if the site did not receive any carbon credits. For example, if a project has a 30 per cent baseline, it means that only 70 per cent of the methane captured and destroyed at the site is taken because of the incentive provided by the carbon credits. Under the method, only the 70 per cent is credited; the baseline 30 per cent is deemed to be non-additional because it would have happened anyway. For a significant number of landfill gas projects, the baselines are too low. They do not reflect the amount of methane that would be captured if the project didn't receive carbon credits. There are two reasons landfill gas projects would still capture and destroy methane even if they stopped receiving carbon credits: (1) because landfills are required to control biogas and methane emissions under state and territory environmental laws and (2) because, at generation sites, they profit from the sale of electricity and renewable energy certificates. When the landfill gas method was originally established, the industry agreed that the minimum baseline that should apply to new projects was 30 per cent. But the oldest, largest, most heavily regulated and most profitable sites were given a sweetheart deal that allowed them to have lower baselines. Ten or so sites have zero per cent baselines. This is the equivalent of saying that some of the largest landfills in the country are allowed, under state environment laws, to emit as much biogas as they like. The effect of these concessional arrangements is that sites are getting free money for activities that would happen anyway because of regulations and the incentives associated with the electricity and renewable energy certificate markets. In effect, this is double dipping. Therefore I propose that carbon credits issued to large generation-based projects under the landfill gas method be excluded from the legislation, except where the baselines are no less than 50 per cent. For smaller projects under this method, the baseline minimum would be 40 per cent. These baselines should also be upward sloping—that is, the larger the landfill, the higher the baseline—and the baselines should increase over the life of the projects. Emissions reductions under these methods are not necessarily additional, a criterion essential to ensuring Australia's overall emissions decrease, and especially so among our largest polluters. My amendments would ensure that carbon credits from these projects cannot be issued to safeguard facilities, whose emissions are so large that we cannot afford any room for questionable offsets. These amendments are about integrity. Meanwhile, the price of these carbon offsets is capped at $75, likely lower than a free market would dictate. On several fronts the government argues that the market will execute the energy transition. Indeed, market-driven demand for offsets and resulting higher prices may be a natural incentive. Yet, with this price cap, the government seeks to artificially manage the market. This is inconsistent. I know that some of my crossbench colleagues have similar concerns and plan to move amendments designed to address this apparent anomaly. I support these amendments. Speaking of inconsistency, there is a deep disconnect between this legislation and approving new coal and gas developments. I do understand the argument that for several years gas will be needed as we ramp up renewable energy, fix the grid and enable extraction of critical minerals essential for the development of cleaner technologies. But this must not be a smokescreen for projects which are not going to aid in a transition to renewable energy but instead serve to maintain the dominance of the fossil fuel industry. It's important to mention, too, that there is a burden introduced here for other industries. Aluminium, for example, would have to overperform on carbon emissions reduction to compensate for unlimited new gas and coal. The government, it appears to me, is creating a problem while trying to solve one. To that end, I'm also proposing to bring forward the time line for review of the safeguard mechanism's policy settings. The government has said a review will take place in 2026-27. This is too late. The review should be conducted in calendar year 2025 so that necessary adjustments to the safeguard mechanism can be made sooner to ensure we're on track to reach our 2030 emissions reduction target. There may well be arguments that this shorter time frame makes it harder to present reliable data, but my proposed time line will give us up to a year and a half's worth of information. Given the urgency of the challenge, the sheer quantity of carbon emissions the safeguard facilities emit, we must have some evidence as early as we can to make sure the scheme is working and, if it's not, modify it so it does and the legislated 43 per cent cut does not disappear in a cloud of smoke. The answer to climate change cannot be found in low-integrity offsets. The IPCC calls for deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It is essential, therefore, that the legislation represents the urgent, robust and effective reduction in emissions committed to by this government and that it creates true emissions reduction. 18:44 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia The introduction of Labor's safeguard mechanism is an attack on the hi-vis workers of Australia and the heavy industries that keep the lights on in our country. The safeguard mechanism is carbon tax 2.0 with a facelift that only serves to punish the people who drive our economy. Not unlike the carbon tax of the Gillard era, the safeguard mechanism serves to place a dollar figure on carbon emissions. When Julia Gillard introduced her carbon tax, the price she put on a tonne of carbon was $23. Now the Albanese government has decided that each tonne will cost a business $75, and by 2030 it will increase to $100 a tonne. The climate change minister announced in January that 215 heavy industry businesses will be required to purchase credits. It will also be mandatory for these facilities to cut their emissions by five per cent every year until 2030 in order for Labor to hit its climate targets. The 215 businesses—two of which are Australia's last oil refineries—include 66 coal mines, 36 gas facilities, 26 iron ore mines and 49 manufacturing facilities. Of those 215 businesses that will be hit, 63 are located in Queensland. All but two of these businesses are situated in the regions. Central Queensland will become the epicentre for Labor's carbon tax, with almost 75 per cent of the facilities located in just two federal electorates. Twenty-eight operate in my electorate of Capricornia and 18 in the electorate of Flynn. Some of the facilities affected in my electorate include a rail freight facility, a magnesium processing plant and a number of mines across the electorate, all of which contribute heavily to the economy. In Capricornia alone the total economic contribution of the resources sector in the 2021-22 financial year was worth over $315 million in gross product and 1,918 locals were employed in it. One hundred and sixty-six local businesses and charities situated in my electorate of Capricornia shared $50 million in direct spending in this same period. Coal, metal and gas mining has pumped $9.4 billion back into the Queensland economy and one in every six jobs in the state is within this sector. There are 14,303 businesses and 1,415 charities that have all shared in $27 billion of direct spending. Nine billion dollars in royalties from the resources industry was put back into Queensland through funding for our hospitals and upgrading key infrastructure. There have been many federally funded projects that without the wealth of regional Australian mines would never have happened. Major projects in my electorate of Capricornia, such as the $45 million Rockhampton Airport redevelopment, $136 million for flood proofing the Bruce Highway into Rockhampton, $183.6 million for the Rookwood Weir project and $166 million for safety upgrades to the Eton Range, were all made possible by the resource industry. While the resource industry has been a mainstay of the Australian economy for the past 100 years, the strength of the industry was particularly noticeable during COVID—supporting the Australian economy it helped cushion the blow of damaging economic impacts that have been experienced over the past few years. The growth within the resources industry has been nothing short of astonishing. In 20 years, the gross value added to the Australian economy grew from $35 billion in the 2000-01 period to $222 billion by 2020-21. The announcement by the Labor government to impose a carbon tax has a more far-reaching effect than just on the companies operating these facilities. It will affect how much families pay to switch a light on and put fuel in their car and will lead to higher grocery bills. In my electorate of Capricornia families and businesses are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. A local, family-run bakery in my electorate has been struggling to keep up with the costs of skyrocketing power prices, wage increases, raw materials and transport costs, which are on the rise each week. Another constituent of mine lives in the rural town of Clermont which is over three hours from his closest major hospital. Unfortunately, he has been diagnosed with cancer and makes a six-hour round trip to his closest major hospital for treatment each week. These necessary journeys now cost this pensioner $200 extra a week to his budget and continue to grow as the months go by. Under this Labor government the cost to the bakery and my constituent will only go up, as more taxes are imposed to punish the industries that carry the nation. This will, in turn, be passed onto consumers—the mums and dads raising families, and the pensioners and the small family-run businesses that are the backbone of the economy. During this cost-of-living crisis, what these people need last is price hikes on the basics, such as food and power, because those opposite need to meet a legislated target. Right now, our focus should be on supporting new technologies that can deliver affordable and reliable energy as well as supporting the industries that can deliver this. Queensland supplies the world with elements, minerals and metals, supporting the economic development of Australia and many other nations. Australia is on the edge of a key resources mining boom to meet the high demand for critical minerals that are required when creating low-emissions technologies, batteries and electric vehicles. An electric car requires six times the quantity of minerals than a regular vehicle. A wind turbine requires several more times the quantity of minerals than a gas- or coal-fired power station. More than 220 tonnes of coal is needed to build a wind turbine. It is a rather inconvenient truth for climate activists that in order to decarbonise our nation we need more mining. This is a key to reducing the living pressures families, right across Australia, are facing. With the cost of living already bringing people to their knees, now is not the time to impose new legislation to make it harder for families or risk heavy job losses across an industry that has supported Australia to become what it is today. The previous government invested about $2.5 billion in resource industries that support us. Thousands of new jobs were created to help families and the towns in which they live. The coalition had the road map to reach net zero by 2050 without sacrificing the economy through loss of productivity. Unlike the Labor Party, we believe in technology, not taxes, to achieve these goals. There was $22 billion committed to bring down the cost of low-emissions technologies, such as hydrogen, ultra low-cost solar, green steel and the aluminium industry. Investment in these technologies resulted in up to $132 billion of investment in the private sector, and 160,000 Australians were supported through employment. These industries are proven to bring growth and support the economy. Yet the Labor government are wanting to impose further legislation to stifle the industry and prevent further growth and investment—while, in turn, driving up household bills even further to meet their climate objectives. The push by Labor and the Greens to meet their objectives is destroying land that is prime agriculture pastures and national forest. As I'm seeing in the town of Eungella, in my electorate, the Labor Party are willing to sacrifice pristine wilderness that is home to the platypus and is one of Queensland's most ecologically diverse national parks. This government are so determined to meet their targets that they are willing to provide $32 million to the Queensland Labor state government's hydro project that will destroy subtropical rainforest and agricultural land that is the food bowl for Central and North Queensland and ruin the lives of those who will be forced out of their homes. This is all so that people in the cities can feel better about where their power comes from. This is not to say that the coalition is against emissions reductions. As the Leader of the Opposition has stated, the coalition does support emissions reductions. What we are not backing is Labor's move to legislate taxes to reach targets. Our country and its people cannot afford the economic ramifications of stopping major infrastructure development. In my home state, the state Labor government increased coal royalties and this has had major negative impacts across Central Queensland. Following the Palaszczuk government's decision to create higher coal royalties, BHP suspended its plans to build a new coal mine, causing the loss of $1 billion investment into the region, and 750 construction jobs and 1,200 mining jobs were lost, while BMA, that has delivered $17 billion back into the Queensland economy, has stated they will not make further investments into Queensland. These decisions have dire consequences for the small rural towns that rely on these mines to boost their economy. Nationally, the effects of the safeguard mechanism are already beginning to occur, with Ampol revealing that they will suspend investment decisions worth hundreds of millions of dollars due to Labor's energy policies. During the coalition's time in government, we supported a carbon trading scheme that allowed businesses to voluntarily reduce their emissions while being rewarded. Labor's changes to the safeguard mechanism will force businesses to buy credits. This is a tax. The safeguard mechanism carbon tax 2.0 is going to drive up living costs at a time Australian workers and families can least afford it. Businesses will be forced to pass the increased cost of production on to consumers through higher electricity prices, higher food bills and higher fuel costs. During a time when we as a parliament must look at putting downward pressure on inflation, interest rates, cost of living and business, the Labor government is determined to make decisions that will negatively impact the industry and everything that relies on the benefits that resources bring. Our economy is already under the strain of a Labor government, and we are not 12 months into their leadership. Labor do not have tangible solutions to see our country through the cost-of-living crisis. Their only plan is more taxes—taxing the companies that drive the economy, bring investment to the regions and deliver jobs that support families and the community. It is clear that energy intensive companies and agribusiness, transport and mining will be hit. That is why we got rid of the mining tax and the carbon tax. Day after day the Prime Minister talks about everything but the cost of living—the No. 1 issue Australians are facing. This government has broken multiple promises to ease living pressures and instead has taken actions which have directly placed pressure on interest rates and electricity prices. Families and businesses across Australia are still waiting on the promise delivered 97 times during the election that their electricity bills would be reduced under a Labor government. By the government's own admission, power prices are set to rise by more than 63 per cent, and gas by 40 per cent, over the following two years. Families and businesses cannot afford this. New solutions, not taxes, must occur. The global demand for mineral and energy commodities will continue to accelerate as new technologies are calling for large supply of our resources. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are on the line if the Labor government continues with the regime of punishing the resources sector with taxes. The ones to suffer will be families and communities that greatly benefit from the industry. 18:57 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I rise to speak on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. Today's IPCC Synthesis report confirms that the climate crisis is pushing us to the brink of an irreversible catastrophe. We have already seen the devastation caused by extreme weather, intensifying heatwaves, catastrophic fires and floods, climate driven water and food insecurity and irreversible losses to vital ecosystems. Today's report told us that a child born today is likely to experience three to four times as many extreme climate events in their lifetimes as their parents have, and that the world will be as much as four degrees hotter than today by the time that child is 80 years old. But the report does sound a note of hope: there are still feasible and effective ways to reduce emissions to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees. This will require every country to fast-track its climate efforts in every sector and on every time frame. The IPCC has also told us that if that policy effort was consistently applied across the world, in every sector of every country, we would see a halving of global emissions. We cannot make real progress on Australia's emissions reductions with a flawed safeguard mechanism. We cannot meet our 2030 reduction targets with the safeguard mechanism currently before this House. Urgent climate action requires an effective safeguard mechanism. It requires big polluters to cut their emissions. We have already seen what legislative failure looks like in this space. Under the Abbott and Morrison governments, facilities subject to the safeguard mechanism actually increased their pollution. Baselines was set so high that they drifted happily above each facility's actual emissions levels, like a methane-filled Hindenburg, floating flatulently above the horizon of our climate hopes. Even when those baselines were breached, no facility was penalised by the Clean Energy Regulator. The only effective way to decarbonise our economy is to stop generating new emissions. The next best way is to minimise and then to abate those emissions. The last and least effective option is the use of carbon offsets. The government's legislation will allow heavy polluters to purchase Australian carbon credit units and safeguard mechanism credits. But we have to realise that a carbon offset program can never really neutralise the effect of emissions. Planting trees will never equate to preventing pollution. In Australia we're painfully aware of how millions of hectares of forest can be destroyed by fires, which are becoming more frequent and more catastrophic due to climate change. Meanwhile, pollution remains in the atmosphere for centuries after any forest stops absorbing carbon. Our current offsets program lacks integrity. The recent Chubb review revealed that carbon credit payments have gone to individuals who claim to restore vegetation that was never really threatened, to property owners who returned land to natural vegetation via natural causes and to people for burning landfill gas. Australia's offset system is laughable, yet this system continues to dominate the amelioration strategies that are critical to the safeguard mechanism, which we are debating today. It is extraordinary and deeply disturbing that this government has set no limits on carbon offsetting under safeguard mechanism 2.0. Rather, it proposes that facilities can use any combination of ACCUs and SMCs to offset up to 100 per cent of their harmful emissions. This means that we have joined the Republic of Kazakhstan as one of a small but very select group of two wealthy countries that allow big polluters access to 100 per cent unlimited offsets. The government isn't even asking facilities to try to demonstrate genuine efforts to cut their emissions. While this remains the case, any real prospect of the scheme reducing emissions is gone. The Parliamentary Library found that the cost of using purchased carbon credits would be less than 0.1 per cent of the profits of the big fossil fuel companies. Can we realistically expect those companies to do anything else than go down the 100 per cent offset pathway? Unlimited offsets give these companies a cheap and an easy way to account for emissions, rather than making the genuine cuts we need by investing in process and technology changes. It has been suggested that offsets might become so expensive that it won't be feasible for high emitters to rely on them. For that to happen, they would have to increase in price by several orders of magnitude for their costs to represent a real burden to industry. However, the government has chosen to cap the price of ACCUs. Should the market drive the price higher, the government proposes to supply them at the capped price with taxpayers forced to cover the difference. High emitters will be able to continue with their cheap greenwashing, subsidised by Australian taxpayers. Most ACCUs in Australia are derived from the land sector. If the safeguard mechanism triggers an explosion in supply of those offset, the land impacts of offset plantations will be severe. Last week I met with Farmers for Climate Action who are concerned about the potential for cashed-up fossil fuel companies to buy up our farms and to use quality agricultural land purely for the purpose of greenwashing their expanding emissions footprint. Consistent with the findings of the International Energy Agency, we have to stop licensing and funding new fossil fuel projects. We know that 116 new coal and gas projects are in the development pipeline in Australia and their projected emissions are equivalent to those of 200 coal fired power stations. Many are export projects with no viable role in a clean future economy. Those likely to proceed this decade could generate enough emissions in 2030 for the coal and gas sector alone to exceed this safeguard mechanism's entire emissions budget. Every new highly polluting project our government approves adds to our overall emissions and the difficulty of achieving Australia's national emissions reduction target. Like so much of our dodgy climate accounting, this safeguard mechanism fails to include the emissions produced by the fossil fuels that we export. Allowing 100 per cent offsets on the emissions from the extraction and export of fossil fuels is akin to the miracle of the disappearing carbon. The problem is there's no such thing as a miracle. Carbon from our coal and gas exports will be emitted overseas at the point of burning, and those emissions are not accounted for in our accounting. These new coal and gas projects will leave no room for non-fossil fuel facilities currently covered by the safeguard mechanism, such as those for iron ore, fertiliser, cement and aluminium. The new fossil fuel projects will consume the limited supply of high-integrity offsets, making them more expensive and less available for those hard-to-abate sectors of our economy. These industries could well become uncompetitive if they are forced to shoulder a bigger burden to allow for new fossil fuel developments. In its current form, this legislation does not differentiate between projects important to our future economy and the fossil fuel projects which should be phased out. The only provision in this legislation dedicated to new entrants is the application of as-yet undefined international best-practice baselines. Baselining new facilities in line with global best practice should mean that they replace less emissions-effective facilities over time via market forces. But, under the new proposed settings, new entrants will be given the same emissions decline rates as existing facilities. They'll be allowed unlimited use of ACCUs and SMCs to cover their emissions obligations. Trade exposed industries will have access to government assistance and may even be allowed access to a more lenient baseline decline rate. It's perverse. A further problem is the move to baselines assessing the intensity of emissions rather than absolute emissions. In practice, this could allow individual emitters to increase their overall emissions as long as they decrease the intensity of emissions per unit of production. In so doing, they could generate safeguard mechanism credits and then sell them to other companies which are above their baseline. Absurdly, under this scenario, the proposed reforms would actually incentivise facilities to increase their overall emissions, even as they're improving their emissions intensity. In order for the safeguard mechanism to be effective, facilities have to demonstrate real progress in achieving emissions reductions before they can purchase offsets to meet their regulated baselines. We have to have a hierarchy of offsets. True abatement must come first, followed by abatement elsewhere in the sector via safeguard mechanism credits, with ACCUs to be used only in limited numbers for a limited period as a last resort. Over time, we must ensure that the use of offsets, in absolute numbers, is phased down. Those offsets have to be of greater integrity than those supplied in the flawed system review by Chubb. Government funding provided to facilities must be used exclusively to support genuine process and technology changes. Public funds should not be spent on technologies which have already failed to demonstrate a clear benefit. We should be committing to investments analogous to those supported by the Inflation Reduction Act in the US, which will drive the rapid development of new net-zero carbon technologies at scale. We should not pursue short-term wealth by continuing to prop up fossil fuel infrastructure destined to become stranded assets. New fossil fuel facilities must be required to account for all of their emissions without reliance on offsets outside the scheme. In practice, this would mean that new fossil fuel entrants have to achieve net-zero emissions from facility commencement. New coal and gas facilities should not have access to special deals or supports intended to help existing facilities cut their emissions. New gas projects disguised as expansions through use of existing processing facilities have to be seen and classified as new projects. New fossil fuel projects should not have access to more lenient baseline decline rates through trade exposed baseline adjustments. These special conditions should be reserved for those facilities in genuinely hard-to-abate sectors essential for Australia's ongoing development to a net-zero-emissions economy. We should separate fossil fuel facilities from hard-to-abate sectors. We should cap their emissions separately, irrespective of expansion or new developments. Total emissions for gas and coal have to be progressively lowered, and intensity measures must not be allowed to overrule caps or baselines. The safeguard mechanism legislation should ensure that total emissions caps are protected, at every level of governance, against gaming by the coal and gas industries. The previous government and this government have produced legislation allowing big polluters to increase their emissions as long as they buy offsets. As it has been presented, this legislation will not drive investment in renewables and it will not stop the opening of new coal and gas projects. The proposed safeguard mechanism 2.0 does not require a single company to even begin to decarbonise. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Mr Bowen, has repeatedly told us that his 43 per cent target for emissions reduction by 2030 is a floor, not a ceiling. There is a flaw in the safeguard mechanism. The flaw in the safeguard mechanism is the lack of ceilings—ceilings on the emissions released by facilities under the mechanism, ceilings on the amount and number of offsets, and ceilings on the damage done to our climate and the carbon released into our atmosphere. Getting the safeguard mechanism right will deliver enormous benefits: continued prosperity in a zero emissions economy, new job and industry creation through innovation, and a livable environment for Australians in the decades to come. If this government is serious about climate change, the safeguard mechanism has to have an explicit plan for diminishing emissions over time. It must address the question of new entrants to the scheme and it must cap the use of offsets. We need all sides of this House to work together to improve this complex, vital piece of legislation. In its current form, it's very far from perfect. It's hard even to call it 'good'. Kooyong elected me to support urgent and meaningful climate change. This bill falls far short of that, but I support it in the hope that this government will allow amendments to its third reading and that, with time, we can effect the change that we all need to see. 19:11 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy It's wonderful to look back and realise that I said that, if you free-market the electricity industry, then you will skyrocket the price of electricity. One of our members of parliament in the political party I belong to, the KAP, never gives a speech where he doesn't say that Peter Beattie said that, if we privatise the electricity industry, there will be more competitors and the price will be forced down. When he said this, the price was $674 a year. The price went over $2,000 a year, and now it's over $3,000 a year. Why did it go up to $2,000? The free marketeers tripled the price of electricity in Queensland, and, when they'd finished with us, we had the environmentalists, and they've taken the average price of electricity up another $1,000 a year. There are people in this place that argue that solar power is cheap and, actually, it is. In fact, I might even say that it's very cheap. But, because there's no-one buying the grid system power—coal-fired power—during the day, in order to keep the power stations open, they've got to increase dramatically the price of their power because otherwise they'd simply have to close the power station. I don't know if anyone in this place actually thinks about the country or about our society, but both sides have said that affordability is the big question. You talk of affordability, and you're going to abolish the coal-fired power industry. All I can say to you is that you will increase by another $1,000 a year the price to consumers. My street in Charters Towers is a very good example. There is only one house out of the 23 houses in the street that has solar panels, and that is the house of the only rich people in the street. All of the rest of the people on the street are on moderate incomes or are retired pensioners. Not one of them has solar panels on the roof. The only rich people in the street are the only people with solar panels. So the poor people are paying three times as much for their electricity to subsidise the rich people. The rich people on our street happen to be me and my wife. My wife is the rich one, not me. We have now taken ourselves into a situation where the poor are subsidising the rich. Infinitely worse is that the government are imposing cost structures upon industry. The Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 imposes those cost structures. In dog-eat-dog international trade is where the rubber meets the road. If you can't compete, then you'll become a Third World country. We still describe ourselves as an advanced industrial country. Well, someone else can decide about 'advanced', but one thing that we're most certainly not is an industrial country. We're even a mining country. Mining is when you dig out of the ground and sell a metal. We dig out of the ground and sell the ground. That's called quarrying, so we're a quarrying country—the most primitive of activities is left to the Australian people. There is no doubt in my mind—and I want to put this on the public record by saying it in the House now—that by imposing these costs upon industry in Australia you will lose the steel industry, the aluminium industry and maybe even the copper industry. They will all be gone. So what do you have left of industrialisation? When I went into parliament some 50 years ago and when I went into the ministry 40 years ago, all of your household appliances were made in Australia. Your car was made in Australia—72 per cent of cars were made in Australia. All of your petrol was made in Australia. Now, none of the household appliances are made in Australia, none of the cars are made in Australia and none of the petrol is made in Australia. If you want to buy everything from overseas, that's fine; that's your choice. But you've got to sell something, and we have nothing to sell. When Jan Carstensz wrote a report on northern Queensland for the governor of Batavia, he said that the place was inhabited by people who didn't wear much clothing, spent all their time on their beaches, didn't appear to do much work and produced nothing of value to the rest of the world. When I quote this, I'm constantly regaled by people laughing and saying, 'So what's changed?' But—like the last bit—we don't produce anything of interest to the rest of the world, except iron ore and coal. So you take out the coal. Let me be very specific. The last time I looked at the figures, there were only three export items: coal, iron ore and gas. The gas was given away, so we get nothing out of the gas. I'll quantify that: we get $600 million out of the gas. Qatar produce and export the same amount of gas, and they get $29 billion. We pay $49 for a unit of gas when—the fertiliser plant in Mount Isa's paying that sort of figure, I would imagine; that's the cost of gas in Australia—in America, they're paying $6. There are people in America paying $4 a unit. How can they possibly compete? The fact is, they can't, so they, like everything else, are doomed to fail, and they're doomed to fail because you're handicapping the horse with weight that it simply can't carry and be competitive in the race. Here, tonight, we are putting yet another huge burden in the saddle pack of our horses that we bet on and we depend upon for our income. If you want to keep the hospitals open, then you've got to earn money. If you close the coalmines in Queensland, you close the hospitals, because there's no way there will be enough money to keep them open. In conclusion, China is building our solar panels. They're building 200 coal-fired power stations. Whilst they send all the solar panels to the morons in Australia, they in fact are going into coal. You've got to say, 'Well, who's smart here, China or Australia?' I know where I'll be putting my money on that one. Not only are we going to be priced out of the world market; we are not going to have enough electricity to switch the lights on. That's not my comment; it's AEMO's comment, and they're dead right—8,000 megawatts are going offline over the next four or five years as the coal-fired power stations close. Congratulations to you all for closing the power stations, but there's a little problem: you can't switch the lights on because there are only 2,000 megawatts coming on from Snowy 2.0. The crossbenchers have done a wonderful job here, and I'm very proud to be one of them. We're talking about transportation, and we can lower our emissions footprint, I think, by about 23 per cent if we proceed down the pathway that we're proceeding down. So don't turn the lights off and don't cost us out of the world market. The patron saint of greenies, Al Gore, in his book said his first solution was ethanol. Have a look at the world map of ethanol countries. There are only two countries that have no ethanol: Australia and Africa. That is not including, of course, the oil producing countries; they don't have ethanol. But all the rest of the world—except for that very small number of countries that are the oil producers—is on ethanol. It's the first solution, and it's the easy thing to do. Of our total exports of $400 billion, instead of sending $40 billion overseas every year to buy fuel we can produce it here in Australia ourselves, so the $40,000 million goes into Australian pockets and not overseas. In the meantime we are going to cut emissions by 23 per cent, yet after all the pain you have inflicted upon the people of Australia you have got to 16 per cent over 12 years. There are poor people on my street that are paying three times more for their electricity than they should be when the rich people are laughing because they've got solar panels on the roof. There is no fairness, no justice, no intelligence, no good sense, and there will be a day of reckoning for the people in this place. If you, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, and the major parties can't see it coming, just look at the political reality: more than one in three people voted against you at the last election. Neither of you got more than one in three, but we, the people on the crossbenches, got more than one in three. They're trying to tell you something. Even the most avowed anti-Green such as myself has always said we need a pullback on the CO2. Even before it became popular, when I was still in the state parliament, I said, 'When you've got something increasing at an increasing rate, there is a problem.' Where I come from we use the expression 'you take a bit of a pull on the reins'. As far as I'm concerned you've taken no pull off the reins but you've shot the horse out from under you completely. Let me be very specific: 8,000 megawatts are vanishing. Eraring and five other major power stations in Australia have announced their closure over the next five years. In that same period of time, the much maligned Malcolm Turnbull, and I'm most certainly no fan of Malcolm Turnbull, I can assure you—I'm sorry about this, fellas, but he goes down in the history books because he is the only one who has increased our ability to be able to produce electricity, with the Snowy 2.0. There are 2,000 megawatts coming on from Snowy 2.0 and 8,000 megawatts going off, and AEMO has told you that you won't have any power. Even if you want to build a coal-fired power station now, even if you want to do that, there's a nine- or 10-year wait time. So already you are in a situation where you can't supply the electricity. Instead of moving at 100 miles an hour to fix the problem you're going to close more coal-fired power stations. I wish someone here followed science. I wish people here just understood what the hell they're talking about. Don't live in a fairytale fantasy land of the latest fashion ideology, of saving the globe and saving the planet and all those sorts of things. Live in reality land, where there is a problem, and an increasingly worsening problem, with CO2. I don't go along with climate change, but in the oceans a very serious problem arises if you keep pumping CO2 up there. A very serious problem arises in the oceans—speak to the scientists and they'll tell you—so we need to pull back. We can pull back 23 per cent of our emissions by doing what the crossbenchers are advocating in the area of transportation. Now let me turn back to electricity. I know a lot about it. As I said at the start, I was the first person in Australian history to put in a standalone solar system. I got a lot of fame and fortune out of it. Later on, I was the minister for electricity in Queensland when we had the cheapest electricity in the world by a long way—$674 a year, and it's now over $3,000 a year. Now, this is what you do: you build a 2000-megawatt Heliae algae pond power station. What's that? It's coal fired but you are producing CO2, and CO2 is a magical asset. It can be fed to algae, and the algae will make diesel for you—and I pay a tribute to the minister for the environment, Tanya Plibersek, because she actually knows the names of the algae which you can use to produce diesel fuel or fodder for pigs, chooks, cattle, human beings and fish farms. Algae is a very valuable stockfeed. It can be used either way. (Time expired) 19:26 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney In May 2022 communities across Australia, including my own in North Sydney, set a clear message to this place of national government: climate inaction and prevarication needs to end. And we, sent here by our communities, must do everything we can to ensure faster, tangible action to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. This is not to say we should act irresponsibly, but rather we must embrace all of the skills and thinking present in this place, and across our wider community, to develop smart ways we cannot only take stock of where we are but also can enact a transition plan which will ultimately transform not only our economy, but more broadly our place in the world. As I stand today to speak on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, the weight of my community's faith that I will speak their truth in this place is something that I am honoured to carry. I need to be clear: in its current form the safeguard mechanism bill does not meet my community's expectations. It is not bold enough. It is not ambitious enough. And, ultimately, it is much less than this government could do given that, more than any other government in the past 100 years, this government has been given a clear mandate to move our country forward in a nature-positive fashion. While this legislation is not perfect, it does provide us with the scaffolding for a more effective framework to drive productive change at an industrial level. The question then that I believe we must answer as we debate this legislation is: are we brave enough to make decisions today, the ramifications of which will be long felt into the future in a positive fashion? This legislative amendment should not be looked at as simply a short-term solution to deliver on a political promise made at the last election. Rather, it should be seen for what it really is, which is one of the most important first steps in fundamentally transitioning and transforming our future economy so that both our nation and our planet can thrive. In this context, I am committed to working with the government to ensure petty party politics does not ultimately impede what can be a very important and significant step for our nation. Just this past week, the latest Australian Productivity Commission report specifically called out the hodgepodge of narrow and sometimes inconsistent federal, state and territory abatement measures that impose unnecessarily high costs on the community while delivering ineffective abatement. From my perspective, the Productivity Commission report adequately described the limitation of a framework that is arguably the result of a series of decisions made within the context of successive election cycles, rather than from a true leadership mindset. Describing the decarbonisation of the economy in the next three decades as a huge transformation, the commission warned that the difference between doing it efficiently and doing it poorly will be a major determinant of the living standards of all Australians. Indeed, the report said the economic costs of this approach are increasingly apparent, laying bare the reality that decisions to avoid technology-neutral, economy-wide abatement mechanisms— (Time expired) ADJOURNMENT 73 ADJOURNMENT Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 73

Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022

19:30 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I pay great tribute to my honourable colleague here, who is actually doing something about lowering emissions. When you burn ethanol, CO2 goes up into the atmosphere. It's exactly the same as if you burn petrol; CO2 goes up into the atmosphere, but there's one hell of a difference. Sugar cane, or the grain, pulls it back down again, so it's going up and down instead of going up and staying there. But she's doing it to save lives. A Californian study, which went over 16 years, led every country on earth to move to ethanol to save lives. If you double the emission level, you double the number of people who die of heart and lung disease. The only person in this place who seems to be worried about it seems to be the honourable member. Morris Iemma said: 'I cannot go another day with the death of people who simply don't have to die on my conscience.' That's why every country on earth, as far as I can make out, is on five per cent. In Brazil it's 49 per cent, and the price of petrol in Brazil is $1.29. Wouldn't it be lovely for us to have petrol at $1.29? Dick Honan was selling it in New South Wales for something like 25 or 30 per cent lower than all of his competitors when he was allowed to put ethanol in the tank, but now he's not allowed to put any more than a very minuscule amount in. The only countries on earth, it appears, that are not using ethanol are ourselves, New Zealand and countries in Africa. If the honourable member is listened to, then the patron saint of environmentalists, Al Gore—and I recommend the book. I'm an anti-green myself, but I think that anyone who reads the book will get a good scientific hold on what the problem is, how serious it is and what needs to be done. Dr Katharina Fabricius of the Australian Institute of Marine Science is considered to be one of the best environmentalists in the world. She said that, if you increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, you increase the carbon dioxide in the ocean, and this tends to change the pH level; it becomes more acidic. She asked, 'You know what a shell is?' I said: 'It's calcium carbonate. That's a base, an alkaline.' She said, 'If we increase the acidity of the ocean, what happens to the shellfish?' I said: 'Does that matter? They're not the bottom of the food chain.' She said, 'They are.' She said that you need a magnifying glass to see most of them. You might question climate change, but you can't question the effect on the ocean. The unassailable scientific argument is there, so we need to pull back. This meagre, measly piece of rubbish that we're talking about tonight imposes an extra burden upon industries for no good purpose, whereas what we on the crossbench are advocating will almost completely eradicate transportation emissions and reduce our emissions by 20 per cent in the space of four or five years. Over 20 per cent—23 or 24 per cent—of our emissions can be reduced, but we're not going down that pathway; we're going to fool around at the edges. We've fooled around at the edges over 15 years now, and we've reduced it by 16 percent, arguably. That is assuming that when you put the solar on the roof there is no cost in CO2. As I've explained previously, on many occasions, you burn up an awful lot of CO2 in producing that solar panel, which, in any event, has to be replaced after 20 years. If you're not cleaning it every eight or nine days—think of how many times you clean your windscreen. Once a week? Once a fortnight at least? That's what you have to do with solar panels. Does anyone in Australia climb up on the roof and clean their solar panels? No. Our instructions, when we put the first system in in Australia, was: every eight or nine days you need to clean the solar panels to get them to work properly. As fair-minded, objectively minded people who come from all points of the political spectrum, we can agree to make it better, but the major parties don't— (Time expired) 19:35 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Today the IPCC report was released, and it is a sobering read, just like all the previous IPCC reports. It is a call to arms, and it only confirms what Obama said—that we are the first generation to live through the consequences of climate change and we will be the last generation that will have a chance to do something about it. It also sounded a note of hope, and that was the sound of a gun that was fired last year, through the passage of our historic Climate Change Act. That gun sounded the note of climate action, a clarion call to the rest of the world, sending a signal to markets, giving businesses and industry the policy certainty they needed in order to invest in Australia, in her ambition and her future. It laid out across the sky that Australia was open for business, but we also know that, since the passage of that act, storm clouds have been gathering. Those storm clouds have been getting closer and closer, and they threaten to rain on our parade. I speak of the Biden administration's passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which, in combination with the CHIPS act and the infrastructure bill, pours the equivalent of A$3.2 trillion on the green shoots of green industrialisation in the US. In its scope and magnitude, it is simply overwhelming. I congratulate the United States for acting on climate change in this way. As we know, for decades congress has been gridlocked on this matter. Through the passage of these acts, the US is moving, but there are always winners and losers. The effect has been surgical in some parts of the world, particularly in Europe. We have seen capital and businesses move across to the US. The car industry has gone, in some cases, followed by battery manufacturers. We've also seen the movement of fledgling green hydrogen industries to the US, based on the fairly generous tax incentives and subsidies that this conglomeration of acts provides. There's no question that this historic series of acts has exerted a gravitational pull. The US is drawing in capital and talent. What does that mean for Australia? The first thing is that we on this side of the house understand that our green hydrogen industry is exposed, but we're also doing something about it, and that's the key. The energy and climate ministers met on 24 February. They identified that this was a threat to our industry and committed to refreshing our green hydrogen agenda, and it can't happen too soon. Why? Because four days later a multimillion dollar green hydrogen project in the Hunter was put on ice. We know that the Inflation Reduction Act is there, an ever-present force in Australia, but it is actually not our enemy. The enemy is complacency. For too long, Australia has been a nation that has rested on its laurels. We have been the world's quarry, without considering the value-add. That is something the Albanese government is addressing through its National Reconstruction Fund, which is pivoting this country to a manufacturing nation, modernising it. We're going from a commodity driven nation to a more complex, diversified economy, and green hydrogen, along with all our renewable energy, will be a core enabler of that mission. But that's not all. Complacency was driven from this House through our work on housing, skills and visa reforms, as well as health. All these things underpin a healthy and vibrant economy. In terms of our actual work in green hydrogen, we're sending rivers of money down—over half a billion dollars to support green hydrogen hubs in Gladstone, the Hunter and the Pilbara. This is also in concert with the $20 billion we're investing in transmission, because green hydrogen cannot happen without renewable energy captured from the sun and our wind—massive natural endowments that are then sent to the manufacturing hubs we're going to be installing. I close by saying that the IRA and similar schemes incorporating these incentives are threats to our domestic industries, but it is also highly motivating on this side of the House because it has forced us to lean harder towards this green boom. Queensland: Health Care 75 19:40 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert Primary health care in Australia is in crisis. We know that for a fact. Getting in to see a doctor is becoming more difficult. People are doing it tough. GPs are doing it tough. They are being asked to do more for less and with less. Medicare needs to keep up with the times and increase its funding. We need to see more bulk-billing and we need to provide patients who are struggling with cost-of-living pressures with the ability to access help for minor health conditions before they become chronic, lifelong, costly problems. There have been plenty of challenges in this area for some time. But there is something that reared its head towards the end of last year that is going to have extremely costly impacts if it's not addressed. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has done a survey of its members and found that this challenge will result in almost 20 per cent of general practices being forced to close, nearly 80 per cent of GPs passing an increased cost on to patients as gap payments and increased fees, and many GPs leaving general practice altogether. In my electorate of Herbert, it will have a massive negative impact for the people of Townsville. This challenge is coming from a familiar enemy to common sense and good governance—that is, the Queensland state Labor government. One of these challenges is payroll tax. This sick tax which GPs have never had to pay is now going to hit them because of a recent tribunal ruling. To be honest, I don't think that the payroll tax is a good tax. But this tribunal found that tenant GPs who pay a percentage of their earnings to a clinic, rather being on a paid wage, count as employees for payroll tax purposes. Why is paying payroll tax a problem for GPs? Because GPs are generally not employees. The RACGP says this decision disrupts established business models for practices which now face the inevitable choice of charging patients more or shutting up shop. Most GPs don't own clinics; they are sole traders, contractors, who provide their service at a practice. They don't get annual leave or maternity leave, and GPs who own clinics already pay payroll taxes on wages payments to reception staff, nurses, practitioner managers. We know how tight these practices are already. Overheads are going up, but Medicare funding isn't keeping pace. Any additional cost like this is going to result in a huge disruption to health and care for our community. The last thing we need when we're all begging for more doctors in our communities is for GPs to give up the profession. We cannot afford to see a huge drop in the number of patients being bulk-billed. We cannot afford to see patients being charged extra. We cannot afford increased ambulance ramping at our public hospitals, which are already at breaking point in Queensland. The Queensland state Labor government, after this decision, could have come out and said very clearly that they will change the rules for GPs and provide an exemption. Instead, the Treasurer has been licking his lips, seeing only a new revenue stream to help plug his budget black hole. At the very least, he could have said this new definition applies from now on. Instead, his Queensland Revenue Office has said it won't audit the last financial year. That means the GPs will be slugged last year's payroll tax, and they'll also be up for paying it indefinitely. We know how hard it is to see a GP, especially in the regions. It can be quite challenging, and we see more people leaving the profession. We could do more to support our GPs by allocating more funding to WIPs, or workforce incentive programs, and PIPs, or practice incentive programs, which will help our GPs to be able to do the awesome job that they do. I remember some years ago when I saw my GP, there was an intern in the practice. That intern was a trainee GP. They would sit there and help with going through the process and going through the initial assessment. We saw a spike in people wanting to become general practitioners. But that has now gone, and WIPs and PIPs have also fallen by the wayside. Now we see less people wanting to be a GP, which is a fantastic career. I would encourage people to take up that program. Education 75 19:45 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt One of the most important things in life is education. My mother always used to tell my brother and me that education is priceless and will serve you for the rest of your life. I couldn't agree more with mum, and I always took her message to heart. Education is also a core focus of the Labor Party and this government. We know that empowering everyday Australians with the priceless gift of education is what helps to break intergenerational poverty, increases employment prospects, increases Australian innovation, and maintains our status as an education nation. This is why I'm so proud of the Albanese Labor government's investment in fee-free TAFE and VET courses for all Australians across the country. In my state of Victoria, there are more than 55,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places on offer in 2023. This comes after a crucial agreement between the federal and state Labor governments to address current skills shortages. This investment of more than $250 million will deliver a substantial boost to our skills and training sector. This investment will help support around 26,900 placements in the care sector over the next 12 months and address roughly 3,800 early childhood education and care places. It will also greatly assist my state in reaching its target of 64,700 new workers in the education, health and community service sectors by 2025. These investments alone are crucial to my constituents, as my electorate of Holt is one of the youngest in Australia. In particular, the demand for early childhood education and care is through the roof. This agreement also directly increases the opportunities and participation of several priority groups including young people aged 17 to 24, those currently out of work or receiving some form of income support, unpaid carers, people with disability, some categories of visa holders, and women studying in non-traditional fields. There are many certificate III and IV courses available, such as the Certificate III in Commercial Cookery, which I completed back in the day. Look where it has led me! Another fantastic course I completed was a cert III in school based education support, which directly led me to volunteer at AMES Australia, an experience I will always cherish. Other great opportunities include courses in agriculture, community services, disability, mental health, youth work, cybersecurity, ageing support, allied health assistance and many more. As we know, this investment is targeted to provide tailored support and empowerment to various sectors of our community that require extra support to get them into the programs they desire. We are making this investment because this Labor government always puts people first and invests in them. We know it is the people who make this country great. It is also important to realise that this investment does not happen in a vacuum. Everything is connected. These education paths will flow on to create positive effects on our economy. Not only are those who obtain skills likely to find jobs with higher incomes and greater job security, thus helping to break up the gig economy, but it means there are more disposable incomes to spend in the wider economy, spending more in hospitality, in small businesses and in the community. When this investment is paired with the Albanese government's signature policies like the National Reconstruction Fund and the Housing Australia Fund, we start to see the wider picture. Education opportunities opened up by this investment directly complement other investments by providing skilled workers to kickstart our domestic manufacturing, again through the NRF, or by constructing more social housing every year through the housing fund. We are getting on with job for all Australians, so families like yours and mine are not left behind. HomeBuilder Program 76 19:50 Mr S 242515 Deakin UKKAR () (): The highly successful HomeBuilder program, a scheme which continues to support thousands of new homebuyers and builders, is at risk under this Labor government. Worried HomeBuilder applicants at risk of losing their grants continue to contact my office, seeking our support to lobby the government to have the deadline extended. Anguished parents contact me on behalf of their children who are at risk of missing out on this significant assistance through no fault of their own. Housing projects have now been put at risk, with the government refusing to grant a further extension. Hundreds of aspiring homeowners across the country, therefore, could lose grants of up to $25,000 just because of supply constraints and unanticipated delays in the construction of their homes. Other delays, including administrative delays at a state and local government level, are causing these problems. At a time when every dollar counts, first homebuyers committed to purchasing a home with the assistance of the HomeBuilder grant, through no fault of their own, are potentially under financial stress because the Labor government will not assist them. The HomeBuilder program gave Australians confidence and support to build or rebuild a home during a period of great uncertainty, as well as protecting jobs and boosting economic activity in the residential construction industry. We used housing policy to address other important objectives. We put in place the HomeBuilder program when the term 'valley of death' was the grim assessment from the residential construction industry, with 500,000 jobs at risk at the beginning of the pandemic. The program, which at that time provided $25,000 in grants for those who built a new home, which was derided by the then Labor opposition, resulted in 137,000 HomeBuilder projects generating $120 billion in economic activity, so, far from seeing jobs lost in the residential construction industry, we saw an industrywide boom. This was the perfect marriage between economic stimulus and our ongoing objective to support and encourage more first homebuyers—and you don't hear the term 'first homebuyers' from this government. This showed beyond any doubt that a government focused on homeownership can get results. With the 30 April deadline fast approaching for HomeBuilder applicants to provide their supporting documentation, including evidence of construction commencement, the opposition is calling on the Labor government to urgently provide an extension of time to all existing applicants to ensure that they do not miss out on receiving their grants due to circumstances that are beyond their control. I'll use the example from the former coalition government. On the 17 April 2021, I as minister provided an extension of time to HomeBuilder applicants, allowing them at that time an additional 12 months to commence construction from the date the building contract was signed, and we implore the government to do the same. It is a very simple administrative fix. During this cost-of-living crisis, and with the added pressure of housing supply shortages, participants in the HomeBuilder program should not have to face financial hardship or have their projects jeopardised because the Labor government refuses to make this minor administrative change. Responding to 9News Gold Coast in March, the housing minister revealed she has no plans to extend the deadline. Sadly, on any measure, the drift from the Albanese government in this respect is a concern. With first home buyers dropping, rents rising, new home sales dropping and construction activity in the residential industry dropping, things are getting worse, not better. The last thing that we can have now is Australians who, in good faith, have met all the criteria of the HomeBuilder grants and undertaken their projects but through no fault of their own are experiencing delays—whether because of supply chain difficulties or administrative delays in getting homes approved at a state or local government level—missing out on grants that they would otherwise receive. It's very simple for the Labor government: with the stroke of a pen, extend the deadline and ensure that hundreds of young Australians don't miss out on the HomeBuilder grant that will set them up for their future. South Australian Government, Spence Electorate: Manufacturing 77 19:55 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence The past week has been quite a victorious one if you're from my state of South Australia. These achievements occurred one year after Peter Malinauskas led South Australia Labor back into government after only four years in opposition. That means my predecessor, the former member for Spence Nick Champion, has now been part of the Peter Malinauskas Labor government as the Minister for Planning, Minister for Trade and Investment and Minister for Housing and Urban Development for over a year now. Time really does fly. The government has a number of accomplishments stemming from the statistics alone. Roughly 48 per cent of its election commitments have been fulfilled in their first year in government. This brings me back to some of my first speeches on policy and legislation in this place, applauding our government for enacting legislation that formed part of a policy taken to the election. A couple of the many hallmarks of good Labor governments, federal or state, are a meticulous eye for keeping to election commitments and enacting big reforms and big moves, affecting states and the nation for years or generations into the future. Another hallmark is one that we do here every single day: correcting the mistakes and mess of the previous government. Conversely, good Labor governments have taken the mantles of policies enacted by previous governments where it has been in the national interest to do so. Also within the last week, we have seen one of these policies come to fruition. That is, of course, the recent announcement made under the AUKUS partnership—one with long-lasting and positive benefits to South Australia. When the Prime Minister met with the UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and US President Joe Biden last week, for many in South Australia it ushered in not just happiness but also a great sense of relief. To provide some historical context, we must go back to 2013 and to the floor of this very chamber, where the Treasurer of the day, Joe Hockey, made his infamous remarks daring GM-Holden to close up shop and cease operations in Australia, at a time when they were seeking financial support from the government so they could remain afloat. And what happened next? Well, one of two things would appear to be true. The first scenario involves Joe Hockey believing GM-Holden to be making idle threats and merely bluffing. The second scenario involves a wilful indifference to the consequences of GM-Holden following through with the statements they made about ceasing operations in Australia without further government support. Whichever way you look at it, neither scenario paints Joe Hockey and senior members of the government at the time in a particularly good light. I don't know much of the character of the man in order to pass proper judgement. I don't even know if he's any good at poker. But for the measure of a man I look to a quote from famed psychiatrist Sigmund Freud: 'Who knows? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.' You can simply say, at this point, the rest was history. An iconic automotive manufacturer closing anywhere within Australia is a tragic set of circumstances, but this occurred in the very heart of my electorate of Spence, named Wakefield at the time. Thousands of jobs were lost both directly and indirectly. Manufacturing is the lifeblood of the northern suburbs of Adelaide. The northern suburbs had been built as a satellite city around a manufacturing industry—one that many felt had its death knell rung the moment Joe Hockey told GM Holden to leave. But up north we are a resilient and innovative bunch. In the very place where Holden cars drove off the factory floor, there is now a place where mushrooms are cultivated by the Epicurean Food Group. Without such innovative ideas, the old plant would remain empty and serve as a reminder of what once was to those driving past. The north has built a burgeoning and thriving defence industry alongside RAAF Edinburgh and DSTG. With the AUKUS build taking place in South Australia, we now have a better degree of certainty. But now the Prime Minister has renewed the Australian government's vows to South Australia— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the time for the adjournment debate has concluded. The House transcript was published up to 20:00 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Stevens ) took the chair at 16:00.

Tuesday, 21 March 2023

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 79 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Goldstein Electorate: Home Energy Efficiency Expo 79 16:00 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Last weekend I was pleased to partner with Bayside City Council to host the Bayside Home Energy Efficiency Expo. This groundbreaking event brought our community together to explore ways to help make houses and apartments more energy efficient, exploring insulation and draught proofing, solar panels, induction cooking, batteries, electric vehicles and more. Members of our community were involved in discussing what action is taking place at the federal level, at the local council level and at the community action level and what people can do in their individual homes. I shared the stage with Bayside City Council Deputy Mayor Jo Samuel-King; local community leader Nina Sharpe; and Tim Forcey, the founder of the Facebook page My Efficient Electric Home, which has more than 82,000 followers. The event was attended by several hundred people, in an extraordinary show of interest. That shows us many things: that the community want to actively participate in driving down their emissions, and they want to know what we're all doing together to do that. It shows that levels of government can successfully work together to actively engage with households to help drive change and support the process of making homes more efficient, whether they're privately owned or rentals. It shows that the social licence for this change exists within our community and that people want to be actively engaged in working together. It shows that people want to talk face to face with those who have practical experience with installing panels and hot-water systems, getting off gas and electrifying everything. It shows they want to sit in an electric vehicle and discuss how actual owners have overcome their range anxiety or charging concerns—and thanks to the Victorian EV Association and vehicle owners who brought their cars along and shared their knowledge. Above all, it shows people want to understand how they can address their cost-of-living concerns by taking up renewable energy. An interesting fact from Tim Forcey is that people can reduce their winter heating costs by 60 per cent by using their reverse-cycle air conditioner for heating instead of their gas ducted heating. And, if you're renting, you can place bubble wrap on your windows, especially those in rooms that you don't look out of much, and it can perform comparably to double glazing. This was a great practically oriented event. Thanks to all of those who attended, participants and especially Bayside City Council for your collaborative commitment to reaching net-zero. New South Wales State Election 79 16:02 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton This Saturday New South Wales has a chance to vote for a fresh start by electing a Minns Labor government. After 12 long years, four Liberal premiers, endless corruption scandals and political infighting it's time for a fresh start in New South Wales. Chris Minns and his Labor team are offering that fresh start. I have the honour of representing the federal electorate of Barton, and I work closely with all my outstanding state colleagues: the future Premier, Chris Minns in Kogarah; Steve Kamper in Rockdale; Sophie Cotsis in Canterbury; and Jo Haylen in Summer Hill. I have known Chris and his wife, Anna, and their three wonderful boys for a number of years. I have great confidence that he will be a strong and a very good premier, a premier who listens and who acts. He will act by delivering on his Fresh Start Plan for New South Wales, including restoring a world-class education system with more investment in preschools, schools and TAFE; repairing and rebuilding our health system after 12 years of neglect; introducing nurse-to-patient ratios; backing local manufacturing by building the Tangara replacement trains at home; a plan for cost-of-living relief, with a $60 weekly cap on road tolls; a plan to create a New South Wales energy security corporation, a state owned body that will accelerate investment in renewables and deliver cheaper and more reliable energy; and ending privatisation of state owned assets. A Minns government will abolish stamp duty on properties worth up to $800,000 for first home buyers, introduce a conditional rate for first home buyers purchasing homes worth up to $1 million and appoint a rental commissioner to make our state a fairer place to rent. This is what a fresh start for New South Wales looks like, and I urge the people across our great state to elect a Minns Labor government this Saturday. I will be handing out on Saturday with the colleagues I referred to. I am very confident that the Minns team will do extremely well this coming Saturday in New South Wales. Multiple Birth Awareness Week 79 16:05 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes This week is Multiple Birth Awareness Week. It was fabulous to see the Australian Multiple Birth Association in Parliament House yesterday. I am proudly the mother of twins, James and Nicholas. I acknowledge my federal colleagues the honourable member for Boothby, who is the mother of triplets, and the honourable member for Werriwa, who is also a mother of twins. I also acknowledge all the parents of multiples within my electorate of Hughes, particularly my good friends James and Melissa Caroll of Como. We first met at the prenatal multiple birth clinic when Mel and I were pregnant. We sustained and nurtured our friendship when my boys and her girls, Alicia and Jessica, were babies, then through their childhood. They are now good friends and, coincidentally, attend school together. Both Mel and the Southern Sydney Multiple Births Association, known as SSMBA, were integral to me maintaining my sanity when our twins were young and, as a first-time mum, I really had no idea what I was doing. I probably still don't know what I'm doing, but don't let my sons know that! I also recently met with the new president of SSMBA, Lauren Smith, and I commend her for her leadership of this important community organisation. Multiple Birth Awareness Week's theme this year is equality for multiple birth families. Multiple birth families need more support than they currently get in Australia. Multiples are more likely to face greater challenges in their earlier years, necessitating additional dedicated support. In Australia, families with multiples receive no additional support, notwithstanding the modest multiple birth allowance afforded to higher-order multiples and subject to rigid means testing. I speak from personal experience on this. As I said in my first speech in this place, the swings and roundabouts of life are borne out through my return last year to Canberra in winter following my election. In 2006 my husband, Michael, and I were flown by emergency air ambulance—thank you, Royal Flying Doctor Service—to Canberra Hospital, as I had slipped into labour at 26 weeks pregnant and there were not a sufficient number of neonatal intensive care beds in my home state. Our twins, James and Nicholas, arrived 13 weeks early, with one weighing one kilo and the other weighing 930 grams—or two pound two and two pounds, respectively, in the old system. At the time, we had no idea what lay ahead. Very premature babies, many of whom are multiples, face significant challenges throughout their lives. We remain eternally grateful for the care the boys received from the Canberra Hospital neonatal intensive care unit as well as the support given to Michael and me during the many months we were living down here. Other costs faced by parents of multiples include much larger prams and parents often having to take earlier leave than expected. In my case I left work at nine weeks earlier than I had anticipated. Our twins are now almost 17 and we could not be more proud of them—although they could keep their bedrooms cleaner! Hindmarsh Electorate: Australia Day Awards 80 16:08 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh Today is the first opportunity I have had to rise and record my congratulations to and appreciation of the citizens in my electorate of Hindmarsh who were recognised in the Australia Day Honours List for 2023. I want to recognise: Dr Elizabeth Coates AM, who was recognised for her significant service to special needs dentistry and oral health care; my friend Ms Mary Patetsos, who was recognised for her very significant service to multicultural Australia and to aged care through a range of different board positions; Mr Geoffrey Ambler OAM, for service to the community of Salisbury; Mr Russell Duncan OAM, for service to the community through not-for-profit organisations; Mrs Jennifer McDonald OAM, for service to conservation and the environment; Mrs Helen Bales, who received the Australian Corrections Medal; and Mrs Donna Dunbar, who received the Public Service Medal, the PSM, for outstanding public service to the residents and employees of the City of Charles Sturt. I particularly want to place on record my extraordinary delight at seeing the recognition of the service of Alexandra Vakitsidis, now Alexandra Vakitsidis OAM, for her service to the Greek community of the western suburbs of Adelaide. I was delighted to be able to provide a reference for her nomination for that award. I have had the pleasure of knowing Alexandra for almost my entire time as the member of Port Adelaide and then as the member for Hindmarsh. Alexandra migrated to Australia at just 17 years of age, about 55 years ago, and has not wasted a day since that time giving back to her community. In 2010 the World Council of Hellenes Abroad awarded Alexandra the woman of the year award for her promotion of Greek culture in Australia, Asia and New Zealand. A few years later, in 2015 the Greek Orthodox Church honoured Alexandra with the prestigious Golden Cross Class of the Holy New Martyr Agathangelos of Florina. And a few years after that she was made Citizen of the Year in the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. For decade upon decade Alexandra has volunteered tirelessly and provided leadership to the Greek community in the western suburbs of Adelaide, from day-to-day support of older members of her community to the famous Semaphore Greek Festival held on the esplanade down in Adelaide's west. She has always done it with a smile. Every year she leads a choral group to provide funds and fundraise for the hospital research foundation based at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and holds her Australia Day barbecue, which I attended, again, with the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Treasurer and many other members of the western suburbs. Congratulations to all recipients of Australia Day honours, but particularly to Alexandra. Energy 81 16:11 Dr 281688 Mallee WEBSTER () (): When people in my electorate of Mallee are worried about something they frequently ask me to bring the issue into the chamber and to bring it to the attention of the government. I defy anyone here in this chamber today to tell me that energy prices are not a significant concern for businesses in their electorates. Mildura Fruit Juices Australia is a big manufacturer and exporter in my electorate. They are Australia's largest independent processor of fruit juices. General Manager Hugh Baird has told me his company has had to reduce its intake of grapes this season due to the now unviable energy cost to evaporate the grapes into concentrate. The company anticipates that over 2023 its energy costs will increase to $1 million. They are continually investigating energy efficiency options with little to no commercial alternatives and little government support. These options include biofuel production, solar energy and other renewables, but to no avail as there are very few alternatives to energy required for steam generation and freezing. Due to these high energy costs the viability of the business is currently under review by the company's management and the board. This could result in significant cutbacks or potential business closure, at a huge loss to the local community in terms of not only jobs but an iconic brand. And Mildura Fruit Juices Australia is not on their own dealing with the pressures of high energy costs. In the south of my electorate, Mortlock Hydroponics has been a tomato grower near Carisbrook for more than 20 years. They supply tomatoes to the major supermarkets as well as other markets in Sydney and Melbourne all year round. Growing manager Ian Mortlock has told me that in June last year the only gas contract he could get was for $40 a gigajoule—a 400 per cent rise on his previous contract. If Ian had continued with the same gas usage after June last year his bill would have equated to $1.7 million. To avoid closure and laying off his 35 to 40 staff Ian's operation just used less gas, which of course affected his yield. Since the last contract expired in December, and post the Labor government introducing their $12 per gigajoule price cap, Ian can't get more than a month to month contract from his gas retailers. This uncertainty has raised doubts for Ian in planning for his next crop. This was always the worry with the Labor government interfering with markets. It has affected gas retailers' confidence— (Time expired) Housing 81 16:15 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara Last week I was very pleased to join my friend and colleague the Minister for Housing and Homelessness, Minister Collins; the Victorian housing minister, Colin Brooks; the City of Port Phillip mayor; and many other community members, architects and builders to officially open 42 wonderful new community housing homes right in the heart of my electorate in Balaclava. These are architecturally spectacular apartments that will change the lives of the residents who move in there. They are modern, they are disability-accessible and they have solar panels on the roofs; in fact, they have insulation with an 8.2-star energy rating. They are fantastic, modern examples of inner-city architecture and living, and they are going to be home to community housing residents. I couldn't be prouder to have been there and to know that the federal government partnered with the state government and the local council to help deliver these fantastic new apartments. Of course, there is a bit of a history on the site. You'll remember that the previous government had a policy to build car parks around every corner; everyone got a car park, during the last government. And they committed $15 million to the Balaclava car park, but they hadn't actually had any conversations with another layer of government, whether the state government or the local council, because they would have found out that that land had already been set aside for these wonderful social housing facilities and homes, so naturally, in all their glory, they decided to retract that $15 million—policy-making at its finest. But it does bring up a serious point: that the pressures around housing are real, and the pressures around rental properties are real, and we need to be building as many homes as we possibly can, especially social housing homes. There is a pool of money currently sitting there, waiting for this parliament to take action. It's currently in a bill in the other place, in the Senate, where a fund will be set up directly to invest every single year in construction of homes just like the one we opened in Balaclava. I hope those opposite and the Greens do not bandy together, that they do not join an alliance against social housing and against domestic violence places and against housing for our veterans and against affordable homes for frontline workers. I hope this parliament does something sensible and brings the federal government back to the table in building homes, just like the wonderful ones in my electorate. Leadership 81 16:18 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman We have much to be thankful for in the Longman community and in this great country we live in. Families are struggling with the costs of living, and we are enduring tough times. However, my experience has been that the greatest lessons are learnt in defeats, failures and times of uncertainty. Every government has extraordinary events thrown at them, be it stockmarket crashes, recessions, pandemics, conflicts—there's always something; that is life. But it is the job of the government of the day to put in place legislation and solutions to soften the blow of any of these events to ensure that the pain for the Australian people is minimised. When I speak to constituents, they say they are tired of hearing the problems from politicians; they are crying out for solutions. They're not interested in the personal attacks and the slanging matches that are commonplace in this place. They are desperate for their political leaders to do just that: to lead. I've seen and served under great leaders in my life, whether on the sporting field, in the corporate or business world or in the political world. They had many great character traits, but there are two I would like to mention today. The first is that truly great leaders accepted the cards they were dealt and went about finding solutions, not constantly talking about the problems. Secondly, they didn't blame anyone else—their predecessors or outside factors. They just got on with the job of developing and implementing solutions to the issues they faced at the time. Unfortunately, in this place far too much time is spent worrying about the next election. With three-year terms, this creates so much short-sightedness and a lack of long-term vision. It is imperative that as a country and a government we have not only a short-term vision of up to five years but a 10-, 20-, 50- and 100-year vision as well. I'm talking about visions like a water grid that covers the vast barren inland of our continent. The benefits of this would be substantial. One benefit would be decentralisation, as much more of the land would be habitable. This would create less demand in places that are overpriced and overpopulated now, such as South East Queensland, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, and therefore drive prices down in the real estate and housing market, an issue that simply must be addressed, or most of the next generation will never achieve that great Australian dream of owning their own home. Sadly, I am not hearing solutions and vision now; all I hear is doom and gloom and the reasons things can't be done, and too much time is spent lamenting about the past. It's time to lead, to talk with courage and positivity about our future and to get on with delivering for our current and future generations. So, to the people of the Longman community, I say: stay positive; be grateful for the great location we live in and that we reside in the greatest country on earth; and things will get better in the future. Higgins Electorate: Environmental Conservation 82 16:21 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins When I came to office, I was surprised at the number of local environmental groups who beat a path to my door. They were people from all walks of life—some retired, others of working age—all committed to climate and environmental action. Then the penny dropped: these groups had sprung up due to a wasted decade of climate denialism and delay. Rather than retreat, they had rolled up their sleeves and gotten on with the work. The KooyongKoot Alliance, led by Graham, brings together around 20 groups devoted to remediating the largest tributary of the Yarra River. Stretching for 30 kilometres, the KooyongKoot has suffered from the pressures of a growing city. The riverbanks are quite lush in those parts not suffocated by concrete, but the water is cloudy and hostile to life. The scope of the problem—cutting through multiple local and federal jurisdictions while navigating the juggernaut of property development—has not deterred the alliance. Bev, 87 years strong and a member of Back2Nettleton, a local community group dedicated to rejuvenating Nettleton Park in Glen Iris, recalls swimming in Back Creek, a tributary of the KooyongKoot, as a child. Back Creek could one day return to its former glory, thanks to the efforts of these community groups, and I certainly hope that happens. The KooyongKoot Alliance has gone from strength to strength, garnering funding support from the Andrews government and an agreement from three councils. Thanks to their mobilisation, the City of Stonnington was successful in obtaining $1 million from the Albanese government to convert a dog park into a natural wetland fed by the KooyongKoot. The project will enhance biodiversity and wellbeing and assist with flood mitigation, and it would not have happened without their engagement. Back2Nettleton, born in the darker days of this pandemic, brings locals together twice a month on working bees, to effectively bring back the bees. Focused on removing weeds, planting Indigenous understorey plants and soil improvement, this hill tribe, as affectionately described by Ruth, has strengthened community bonds. Bringing back the critters, I've learned, is all about the understorey. Led by Alison, Rewilding Stonnington has worked tirelessly to banish the nature strip, a misnomer given that most nature strips are biodiversity deserts. Rewilding Stonnington will be getting a well-deserved boost thanks to a $250,000 grant from the Albanese government to rejuvenate marginal land bordering Toorak. My tour of Toolangi Forest by Helen and colleagues for Malvern ACF, as part of Higgins CAN, was eye-opening. Native habitat destruction is not compatible with our climate and extinction emergencies, and seeing it first hand was a revelation. I'd like to thank the friends of groups in Higgins for their contributions to our community. Moncrieff Electorate: School Leaders 82 16:23 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I've been very busy visiting local schools to present the 2023 school leaders certificates and to engage on the topic of leadership. Thanks to Mr Cross and the student leaders from Miami State High School for inviting me to your investiture ceremony. It was a proud moment for all of you to be presented with your badges. I met with school leaders at lovely Musgrave Hill State School and presented their certificates. Thanks to Ms McGuinness and Ms Hall for organising that visit. The Broadbeach State School Student Leadership Ceremony celebrated diversity and inclusion. Thanks to Mr Langes and Mr Jenks; it was a delight to see the eager and energetic students and to dish out the cake to all of them afterwards. Thank you to Principal Elmore at St Michael's College. It was inspirational to hear the leader's goals and aspirations for that school. Ms Rebgetz and her team from the Queensland Academies Health Sciences Campus gave me a very warm welcome indeed, and it was wonderful to acknowledge the school leaders for all of their hard work. Principal Hughes from Southport State High School organised a morning tea with student leaders, and we had a terrific round table to discuss their roles and what the students hope to achieve this year. To Merrimac State High School and Principal Cutajar, I say thank you for having me at your seniors assembly. It's always terrific to speak with school leaders and hear about what drives them forward. I was also humbled to attend and speak at the student assembly at The Southport School, a school led by headmaster Andrew Hawkins. I commend the teachers and students for the recent welcome to Moncrieff, with over 1,300 foundation supporters, of former prime minister John Howard. The TSS a cappella choir, the drum line and the catafalque party were all outstanding, and I felt very proud of our community as we welcomed him. I will move on to wonderful Ashmore State School and Principal Karen Brown— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:26 to 16:37 Ms BELL 282981 and Ms Wells for organising their leadership assembly. The students and I talked about public speaking and they asked for a few tips on how to beat those pesky nerves. At each school I touched on what I believe are the three Ls of leadership, starting with listening to what people have to say. It is important to actively hear with empathy what others say and mean. The second is to commit to a lifelong journey of learning, because learning simply does not stop when you finish school; it goes far beyond that throughout life. The third L is to always be leading by example. Young people especially cannot be what they cannot see, so examples are the showcase for leadership skills. Time doesn't always allow for visits to all schools across Moncrieff at this time of year, so to all schools in the central Gold Coast, I congratulate your leaders and wish you all the very best for listening, learning and leading by example. I am so proud of your achievements as young people, setting the example for your student body and your peers. You have a great responsibility that you have embraced to help youth around you and lead the way to your better future. Spence Electorate: Motorsport 83 16:38 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence As a proud member of the Parliamentary Friends of Motorsport, I thought it would be a great opportunity to speak about a great motorsport club located within my electorate of Spence. This club is a proud club that punches well above its weight, as we tend to do in South Australia. On the weekend just gone, the club I am speaking of will likely be back at the top of the list for the best karting track in the country. I am of course speaking about the Southern Go Kart Club, a place where I used to ply the craft of searching for the fastest race line, jostle for pole position—or at least think I was—and swing on spanners, all in the name of getting that racing fix. There is something about being around fellow racing enthusiasts, smelling the two-stroke, listening to engines warm up, watching teams tweak their setup, looking for tenths of a second in extra speed and seeing karts hurtle around the track. The Southern Go Kart Club at Bolivar has just had a track upgrade, thanks to state government funding, to improve safety and to add approximately 200 extra metres to the overall length of the course. I must say I'm looking forward to taking a kart out on the track at one of the club's come-and-try days and seeing these upgrades from the race line firsthand. Some great technical aspects have been added, and the track surface is absolutely first class. It was fantastic to have the state minister for sport, Katrine Hildyard, in attendance to formally cut the ribbon and give a heartening speech to the large crowd ahead of qualifying heats in the afternoon. Also there was the local deputy mayor for the City of Salisbury, Chad Buchanan. This is a club that has opened its arms to racing enthusiasts of all ages and abilities for over 60 years without judgement, encouraging participants to have fun whilst competing, make friends and maybe win a trophy or two along the way. Throughout its history, Southern Go Kart Club has seen some of the biggest names in Australian motorsport race at the track, including Daniel Ricciardo, Marcos Ambrose, Jamie Whincup, Oscar Piastri, Mark Winterbottom, James Courtney, Chaz Mostert and Russell Ingall, to name just a few. But no matter how good the race field that is gathered, you must have the dedicated club volunteers driven to ensure the club is successful, and Southern is no different. Brett Fortania as club president and Clint Smith as club secretary, along with their whole team, really do a sterling job ensuring everyone has a great day and all remain safe. In closing, the 2023 City of Adelaide titles will be on 20 and 21 May. This is going to be a cracker weekend, with plenty of great racing, so get on down to the Southern Go Kart Club and enjoy the atmosphere. BILLS 84 BILLS National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023 84

National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023

Second Reading 84 16:42 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I thank the minister for introducing the National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023, as accountability and trust in medical professions and our healthcare industry are all too important today, not only within the industry at large but within the general public as well. This is an interesting bill. It seems simple, and I think there's pretty much general agreement across the parliament that this is a good thing, but it is also a demonstration of how medical practice has changed in the more than 40 years I've worked as a paediatrician. In days gone by people had their own general practitioner, often in a solo practice, providing after-hours care, home visits and pretty much holistic care for the whole family. My uncle Hyam Emdur was a GP in Newtown for over 60 years. When he was 91, and still practising, I asked him, 'Uncle Hyam, why don't you retire?' And he said, 'Because I hate gardening and I'm too young for bowls.' Practice has changed since those days. We used to have the community pharmacists who'd run his pharmacy, often staying open all hours, day and night, compounding medications, making up medications, making up children's medications and solutions, and really working very hard for the community. But these days things have changed, and we are now in an era of corporate medicine and corporate pharmacies. Most of us who live in the cities know that there are now things like Chemist Warehouse and the pharmacy chains that provide most of the care. And the pharmacy business has changed as has, indeed, the amount of money that we spend on medication. This legislation tackles the complicated issue of inappropriate PBS prescribing by pharmacists, company directors and company owners and holds to account those individuals who act in a fraudulent manner so that they can be prosecuted. The legislation was introduced years ago, without the knowledge that corporate pharmacies would be the order of the day as they are now. I do have some concerns about fraudulent practice in the pharmaceutical and pharmacy industries, the same as in medical practice. There are always outliers—doctors, pharmacists, other health professionals—who are willing to take risks to make money. This bill is important, as it focuses on the issue of inconsistency. The power to suspend or revoke the approval of a pharmacist who was charged or convicted of PBS related offences applied previously only if they were an individual pharmacist, not if they were working for a company. Currently, it does not apply where the approval is held by a pharmacist operating in a company structure, and that is now the majority of pharmacists in Australia. This bill, thankfully, rectifies this as it provides discretionary power to the minister and the secretary to suspend or revoke the approval of a pharmacist who has been prosecuted on PBS fraud offences, regardless of whether the approval is held by an individual or held under a company structure. If we fail to act, fraud will continue to take healthcare funding away from those who need it most. We know that our pharmaceuticals costs are increasing, with millions of dollars being inappropriately taken from taxpayers and the Department of Health by criminals through fraudulent behaviour. A notable example of this occurred in June 2022, when a former New South Wales pharmacist was sentenced to more than six years imprisonment for conspiring to defraud taxpayers of more than $19 million through fraudulent PBS claims. I can see how this could happen, particularly in higher-turnover pharmacies. It's true that it happens rarely, but it does happen and the potential is there, so it is very important that we have legislation that can deal with these sorts of situations in corporate pharmacy practices. It is very disturbing that this could happen and also very sad. It's abuse against our healthcare system. This legislation will strengthen the government's ability to protect public expenditure through the PBS, and again, it highlights the Labor government's commitment to protecting, strengthening and restoring faith in health care. It also forms part of our plan to address the cost of medications and to bolster the PBS. For example, as of 1 January this year, our government helped millions of Australians save money on their medications by reducing general co-payments for scripts by $12.50. It is the first time this has happened in the history of the PBS, and it is very important for constituents in my electorate of Macarthur and, indeed, across the country. Particularly for families who have a number of children who often require medications for things like asthma and respiratory infections, reducing those costs significantly improves cost-of-living pressures for many families throughout Australia. It's worth noting that Labor has a strong history on health care, with the PBS being introduced by the Curtin and Chifley governments in 1949, Medibank by Gough Whitlam in 1973 and Medicare under Hawke in 1984. I look forward to the Albanese Labor government bolstering our track record on health over the coming term, but there are storm clouds there. I cannot stress enough the importance of having appropriate access to primary care for some of the most disadvantaged Australians. At the moment, we are at risk of developing a two-tier health system. I know that, in my electorate of Macarthur and in other disadvantaged areas around the country, many people are struggling to access primary health care. This is putting enormous pressure on our hospital emergency departments and on our GPs—and on our students, because fewer and fewer of them are wanting to enter general practice. We need to make sure that we are providing incentives for people to train as general practitioners and make sure that we are supporting our GPs to continue to bulk bill and to see some of the most disadvantaged people in our communities. As I've said, this bill strengthens the government's ability to improve compliance and reduce inappropriate practice by corporations, directors and indeed some pharmacists. I'm pleased to note that many industry stakeholders such as the Pharmacy Guild and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia support this. It's another small step by the Albanese Labor government under health minister Mark Butler, improving access to care, making sure that the reputation of Australia's healthcare system remains one of the best in the world and making sure that people can continue to access 21st century health care in an economy that is under stress because of worldwide events. In this parliament we can ensure that we close loopholes for fraudulent abuses against the PBS. We can improve access to care. We can protect the integrity of our health system and provide Australians with peace of mind that they are getting the very best and most efficient health care system we can provide for them. 16:51 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023. Firstly, I want to commend the member for Macarthur for his contribution but also for his record in this space. I quickly want to touch on the two-tiered health system that he mentioned. I share his concern. As a young man growing up, raised by a single mum with five kids, I was fortunate to be a beneficiary of the Medicare system and the healthcare system that we have. We do need to do everything we can to ensure that this system is sustainable, that there is not a two-tiered system and that everyone can have access to health care. That sustainability is so important, as is the PBS. This bill is important because the PBS is a key part of providing all Australians with medicine and reducing the costs. We need to make choices. We can't afford to put every medicine on the PBS, but we need to do everything we can to put as many medicines as possible on the scheme. The reality is that the people who need those don't need it by choice; clearly it is a cost burden on them that they have to invest in. I have heard horror stories of people in my electorate having to decide between buying food, getting their medicine or paying their power bills. That's the reality of the cost-of-living crisis that we are in. It's an ongoing struggle that Australians have had for many years and will continue to have. That's why we need to do all we can to continue to support the PBS. I'm glad that this bill has bipartisan support. It's why I wanted to speak on it and share my contribution. The coalition does have a strong track record of providing Australians with timely and affordable access to effective medicines, cancer treatments and services, and the coalition remains absolutely committed to ensuring Australians have access to affordable medicines when they need them. We have a proud record on affordable medicines, having listed almost 3,000 new or amended medicines on the PBS when we were in government. As the cost of living skyrockets, the PBS is going to be more vital than ever for families and for pensioners. Whatever we can do to ensure the sustainability of the PBS is important. This bill, National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023 amends the National Health Act 1953 to support the sustainability and operation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. When a pharmacist has been approved to supply pharmaceutical benefits at a particular premises, the approved pharmacist can then make claims for payments from the Commonwealth in relation to the supply of these benefits. The bill extends the discretionary power of the secretary and the Minister for Health and Aged Care to suspend or revoke approval for a pharmacist to supply pharmaceutical benefits at a particular premises irrespective of whether the approval is held by an individual or under a company structure. Currently if an approval is held by an approved pharmacist corporation and a director is charged with a PBS related offence, they can continue to receive payments from the Commonwealth despite being charged for fraudulently claiming these payments. The government has noted that the measures support a sustainable PBS, which is vital, and the integrity of public funds to ensure that these can be invested in access to new and improved medicines. But we do have some concerns that the government are not prioritising investments in improved access to potentially life-saving or life-changing medicines. Earlier this month the Labor government quietly removed a life-changing diabetes insulin from the PBS, Fiasp. It's an innovative mealtime insulin that balances blood sugar control at a faster rate than other insulins. I've got family members who have diabetes. I know it's a disease that no-one chooses. It is one that you have to have your medications for, and if you don't the effects down the line are significant. The former coalition government listed Fiasp on the PBS in 2019, ensuring affordable access to this insulin for 15,000 families coping with type 1 diabetes. The government's decision to suddenly remove Fiasp from the PBS will send the price soaring up to $280 per script. They must be transparent with Australian diabetes patients and admit whether they actually took any steps to support the commercial viability of Fiasp remaining on the PBS. We know Minister Butler has the power to intervene, and it appears that in this case he chose not to. The question is: did they even try to find a solution for the 15,000 patients who rely on this medicine or did they just sit on their hands and enjoy the money savings that came with its removal? The government needs to understand that this decision to tear away the quality of life that the medicine affords over 15,000 people and their families— Government members interjecting— Mr VIOLI 300147 I'll take the interjections. If it's been resolved, that's fantastic and that's a great result. I'm very happy to say it's been resolved. I'm really happy with that. That's a great result for Australian people and those 15,000 families. It is wonderful to hear that. Labor went to the election with the promise of cheaper medicine. It looks like that has been resolved. I'll continue to hold the government to account to make sure they are, but I'm happy to put my hand up and say that if those facts are wrong, they're wrong. I'll give the government credit and give the minister credit: he listened and he changed. That's what I think we need to do in this House. As an opposition we need to hold the government to account, but we also need to say when the minister listened and changed his mind. I applaud him for that. I'll continue, as I said, to hold the government to account on their broken promises because it is significant with rising cost-of-living pressures. This is the time that we need to look after the PBS. As I said, Australians are doing it tough at the moment, and rising prices are affecting all Australians. This bill does support the sustainability of the PBS. I'm glad that this medicine is continuing to be on the PBS. We need to continue to support the sustainability of the system. I will do that whenever I can, along with the coalition, with our strong track record on the sustainability and integrity of this scheme. 16:57 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I thank members for their contributions to the debate on the National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023, particularly the members for Farrer, Macarthur and Casey. To clarify: Fiasp hasn't gone back on the PBS, but we've extended the ability for people to collect it on script for the next six months while they consult with their GPs to convert to other appropriate medications. That process is ongoing. I just wanted to clarify that that's what's happening. There are very suitable alternatives to that drug for people to use. For your constituents and for all Australians: the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has provided affordable access to medicines for over 70 years. The Australian government is committed to protecting the integrity of Medicare, which includes the PBS. The government understands the importance of the PBS remaining sustainable into the future so that we can continue investing in new medicines for the community, and that includes the process which the previous member was so critical of. Integrity of public funds and effective PBS compliance are a vital component of this commitment. The government needs to adapt its compliance arrangements for bodies corporate in recognition of the fact that they are increasingly involved in the ownership and operation of pharmacies. The bill strengthens compliance powers, especially the ability to protect the PBS from abuse and inappropriate practice by pharmacists who are directors of bodies corporate. Currently, the discretionary power to suspend or revoke an approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits only applies to individual pharmacists. The amendment will extend the discretionary power to a pharmacist who is operating under a company structure and who has been charged with or convicted of a PBS related offence. This will ensure that the power applies equally to all approvals. I would like to thank those stakeholders who provided input into these changes during consultation on the bill. The PBS provides Australians with access to vital medicines, and this bill will protect the integrity of the PBS so that we can keep investing in new and better medicines in the future. I thank the members for their interest and support. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 86 Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023, Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023, Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023 87

Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023

Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023

Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023

Second Reading 87 17:01 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to speak on the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023 and accompanying bills. Australia has an incredibly robust and well-developed financial sector that has grown considerably since the 1990s. The combined total assets managed by financial intermediaries is now around $2.3 trillion, 250 per cent of Australia's GDP. With the financial sector contributing nine per cent of gross value added, it forms a large part of the economy, and a loss in trust could cause flow-on effects to both the economy and consumers. In 2008 we saw the detrimental effects that a crisis in the financial sector can have, not just for the economy but the entire world. Australia had only narrowly avoided an economic recession in 2008-09 but this was due to the economic management of the Rudd government. The uncertainty caused the level of anxiety that had not been seen the nineties recessions. We saw the effect in other countries, where people lost their homes, banks and businesses failed, unemployment rates skyrocketed and it did take years to recover. Trust and stability are the foundation of the global economy. Entire sectors, including the financial sector, are built on those principles. We are seeing it today in the US and Europe, where a loss of trust has caused a bank run, leading to failures and stock sell-offs, creating knock-on effects across the sector. The government has a role to play in ensuring that people trust that their money is not only safe but also that they are protected from unethical and illegal behaviour. The 2017 Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry was established after a series of scandals in the sector that undermined trust in our financial sector. Australians interact with the sector on a daily basis, whether it is for regular tasks or for life-changing decisions, like buying a house. The misconduct that was revealed by the royal commission was found to be systemic. The reason as to why this has happened, Commissioner Hayne concluded that the answer seems to be greed, the pursuit of short-term profit at the expense of basic standards of honesty. The actions of those responsible undermined the trust of the Australian people. It should not have happened and it should not happen again. The Australian government has responsibility to regulate, while those in the sector should be held accountable and responsible for ensuring this doesn't happen again. Whilst the report was handed down in 2019, the Albanese government is committed to finalising the response to the recommendations. Last year legislation was introduced and passed, and today the legislation being debated is a continuation on that commitment. These bills are designed as a response to several recommendations. The first set of bills will establish the Financial Accountability Regime, the FAR, implementing five recommendations made by the royal commission. It will take a systemic change to address the issues highlighted by the royal commission, and it must be from top to bottom. The FAR is a strengthened responsibility and accountability framework for financial institutions and their directors, including the most senior and influential executives. It will apply to banks, insurers and superannuation entities. It is not enough to be reactive, because the damage in most cases will have already been done. People's lives will have already been ruined, and sometimes no amount of compensation can fix that. This is not just a financial impact. There is a devastating mental health aspect to situations that must also be considered. Those at the top must be proactive in ensuring that their institutions comply with the laws that cover them. The FAR will require them to take reasonable steps to prevent breaches. In the event that they do not meet these requirements, regulators will be empowered to disqualify accountable persons and impose substantial fines on financial institutions. Those people who breach their accountability obligations will face serious financial consequences, with their remuneration reduced. It is important that poor behaviour is deterred, and that's what these changes will do. But if those at the top continue to engage in bad practices then they should be dealt with appropriately. We know that these changes will need to be considered by the sector and they will have to have time to ensure that they can fully comply with the new obligations, with the FAR applying to the banking industry six months after royal assent and 18 months after royal assent for insurance and super entities. These measures will ensure, on one hand, that those at the top of these institutions are accountable and responsible and, on the other, that the sector can maintain its efficiency. Improving the trust and stability of the sector will be beneficial both for these industries and for the Australian economy. In response to another recommendation of the Hayne royal commission, the second set of bills being debated today will introduce the compensation scheme of last resort. In the event that the Australian Financial Compliance Authority, AFCA, determines that a consumer is entitled to compensation, they should be compensated by the relevant financial institution, and in many cases they will be. But the CSLR will ensure that, if they can't, then Australians can still receive compensation of up to $150,000 for unpaid AFCA determinations in their favour for financial services or products that include personal advice on relevant financial products to retail clients, credit intermediation, securities dealing and credit provision. This is an important measure that was recommended because of the inadequacies of other redress schemes. It's only fair that Australian consumers are compensated in the event of large financial failures. However, measures have been added to ensure that firms do not rely only on the CSLR, because it is, as the name implies, to be used only as a last resort. The government should not be responsible for a financial firm's failings, and if the CSLR provides compensation then ASIC must cancel the AFCA member's Australian Financial Services Licence and/or Australian Credit Licence. The funding aspect of the CSLR is another crucial element of these bills. The Commonwealth, on passage of these bills, will fund the operational costs from 23 December until 30 June 2024. But, importantly, the costs from 1 July 2024 will be fully funded by an industry levy, and the backlog claims will be funded through a one-off levy on the 10 largest banking and insurance companies in Australia. Taxpayers won't be paying for it. The CSLR must be financially stable and sustainable while also ensuring that the sector can account for the levies, which is why there will be a subsector cap of $20 million and an overall cap of $250 million. However, this legislation accounts for those situations where a large financial institution fails and there are larger than expected expenses, with the minister having the power to issue special levies. The failing of a large financial institution would be detrimental, and we hope it doesn't happen, but the last few years and the 2008 financial crisis have shown us we should be prepared for all eventualities. For the CSLR to be operational and compensating consumers from December, these bills should be passed this month. With their passing, the Albanese government will finalise the federal government's response to the Hayne royal commission. Australians deserves a financial sector that is ethical, and the Australian government will ensure that it is. The Australian people and our financial sector will be much better off for it. 17:10 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I rise to speak on the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023, the Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023 and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023, which together establish the Financial Accountability Regime, extend the existing Banking Executive Accountability Regime, the BEAR, and, of course, establish a compensation scheme of last resort. Clearly, I'll be talking to the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Hume, which goes to the very heart of the dysfunction, the distraction and the priorities of the current Labor government and, in particular, our favourite minister, the Assistant Treasurer. But, first, I go to the substantive bills. I note that, as the Assistant Treasurer admitted in his own contribution, this is not the first time that the House has dealt with these bills. In fact, the Assistant Treasurer introduced these bills last year and, as is becoming his trademark, completely stuffed it up. Just like trying to hide transparency in super, he stuffed up. Just like trying to carve out certain super funds from adhering to performance tests, he has stuffed up again. It's worth going through some of the history of these stuff-ups, as they pertain to why we're back here debating these bills a second time, and it's worthwhile putting on record not my words but the words of the Australian Financial Review no less and just what they think of the Assistant Treasurer. You could call me biased; it is hard for the parliament to call the Australian Financial Review biased. Remember, the Assistant Treasurer sits on the Expenditure Review Committee. He is the Treasury's righthand man for development of the budget. No wonder Australians should be slightly perturbed at the budget coming up. The headline of the article is: "Steven Jones is out of his depth". I couldn't agree more with the AFR. The article starts: Across an otherwise competent frontbench … I don't agree with all of that. But I digress slightly. It goes on: … the Albanese government's Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones stands out like dog's balls. I was quoting directly from the AFR. I'll continue: In the six months since he took charge of the ministry, the Member for Whitlam has chewed up the furniture, rubbed his bum on the carpet and cocked his leg over his parliamentary colleagues, the financial sector and the voters of Australia. So what was the AFR referring to? It was referring to the last time that the hapless Assistant Treasurer introduced these bills into parliament. And here we are again. The last time these bills came here we were expecting the bills to go through as non-controversial. In fact, we were supporting the bills. I had informed the Assistant Treasurer of that personally. But, as per the AFR, something went wrong. Something always goes wrong with this Assistant Treasurer. Shock! Horror! The Assistant Treasurer completely stuffed it up. No wonder there's the quote from the AFR that he stands out like dog's balls. He took initiative. It was very dangerous—I'm quoting, Madam Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEA 290544 Member for Fadden, I would caution you on parliamentary language. I know you were quoting from a piece of newsprint, but it does not need to be read out if it is unparliamentary. It demeans this house. Mr ROBERT HWT Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will go back to the Assistant Treasurer. He took initiative. That is very dangerous from my point of view. The Assistant Treasurer tried to do a deal with the Greens. In fact, the Greens said he did a deal. He was agreeing to their demand to increase fines associated with this legislation so the Greens would continue to support his desire to hide how much Labor and the unions rake in from super funds. It was a dodgy deal that was not done cheaply. In fact, it blew up in the Assistant Treasurer's face. His masters, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, didn't agree—quite rightly—so he had to renege on the deal. Now the Greens, like the rest of the country, don't trust the Assistant Treasurer. The Assistant Treasurer tried to hide how the average Australian's hard-earned savings are being spent on funding Labor and the unions. He tried to allow super funds to act in the interests of the fund managers, not the Australians whose savings are being looked after for retirement. He did everything he possibly could for the union super trustees—everyone except those he needed to help: Australians, who deserve the best return for their investment in super. In the end, every single member of the House and the other place, bar Labor members, voted against what the Assistant Treasurer was doing on the transparency measures for super. Well, the leash has tightened. We're now told the poor, hapless Assistant Treasurer can't even leave the ministerial wing without letting the Prime Minister or the Treasurer's office know. The AFR article goes on: Jones' priorities in office have been nothing short of bewildering, such as bending over backwards for small superannuation funds like the $3.6 billion First Super, chaired by CFMEU heavy Michael O'Connor, which celebrated the Assistant Treasurer's planned review of regulatory attempts to kill off small funds (First Super's $10.8 million in non-donation and non-gift payments to political entities over three years most certainly played no part in such a move!). The article concludes with this: In case Anthony Albanese— I'm quoting, Madam Deputy Speaker— is serious about protecting the country's best financial interests, we're glad to assist in pointing out who are his assets and who are his liabilities. I don't think there are any assets, but certainly the Assistant Treasurer is a massive liability. All these months later, here we are back in the House dealing with the same legislation—bills that should have been dealt with a year ago because the opposition gave them bipartisan support. I've been here for 15 years. I can't think of a single other bill where the opposition has given unqualified bipartisan support and a government minister has managed to stuff up so badly that the House has had to come back to deal with the bill a second time. It certainly is a record of incompetence that I don't think has been surpassed. We have a strong financial services sector in Australia. It's one of the bedrocks of this country, and we want it to remain that way. It's been remarkably strong over the last decade and, as my colleague the member for Hume said: We will not delay the progress of these bills through the parliament … But we must note … the government's continued mismanagement of its legislative agenda … its broken promises on tax and superannuation and its failure to respond to the challenges that Australians are facing every day. … Whilst our financial services system has served us well, we can't ignore that the royal commission was necessary. We called it—the coalition called it. We committed to implementing its recommendation to take action on all of the 76 recommendations and additional commitments contained in the final report of that royal commission. Significant progress has been made, and the long road to implement these changes is now reaching its conclusion. With the re-introduction of these bills, the last of the legislative commitments to implement the royal commission's recommendations will indeed be completed. The coalition welcomes the introduction of and the government's decision to retain the primary Financial Accountability Regime and the compensation of last resort legislation, largely in the same shape and form. I have a couple of comments on the financial services compensation scheme of last resort. We introduced this legislation to facilitate the payment of compensation to eligible consumers who have received a determination from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, AFCA, which remains unpaid. This forms part of the final tranche of the legislation to implement recommendations of the royal commission. But there's a key part missing. Part of the Hayne commission recommended commissioning a review into the quality of financial advice … That review was commissioned by our government and is now gathering dust somewhere in this hapless Assistant Treasurer's office. Australia is in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. The cost of everything is going through the roof. Being able to plan for your financial future right now is more important than ever. For over 50 days, this government sat on a review with recommendations that, if implemented, would make obtaining financial advice easier, cheaper and better for Australians. Not least, it would make the financial services industry better. Financial advice professionals deserve to be able to work in the best interest of Australians without one hand being tied behind their back through overburdening regulation. The Labor government, when in opposition, used to literally scream at the previous government about releasing reports. The Hayne royal commission report, they said, 'must be released immediately'. We took 2½ days over the weekend to look at it and released it the following Monday. This Labor government took 50 days to consider the report of the Quality of Advice Review, the Levy report, only to release it and then announce that they were going to consult on the consultation. 'Hypocrisy' doesn't even come close to describing the actions of this government when it comes to these key areas of recommendation from the Hayne royal commission. We don't even have a time frame for this consultation on a consultation or when it will end. Both financial advice professionals and Australians enduring a living crisis are crying out for reforms and cheaper financial services advice. I have already informed the government that the coalition will support legislation to implement the reforms in full as recommended right now. The government needs to get on with it. By delaying the implementation of Dr Levy's recommendations, the Assistant Treasurer and this government are denying Australians the opportunity to seek affordable, quality advice at a time when Australians are already finding it tough to meet cost-of-living challenges. This is, frankly, the Labor government squibbing it. The Assistant Treasurer is seeking consultations upon consultations. As we have seen since the Assistant Treasurer started in this job, everything he touches stuffs up. If he can't get on with the job of delivering for Australians, and not for those masters in the union movement, it is time the Prime Minister stepped in and put in someone competent who can. Australians need financial advice now more than ever. The reason is that promises are being broken by this government. The Prime Minister has already broken a promise not to touch super. What's next? How about tax on your family home? The Treasurer didn't rule it out initially, which caused the Prime Minister to step in, on interview, to clean up the mess. How can everyday Australians trust this mob? Labor have already broken one promise not to raise taxes. Who's to say that, having crossed the Rubicon, they won't do it again? These broken promises go to the integrity of this government that would say one thing crystal clear before the election and the complete opposite when they came in. It is Peter Garrett-esque: 'Once we're in, we'll change it all.' Australians are right to be wondering what Labor will tax next. How can Australians trust the government when they say one thing before an election and do something diametrically opposite so soon after? We will not deny this bill a second reading. We call on the House, clearly, to recognise the mismanagement of this bill, the government's dishonesty with the Australian people and the need for the government to commit to reducing pressure on inflation not only by controlling its own spending and by not taxing Australians more but by getting on with legislating the Levy review so Australians can have cheaper access to financial services. I support the amendment moved by the member for Hume and commend the bill to the House. 17:23 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan It may seem like a distant memory now, but only four years ago, the royal commission into the banking sector was dominating the headlines. On almost every day of the hearings we heard about new ways that financial institutions, including the big four banks, were ripping off their customers. This bill, the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023, seeks to implement one of the recommendations of the royal commission for the current banking accountability regime to be extended to all large financial service providers. I would have thought that the key part of this was accountability, but Labor's mates in the banking lobby have made sure that this bill is about accountability in name only. Astonishingly, the bill does not provide for fines for wealthy bankers who have breached their accountability obligations. Instead, the only consequences are that some of their bonuses get revoked—Oh dear! Poor them; their poor bonuses. The government had initially listened to Greens concerns about the lack of accountability and agreed to maximum fines of $1 million for bankers who breached those obligations, but they backflipped on that after pressure from the banking lobby. Sadly, this is way too familiar a tale with this government. Who is the banking lobby, you may ask? The CEO of the Australian Banking Association is none other than former Labor premier of Queensland Anna Bligh. Not content with privatising many of Queensland's public assets during her time in office, she continues to work in the interests of big corporations over everyday Australians as a mouthpiece for the banking sector, using her direct ties to key Labor personnel. This is a prime example of that revolving door between government, lobbyists and business, that absolutely foregrounds commercial interests over those of everyday Australians. The connection between the banking lobby and the Labor Party, along with the thousands of dollars in donations provided to the Labor Party by the banking sector for the election, seems to be proving very effective, given that this backflip on fines happened after just 24 hours—quid pro quo indeed. The Australian people are not stupid. They can see these connections and see how cheaply the government can be bought. When asked about this backflip, the minister has said he didn't consider the potential effects on small banks. Great—well why isn't the minister open to just carving out an exception for small banks? Is it because perhaps this is a thinly veiled excuse for bowing to banking lobby pressure? This is all happening in the context of a cost-of-living crisis, with rising interest rates and huge profits in the banking sector, which is a major cause of inflation. The big banks benefited massively from the low cash rate during the pandemic by accessing $144 billion in wholesale funding from the Reserve Bank. They are now seeing record profits off the back of this. Meanwhile my office, and I'm sure electorate offices around the country, are getting calls and emails daily from mortgagees directly affect by rising interest rates and renters who are indirectly feeling the pinch from rising rents as well, many being priced right out of the rental market and at grave risk of homelessness. Here we have direct transfer of wealth from struggling everyday Australians to the big banks. This is an abomination. It's clear that this isn't going to change under a government so clearly under the influence of the banking lobby. 17:25 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Australia can be proud and should be proud of a strong financial services sector that is operating in this country. It boosts productivity, bolsters businesses and supports aspiration. This sector helps Australians to realise that great dream of home ownership, starting a business, raising a family and retiring in confidence, security and comfort. Our financial services sector has weathered the storms of global conflict and supply chain issues. It has endured the sharpest economic decline in generations, thanks to global pandemic. And while populist leaders imposed financial measures which dragged nations left, right and down, the previous Coalition government's calm and steady economic management, in cooperation with financial services not against them, meant that Australians were insulated from a large part of the economic challenges. We've seen this play out at the local level as well. My electorate on the Sunshine Coast has reaped the reward of a strong finance sector. Core and contributory financial services employ nearly 4,000 Sunshine Coast locals. That's 4,000 Sunshine Coast residents in work because of sound economic management. Thousands of households are better off because of the coalition's hard work between the day Labor was turfed out of office and May 2022. It's a sector which adds just shy of $833 million to our local Sunshine Coast economy through 1,400 businesses. That is nearly $1 billion flowing through local small businesses and local supply chains into the pockets of hard-working Australians. A strong financial services sector is an essential cornerstone of Australia's resilient and adaptable economy. It's important that it stays this way. That's why I'm pleased to speak on this package today. I'm especially pleased that once again this comes on the back of the coalition's hard work. In many ways, this is another coalition carbon-copy piece of legislation. As families and businesses in Fisher know too well, a coalition carbon copy is the only kind of carbon policy Australians wanted to hear about from this federal Labor government—not a carbon tax, not a climate warrior training program, not taxes, tariffs, pledges or platitudes. They want sound economic management to lift them out of Labor's cost-of-living crisis. That means we must support our financial services sector by promoting integrity, clarifying accountability mechanisms and putting an end to Labor's dithering and delays. To that end, the coalition will not delay the progress of the bill through parliament. The legislation we're debating establishes a financial services compensation scheme of last resort for victims of financial misconduct. It also expands the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, the BEAR, more broadly across the financial services industry under the Financial Accountability Regime, the FAR. This legislation forms the final elements of the response to the landmark Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Finance Services Industry. The coalition committed to taking action on all 76 recommendations and additional commitments contained in the final report. This was a response and royal commission launched by the coalition when we were in government, and we're happy for Labor to continue our work. It just shows that only the coalition has a plan for our economy, only the coalition has a plan for Australian industry and only the coalition has a plan to create more jobs and put more money back into the pockets of hardworking Australians. This Labor government has lost control of its ability to govern. We saw it this year with the mishandling of the previous version of this legislative package. These are bills which the coalition put forward before the election. One would think these would be straightforward pieces of legislation, but apparently not. That this is the second time we're debating this is proof of that. Last year, without consultation or warning, or even a media release, the Assistant Treasurer chose to unilaterally implement $1.1 million worth of fines on executives in the financial services industry. We're not just talking about the executives in big-city, top-level offices; we're talking about local credit unions, cooperatives, regional banks and small lenders. When they were promising their way to the halls of power, this federal Labor government promised that they would work with the private sector. They promised that they would consult. They promised that they would listen. Every step of the way, small and family businesses and industry have been shut out of this conversation. They have been cast aside, now that the election has been done and dusted. They have been kept in the dark on crucial issues of workplace relations and the Labor government's agenda. Those opposite promised certainty and collaboration, and they've delivered instability and isolation. Week by week we're treated to farcical debates from those opposite on half-baked bills. That's if they don't copy ours. Even when they do copy coalition policy, they struggle to bring it to the finish line. The way this legislation has been handled is another example of this incompetent, indifferent and ignorant Labor government fumbling its way through the dark. Once again, it takes the coalition to turn on the lights, it takes the coalition to clear the way and it takes the coalition to shine a light on another dropped ball, another failure in leadership from the Albanese government. You can't bind a small business in red tape without warning and then rip it off because you've changed your mind. That kind of ineptitude destabilises industries, cripples companies and hurts Australians' wallets. It does what we see Labor's dithering is doing today. It exacerbates the cost-of-living crisis that Australian families and their businesses are contending with. Certainty and cooperation are the foundation of good economic management. They promised consultation, and instead we're getting absolute chaos. The government has resolved several of the issues which the coalition raised when the legislation was first brought before the parliament. The reckless deal they struck with the Greens to impose civil penalties, only to then backout of it, remains excluded. The bill now extends the payment period for the compensation scheme of last resort one-off levy, giving the top 10 financial services organisations two years to pay this one-off levy. This is an important step if we want to provide certainty for our largest institutions. After a lengthy and extensive campaign from this side of the House calling on the Labor government to do their job and consult industry stakeholders, we are pleased that the sector has now finally been heard. Along with the Financial Sector Reform Bill, the legislation contains a number of provisions which will impose four core sets of obligations on accountable entities. The first, accountability obligations; second, key personnel obligations; third, deferred remuneration obligations; and forth, notification obligations. Most notably, the package extends the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, the BEAR, to all entities regulated by APRA. This means that banking, insurance and superannuation entities and directors will be subject to the same accountability and the same transparency standards required of financial entities covered under the existing regime. The package also establishes the levy framework for and function of the compensation scheme of last resort. The CSLR will provide compensation to eligible consumers where they have an Australian Financial Complaints Authority determination in their favour and where the relevant financial firm has not paid the consumer in accordance with the determination. The framework also imposes a levy to fund the CSLR on an ongoing basis. It will lead to the introduction of an annual tax to be levied against relevant entities, as well as a one-off levy to be imposed over two financial years to pay for the backlog of claims from AFCA. The CSLR forms part of the final tranche of legislation to implement the coalition government's response to the Hayne royal commission. When I was the chair of the corporations and financial services committee I had some pretty grave reservations about the introduction of a compensation scheme of last resort, and quite frankly I still do. We need to be very careful that government doesn't just keep stepping in on all occasions saving people from themselves. Some people will make poor decisions. Some people will make poor decisions based on poor advice. What we need to be careful of in this country is that we don't try and de-risk everything, because ultimately if we try and de-risk everything we demotivate the concept of investment. Everybody would invest if there was no risk, but the likely rewards from those investments, in my view, are likely to be diminished as a result. And of course, we also have the costs of paying for the levies. Let's not be naive about this, the levies that will be paid by the relevant institutions—ultimately it's the punters that're going to pay for these things through increased charges. So whilst I support the legislation, as does the coalition, I just want to put it on the record that I have had concerns and I still have concerns about the concept of a compensation scheme of last resort. Where unscrupulous operators give poor advice and are not in a financial position, either them or their insurers, to be able to provide assistance to people who have been impacted upon, then, sure, it's not a bad thing. But there are broader implications for the broader economy here. I just make this point again: you can't deleverage risk from our world. We need to be very careful about how we try and do that. There is risk in everything. I think we as legislators need to be very mindful of that. In conclusion, financial services are afforded a significant amount of trust by Australians, sometimes at their most vulnerable. They have a duty to return on that goodwill with quality service, accurate advice, sound risk management and good governance. In the past, some of these services have failed in that duty. We've all heard the evidence from the royal commission. That is why we initiated it. That's why we responded. That's why we put this legislation forward when we were in government. Australians also put a significant amount of trust in their government, as they do in their banks. The banks have got a long way to restore Australians' faith. I say they have got a long way, not come a long way. They have come some way, but they've still got a long way to come. Australians expect quality service. They expect sound economic management. They expect good government. This federal Labor government is failing in that duty. They don't have a plan for our economy, so they are using the coalition's. It's taken them two fumbled attempts just to get it back on track—with our support, no less. Labor have demonstrated in 10 months that their priorities are out of whack with everyday Australians. They are hopelessly out of touch with the needs of Australian families. They are patently out of their depth, with their arrogance, incompetence and indifference to the struggles of real Australians, especially in regional Australia—the same Australians that talk to me in my electorate of Fisher about how they are struggling from day to day. Everything has gone up. Electricity has gone up. Gas has gone up. Rents have gone up. Mortgages have gone up. The cost of groceries, or simply walking into a supermarket, has gone up. When was the last time you walked into a supermarket and paid under $100 for only a few groceries? This government needs to get real about the cost of living, and it needs to start pulling the right levers to assist families around Australia. 17:42 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak in support of the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023 and related bills which have been brought to this place to implement some of the recommendations of the royal commission into the banking industry. At their highest level, the bills do two things. Firstly, they introduce the Financial Accountability Regime, which, for ease of reference, I will call the FAR. Secondly, the bills introduce a compensation scheme of last resort to provide compensation to victims of financial misconduct in certain circumstances. The other two bills are largely consequential and relate to timing of the FAR and the compensation scheme. I don't intend to speak in detail on those. Both I and the coalition considered and supported a variation of this legislation in September last year. Indeed, the history of this proposed financial regime is that both the former Morrison government and the Albanese government have made previous attempts to establish the FAR. The bills introduced by the Morrison government lapsed at the dissolution of the 46th Parliament, and the previous bills introduced by the Albanese government in September 2022 have now been withdrawn and replaced with the current bills. As I understand the reason for the withdrawal, the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, who had carriage of the bills, seemingly mismanaged the process and convinced his government to agree to amendments put forward by the Greens party. These introduced harsh individual penalties for banking executives, and the changes would have applied in the same way to credit union CEOs as CEOs of the major banks. The changes were going to cause deep uncertainty in the financial services sector. So this government, embarrassingly, had no recourse but to withdraw legislation from the Notice Paper and has now reintroduced the new financial service packages with changes. It appears now that the Assistant Treasurer and the government have indeed learned the lessons of taking advice from and negotiating financial legislation with the Greens. By way of background, the proposed regime has arisen from the former coalition government's response to the recommendations of the banking royal commission in February 2019. While the COVID-19 pandemic saw a delay in its implementation, the bills were then introduced to the last parliament in late 2021. The bills on which I speak today are largely identical to the legislation introduced by the coalition government, and for that reason I commend this government. The first part of the bills establish a financial accountability regime, the FAR, to increase transparency and accountability across the financial services industry. The FAR will replace the existing Banking Executive Accountability Regime, the BEAR, and imposes four core sets of obligations on authorised deposit-taking institutions, insurance companies and superannuation funds. To this end, the bill imposes four fundamental sets of obligations upon these organisations. First, there are new accountability obligations, key personnel obligations, deferred remuneration obligations and new notification obligations. Most notably overall, these bills do reflect that chief executives of the financial services industry will now be more accountable, and that is appropriate. I will just turn briefly to accountability and its history within the financial services industry. There's been a growing perception, particularly since the 2008 global financial crisis, that senior executives of financial institutions have not been held accountable in circumstances where numerous financial scandals have harmed the community. The BEAR puts in place a strengthened accountability network for the senior executives of the authorised deposit-taking institutions. These are our banks, our credit unions and our building societies. However, the BEAR does not apply to financial institutions outside the banking sector. For example, the accountability obligations set out in the BEAR do not apply to senior executives of insurance companies or superannuation funds. Therefore, the bills propose to give effect to the government's commitment to implement that recommendation of the banking royal commission which was to extend the scope of the BEAR to all APRA regulated entities. Again, this is supported. The second major part of the new financial regime is that the bills propose to establish a compensation scheme of last resort. This scheme will provide compensation to victims of financial misconduct who have received a determination in their favour from the AFCA, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, but have not been paid, typically because the financial institution involved in the misconduct has become insolvent. This does not happen very often, but when it does it is very important that victims of those funds do receive compensation. Again, this was a recommendation that came out of the banking royal commission. The proposed scheme of last resort is limited in its scope, in that, firstly, it applies only to unpaid AFCA determinations. The maximum compensation for each AFCA determination is capped at $150,000. The compensation scheme will consider claims for unpaid AFCA determinations if the financial complaint was made to AFCA after 1 November 2018, which was the date that AFCA commenced its operations. Lastly, the scheme will provide compensation to unpaid consumers who've experienced financial misconduct in relation to the following four types of financial products and services: personal advice, credit intermediation, securities dealings for retail clients or credit provision. So there are limited opportunities for the scheme to be used. However, the purpose of it is to ensure the resolution of disputes within the financial system in order to safeguard consumer trust and confidence and to ensure that our financial system is meeting the needs of its users. Coming out of the royal commission was evidence that current arrangements are failing to meet this expectation for Australian consumers, with some consumers and small businesses not receiving compensation to which they should be entitled. I should say, the majority of financial firms within our country comply with their legal obligations and compensate their clients or their customers when required. One of the other advantages of the compensation scheme is that it will be industry funded. Therefore, when victims of financial misconduct are unpaid due to a financial institution's insolvency, it is up to the rest of the financial services industry to meet the shortfall by way of an annual levy to fund the CSLR. For the first year of its implementation, the government will provide the funding. Then, from the second year onwards, it will be industry funded. To conclude, these bills, if passed, will implement recommendations of the banking royal commission into both the financial accountability regime and also the compensation scheme of last resort. Both of these recommendations were supported by the former Morrison government and by the Albanese government. The other two bills that are referred to in the package, which are largely consequential upon the establishment of our entities, relate to timing of payment, collection of levies and the like. So for all of these reasons, it is important that we have trust in our financial services industry. Largely, most operators within our financial services industry are scrupulous; however, in order to maintain integrity and to restore Australians' faith in our system, I commend these bills to the House. 17:52 Mr CHANDLER-MATH 300121 Griffith ER () (): It took Labor a day to renege on a deal struck in good faith with the Greens to introduce million-dollar fines for bankers who break the law. But I thought it would be worth referring to how the Australian Financial Review reported Labor's reneging on a deal because, in many ways, the first two paragraphs speak to everything that is wrong with Australian politics. The headline reads 'Banks force Labor to rethink on $1 m executive fines.' The article says: Banks have forced the Albanese government to put off the vote on a bill to lift accountability in financial services, with Labor now rethinking a last-minute deal with the Greens that would have added million-dollar fines for law-breaking financial service executives. The banks, led by former Queensland Labor premier Anna Bligh, warned the move to put individual fines back into the Financial Accountability Regime (FAR) would have unintended consequences for lenders. We have an extraordinary situation where a former Labor Premier, now head of the banks, can lead a lobbying effort to overturn a good-faith deal to introduce what I would argue the vast majority of the Australian public would think is pretty straightforward, which is that bankers that break the law should face consequences. We have here an extraordinary example of how power works in this country and who ultimately this government works for, which continues to be the big banks and multinational corporations. You only have to look at the fact that, as people's mortgages go up, people are being evicted from their homes because they can't afford the rent. People—pensioners, low-income residents, even teachers or nurses—are having to make tough choices between paying the bills, feeding the kids or paying housing costs, at the same time as banks like the Commonwealth Bank post record profits of $5.15 billion. We have chronically underfunded schools and hospitals. We have a situation where the government can find $368 billion for nuclear attack submarines but not a single extra cent to lift people out of poverty, or for public or affordable housing, but a banking lobbyist can walk into parliament and get what they want in a day. So why is it that a teacher or a nurse or a low-income resident can't walk into parliament and get the same thing? Why is it that the government will listen to the banking lobby? Honourable members interjecting— Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 I hear interjections. Even here, where usually there isn't that much colour and flavour, even here you hear Labor members opposite strenuously defending their decision to back down on the million-dollar banker fines. What's your response to that? What's your response to saying, 'We will roll over for the big banks and cut million-dollar fines when they break the law'? What do you think should happen to them when they break the law? But at the same time you won't stand up for the millions of people in this country who are in need of cost of living relief. You won't stand up for the people who are watching as this government hands $368 billion to the US and the UK for nuclear attack submarines that we are going to get in three decades, but they can't build enough homes to tackle the housing crisis. They can't fully fund our public schools. They can't lift people out of poverty. There are still people having to live on $48 a day, by the way, pensioners still living above the poverty line. You are willing to roll over for the banks in a day, but you can't stand up for the people that you're meant to represent in this place. How often do we see this from this government? Again and again and again. Labor will roll over for the banks, but they won't stand up to the rich and powerful, who are the ones right now making people's lives tough in this country. Really, when it comes down to it, you only have to look at where the profit is going and where the misery and the terrible cost of living burden is going. While the Commonwealth Bank records a $5.15 billion record profit, rents have skyrocketed, mortgages have skyrocketed, the cost of living has skyrocketed. We know that the Australian Institute found that multinational corporations increased their profits above increases in expenses by $160 billion. The government can't bring themselves to introduce a super profits tax and use that money to actually provide serious cost of living relief, but they will roll over for the banks in a single day. This incident, reneging on a deal struck with the Greens, speaks to everything that is wrong with Australian politics. We will be moving a third reading amendment. You will get a chance to stand up and explain to your constituents why banks shouldn't be fined $1 million. I'm really looking forward to that, actually. It really reminds me of why so many people are fed up with politics and politicians. I'm sure a lot of them would love you to explain why bankers should get an easy ride and they should get a tough one. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 96 17:59 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith by leave—I move amendments (1) to (13) on the sheet revised 17 March 2023 as circulated in my name together: (1) Clause 4, page 4 (line 7), omit "or by the Regulator through disqualification", substitute "by the Regulator through disqualification, or through civil penalties for non-compliance". (2) Clause 14, page 18 (line 12), omit "or disqualification by the Regulator", substitute ", disqualification by the Regulator, or civil penalties for non-compliance". (3) Clause 18, page 22 (after line 6), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note: Failure to comply with an obligation under this Chapter is a contravention of a civil penalty provision (see section 80). (4) Clause 35, page 42 (line 7), after "disqualified", insert "or liable to a civil penalty". (5) Clause 40, page 49 (after line 17), after paragraph (4)(e), insert: (ea) details of any civil penalty order made against the person for a contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Act; and (6) Clause 80, page 85 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add: (3) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) the person is an accountable person of: (i) an accountable entity that is a medium or large banking entity; or (ii) an accountable entity that is not an ADI or an authorised NOHC of an ADI; and (b) the person is subject to an obligation under Chapter 2 in relation to the entity; and (c) the person fails to comply with the obligation. Note: It is generally not necessary to prove a person's state of mind in proceedings for a contravention of a civil penalty provision (see section 94 of the Regulatory Powers Act, which applies because of section 82 of this Act). (4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (3). (5) In this section: medium or large banking entity means: (a) an ADI that is, immediately before the day that is 6 months after this Act commences, a medium ADI or large ADI under the Banking Act 1959; or (b) an authorised NOHC of such an ADI. (7) Clause 83, page 88 (line 9), omit "Note 1", substitute "Note". (8) Clause 83, page 88 (lines 11 and 12), omit note 2 to subclause (3). (9) Heading to clause 97, page 102 (line 24), at the end of the heading, add "and accountable persons". (10) Clause 97, page 102 (after line 32), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) An accountable entity, or a significant related entity of an accountable entity, must not (whether by agreement or by making a payment, and whether directly or through an interposed entity): (a) indemnify a person who is or was an accountable person of: (i) the accountable entity; or (ii) a significant related entity of the accountable entity; against the consequences of breaching an obligation under this Act; or (b) pay, or agree to pay, a premium for a contract insuring such a person against the consequences of breaching an obligation under this Act. (11) Clause 97, page 103 (line 1), omit "Subsection (1) does not", substitute "Subsections (1) and (1A) do not". (12) Clause 97, page 103 (line 4), at the end of subclause (3), add "or (1A)". (13) Clause 97, page 103 (lines 6 to 9), omit paragraph (4)(a), substitute: (a) subsections (1) and (1A) apply to a related body corporate (other than a significant related entity) of an accountable entity in the same way as they apply to a significant related entity of the accountable entity; and As previously flagged, we have just reintroduced the amendments that we had struck in a deal with the government to introduce $1 million fines for bankers who break the law. I implore the government to accept these amendments, as per the agreement that we reached. I implore you to listen to the people of Australia and not the big banks and the big bank lobby, now led by a former Labor premier, and take into account the terrible experiences that so many people had with the banks and the huge breaches of regulations and the breaking of the law revealed by the recent banking royal commission. If we want to stop that from happening again, bankers need to face serious consequences for their actions. In fact, we have even amended this amendment to ensure that we carve out smaller banks, as a concern was raised. This was a reason given by the minister for reneging on the deal. We've carved that out. This will target only big bankers and big bank executives. It's a really simple amendment. It will make sure that bankers know they face serious consequences for their actions. We suggest to the government that, when considering how we regulate the financial industry, you should not listen to the bank lobby. It has just been revealed under a royal commission that the industry you're regulating and holding to account engaged in serious misconduct and, in some instances, resulted in people losing their homes and livelihoods. We think it seems pretty straightforward that, in those instances, we should perhaps listen to the people of Australia and not to the banking lobby and that we should impose serious, real-life consequences upon these bankers when they do break the law, because, when they do break the law, this often results in terrible human consequences. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The question is that the amendments be disagreed to. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 97

Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Second Reading 97 Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023 97

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023

Second Reading 97 Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023 98

Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023

Second Reading 98 Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023 98

Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023

Second Reading 98 Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022 98

Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022

Second Reading 98 18:10 Dr REID 300126 Robertson It is an absolute pleasure to be speaking today on the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022. This legislation contributes to the government's longstanding commitment to ensure that oversight of Australia's intelligence agencies is commensurate with their responsibilities and powers—that is, ensuring that oversight of the agencies is fit for purpose. Australia's intelligence agencies play a critical role in keeping the Australian people safe and ensuring that Australia's national interests are safeguarded. Therefore, effective oversight of these agencies is crucial, and it is vital to building and maintaining trust in Australia's intelligence agencies. A crucial role is conducted by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, who oversees the activities of Australian intelligence agencies for legality and propriety and for consistency with human rights. This bill will amend the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 to make consequential amendments to related Commonwealth legislation to clarify and strengthen the Inspector-General's powers. It must be made known that a sizeable portion of these measures has been previously evaluated and unanimously supported by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This legislation will ensure that the Inspector-General's current legislative framework is adapted to contemporary circumstances and continues to facilitate effective oversight. In addition, it is important that IGIS officials have the ability to access information that is required for their oversight purposes. This will provide strong powers to the Inspector-General, including full and free access to information to make copies or take extracts from documents held by intelligence agencies and the power to enter and remain on any premises. This bill, in amending the IGIS Act as well as other Commonwealth legislation, will ensure that people are not prevented from disclosing information to Inspector-General officials for the purpose of those officials performing their duties or exercising their powers. Moreover, it is essential that individuals within our national intelligence community are able to fully disclose information to the Inspector-General without fear of committing an offence or breaching privacy laws. Recommendations 172 and 174 of the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community recommend the following changes to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act: (1) they promote the independence of the IGIS and (2) they resolve an oversight gap to ensure that staff employed under the Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 have access to independent review of employment grievances. This bill would implement those recommendations by amending the act to prevent the head or deputy head of an agency within the IGIS jurisdiction from being appointed as the IGIS immediately after serving in that position and would allow the IGIS to consider employment grievances for staff employed under the Office of National Intelligence Act. Important in enhancing Australia's integrity framework is robust information-sharing mechanisms, as they facilitate access to information required for oversight purposes. The bill introduces amendments to ensure that the IGIS is able to share information with other Commonwealth integrity bodies with appropriate safeguards. These amendments will support integrity bodies to obtain information available for oversight purposes and strengthen and also coordinate with other integrity bodies. It will also make a range of additional amendments to the IGIS Act, which was first introduced in 1986, to ensure that the legislation governing the IGIS is adapted to contemporary circumstances. This includes technical amendments to improve clarity and enhance the IGIS's oversight, functions and powers, such as (1) clarifying that the IGIS has the ability to inquire into human rights related issues in the absence of a referral from the Australian Human Rights Commission and (2) clarifying that the definition of 'IGIS official' includes staff acting in positions, contractors and secondees and enabling the IGIS to delegate their functions to assist the day-to-day functioning of the office of the IGIS. This bill would also make a number of amendments to modernise drafting expressions and remove redundant provisions. This bill does not expand the jurisdiction of the IGIS in relation to additional national intelligence community or NIC agencies. Most measures in the bill were previously included in the Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill 2020. The integrity measures bill was introduced into the House in December 2020 and referred to the PJCIS, which reviewed the integrity measures bill and handed down its report in February 2022. The bill lapsed with the dissolution of parliament on 11 April 2022. The integrity measures bill proposed amendments to expand the jurisdiction of the IGIS and the PJCIS to additional national intelligence community agencies. The complexity and significance of these matters warrant further consideration and consultation to develop an appropriate policy response. Therefore, they are not included in this bill. This bill focuses on amendments that are needed to modernise and enhance the IGIS's existing framework. Once again, just to reiterate, this piece of legislation really does contribute to the government's longstanding commitment to ensure oversight of Australia's intelligence agencies, especially in regard to their responsibilities and powers, and it ensures that oversight of the agencies is fit for purpose. 18:17 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher In my role as the deputy chair of the PJCIS I have seen and worked relatively closely in recent times with members of our national intelligence community. Often in this place we recognise, as we should, our law enforcement agencies and we recognise our defence personnel, but rarely do we acknowledge the efforts and hard work of our DFAT staff. I have had the privilege—and I do call it a privilege—of spending some time with our DFAT team in Kabul. That was during the Afghanistan war. These men and women work away from home for long periods of time—up to two years. They don't often get home, and they live in relatively austere environments. When you join the military you expect to be living in austere environments on a regular basis, but we should be incredibly proud of the representation that our men and women provide to us from DFAT. In the many missions that I have visited across the world, they are exceptionally good and very intelligent human beings. As the world enters into a very difficult period from a geostrategic perspective, it is right that we spend the sort of money that we are spending to deter and to shape our environment—to shape our environs in the Indo-Pacific. But we also need to ensure that our Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade teams are appropriately funded and resourced because we don't want to ever let a situation arise where diplomacy fails and, ultimately, the Defence Force has to kick in. Ultimately, that's a failure of good international relations. I'm getting a little bit off track because not only should we be thankful for our ADF, our law enforcement and our DFAT staff but no-one ever thinks about thanking our national intelligence community. I suspect this is probably an issue that is near and dear to your heart, Mr Deputy Speaker Stevens, but in my short time on the PJCIS, I have worked with some exceptionally competent and capable men and women who keep us safe both here in Australia and abroad. A whole new world has been opened up to me in my role on the PJCIS. I had had no exposure prior to this to the intelligence community and what I said about our DFAT staff applies equally to our intelligence community. I want to take this opportunity to thank each and every member of our national intelligence community here tonight for the service, the dedication, the loyalty, the hard work that you provide to your fellow men and women. I really do want to say thank you on behalf of this parliament for the great work that you do. It is very important that any sort of national intelligence community has appropriate oversight. In this country, we have the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, who provides an important oversight role of various agencies within our national intelligence community. I often say that protecting Australians and their interests at home and abroad is singularly the most important role of government and I will say that again tonight. It is not just for the executive government but also for every single member and senator in this place. Whether you are in government, in opposition or on the crossbench, we have been put here to represent our relevant constituencies but our fundamental and most important role is to ensure the safety of our fellow Australians. I know that you would agree with that, Mr Deputy Speaker Stevens, and I want to acknowledge your work in this space over many years. In Australia, we are well served by six core intelligence agencies that comprise the Australian intelligence community. These agencies, with the support of the national intelligence community include the AFP, ASIC, Austrac and Border Force. These organisations work day and night to keep Australians at home and beyond our borders safe and their interests secure. Of the agencies that we do have, of course, most people would know of ASIO. That is the agency responsible for protecting Australians against espionage, foreign interference and terrorism. I recently had the privilege of seeing the director-general give his annual update at ASIO headquarters. We know that espionage is one of the greatest threats Australia is facing today. The threat level for espionage is greater today than it was at the height of the Cold War, such is the world that we currently live in. Our Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS, is tasked with intelligence gathering, covert operations and counterintelligence as well as foreign corporations. The Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation collects, analyses and distributes geospatial intelligence, a field in which Australia leads the world. The Australian Signals Directorate handles foreign signals intelligence, cyberwarfare, cybersecurity and the security of information and critical infrastructure. The Office of National Intelligence is responsible for advising the Prime Minister and the National Security Committee for all source intelligence advice and for coordination in various areas of national intelligence. The Defence Intelligence Organisation collects and advises on strategic intelligence, such as military plans and technical intelligence such as the weaponry of foreign nations. These agencies are comprised, as I said, of brave, talented and patriotic individuals who often give up a lot of time with family and friends to do their jobs. Their work often goes unnoticed, but, as I said earlier, I want to recognise their efforts tonight. When things go right in the national intelligence community that work is unseen. When things go wrong lives and livelihoods are sometimes lost. On behalf of the people of Australia, I want to say thank you to them for their hard work. In relation to this bill, this bill in question amends the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act to modernise the legislation that provides for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the IGIS. The IGIS has jurisdiction over the use of network activity warrants by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and the Australian Federal Police. The IGIS Act empowers the IGIS to conduct inquiries into alleged misconduct. It's responsible for compliance with laws, ministerial directions and guidelines; and consistency with Australia's many human rights obligations. Much like other statutory offices with investigative powers, the IGIS can make inquiries of its own volition in response to complaints raised, in response to disclosures of both the public and current former agency personnel or at the direction of ministers responsible, including the Prime Minister. These powers are not dissimilar from those afforded to royal commissions, including powers to issue summons, questions under oath, enter agency premises and access all information pertinent to an investigation. So what does this bill do? The bill implements two recommendations of the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community, often referred to as the Richardson review. These two recommendations were agreed by the previous coalition government. To that end, this bill is another example of coalition policy finding its way into this chamber. I think Australians agree that this kind of bipartisanship that we always strive for in this place on intelligence and security is very, very important. Recommendation 172 of the Richardson review—and ultimately in a spirit of bipartisanship—deals with the independence and eligibility of appointment to the role of Inspector-General. The IGIS is appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, who must first consult with the opposition leader. It is necessarily a bipartisan process. By guaranteeing a fixed term of appointment with limited grounds for termination, as well as conferring broad powers for investigations, the IGIS is able to act independently and without fear or favour. It's true that a candidate's character and approach to the role is the true determinant of independence in such an office; however, we agree that there ought to be some distance between the IGIS and someone who has previously held a leadership role in an agency which falls within the IGIS's remit. Even the perception of compromised independence would affect the IGIS's ability to perform their role effectively. This bill doesn't go quite as far as the PJCIS's recommendations. It goes a little further than the Richardson review recommendation, because the Richardson review recommendation basically said that if you are a head or deputy head of a security agency you shouldn't be able to just leave that role and walk straight into the IGIS's role where you have a gamekeeper and a poacher environment. The PJCIS thought that this issue was significant enough that there should be an appropriate period of time between—let's face it, a head or a deputy head of an agency could leave that job, go back to the bar or go and work for another agency for a day, a week, a month, maybe even a year and— The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Fisher will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 101 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Gas Industry 101 18:30 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Let's be clear: never has there been a government that has had such a clear mandate to take faster action on climate, and the truth is this government and this parliament can reshape our country's future. But to do so we must be prepared to lead ambitiously and bravely and break a cycle that has seen many climate and energy decisions over the past three decades made just on the basis of legislating for the term rather than fundamentally investing in and shifting our economy. Laid bare again this week off the back of the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO's latest report is the way forward, which is advocated for by the gas industry and many members and others in this place, and that is to open new gas fields. Contrast this with the way forward advocated for by my community of North Sydney and many more like it, who are determined to fight for and support a rapid and fair transition to renewables, and the tension between old fossil fuel industry technology, our government and the community becomes clear. And so, to help strengthen my community's advocacy, I want to bust the often repeated myth perpetuated by the gas industry that Australia has a gas shortage. We do not have a shortage of gas in Australia. The reserves already being drawn from can provide our nation with more than enough to see us through a planned, proactive transition, and that is simply the truth. Yet the latest Gas statement of opportunities released by AEMO seems to suggest, just like the previous year's report, that Australia may be facing gas shortages, and their suggestion is that the best way forward, unsurprisingly, is to unlock more gas. At the same time, however, the AEMO report itself also says that by 2030 the amount of gas needed for electricity generation in Australia will have dropped by a third. Yet AEMO forecast that, in that same year, gas companies will still be exporting the same amount they are now. Surely this shows that the argument trying to support the opening of new fields for domestic purposes is fundamentally flawed, if not just straight up fantasy. The problem is not lack of supply. The challenge is that, as it currently stands, Australia's gas is overwhelmingly exported, with more than 80 per cent going offshore. A little-known fact, but very concerning, is that the LNG exporters themselves, the industry itself, uses 12 times as much gas just to export as Australia's entire manufacturing industry currently uses. At a time when households and small businesses are under increasing cost pressure, we have gas companies driving up domestic gas prices and making windfall profits from exporting our resources overseas. Let's be clear once again: the myth of a gas shortage serves no-one other than the vested interests at gas companies, who wish to open new gas fields and expand existing licences. One such push to expand gas fields is being made by the Australian company Santos out in north New South Wales in an area that stretches from the Pilliga Forest through to Newcastle and onto Queensland. A few weeks ago I was hosted by farmers and locals on the Liverpool Plains, which lie almost in the heart of this area. It's here that Santos wants to build the Queensland Hunter Gas Pipeline, an underground pipeline running for 833 kilometres from Newcastle in New South Wales to Roma in Queensland, with a side stop along the way to the Kurri Kurri gas power plant. Along the way, it traverses extensive areas of strategic agricultural land with high-fertility soils and prime food and fibre production land. The Liverpool Plains in fact yield 40 per cent above the national average, contributing over $300 million to our GDP annually. The simple fact is that the science tells us that once this oil is dug up and then laid back down over the pipeline it will be significantly less productive. At the same time, the proposed pipeline significantly impacts high-quality koala habitat and dedicated areas of regional koala significance. It also crosses travelling stock routes, which have 10 species of threatened flora and 12 species of threatened fauna, including the eastern pygmy possum and the shy albatross. Recently the member for Mackellar and I sat and listened to the farmers, advocates and concerned citizens from the Pilliga and Liverpool Plains communities, who have been staring down consecutive fossil fuel projects for many years now, as they shared their knowledge and personal experiences. In the bigger context again, there is a truth here that we are not discussing. We know coal seam gas extraction is bad for rural farming communities. It impacts their water supplies, it impacts the quantity of the water, and it leads to soil subsidence. We know this because it is happening right now in the Darling Downs. The evidence is clear: coal seam gas is not the way forward for regional communities. So there is no gas shortage on the east coast, and if there is no gas shortage on the east coast and you accept that argument, we don't need to open new gas fields. We do, however, need to rapidly accelerate our transition to renewable energy to ensure that any additional requirements for energy supply or surety are met. This should include prioritising development and investment in green hydrogen in our country. Today's IPCC report makes it clear that there must be no new fossil fuel extraction projects opened if the world is to meet the Paris target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. Indeed, based on the findings of the International Energy Agency, the IPCC called for no new licensing or funding of oil or gas projects anywhere in the world. Make no mistake: projects like the Pilliga gas project and the Beetaloo Basin project are inconsistent with these calls and the Commonwealth government's commitment under the Paris agreement. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in a message of hope rather than despair, called for countries to adopt an acceleration agenda. He indicated that developed countries must bring forward their commitments to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions from 2050 to as close as possible to 2040. So what is the solution that an ambitious and determined government could put in place to ease rising energy costs for communities? As my community continues to argue, it is to rapidly transition to renewable and to ensure that our market settings enable Australia to meet countries like the USA and the EU as investment magnates. The American Inflation Reduction Act has been a game changer for the nation, with businesses and talent flocking in due to the significant government support now in place across the economy to incentivise renewable energy adoption. And now the European Union, through their green deal, has joined the US as a magnate for that investment. But where are we? In the short term, the projected annual shortfall in the domestic gas market can be avoided through the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, with Queensland LNG producers being able to meet domestic demand by producing gas above their export contract obligations. In the longer term, and in preparation for when this additional domestic capacity exhausts in around 2027, we must be more than ready with renewable energy. The revised safeguard mechanism is one policy lever we need to get right to drive down emissions and reduce large emitters' reliance on gas. But we also do need to incentivise homes and businesses to reduce their gas usage and make it easy and attractive for them to electrify everything by drawing on green energy sources. This could be achieved through a variety of measures modelled on the successful US Inflation Reduction Act, including providing grants for low-income households for energy-efficient upgrades and renewable installations or rolling out an electrification pilot in a community like North Sydney, where we are eager to test market design, grid integration and new business models, such as community ownership. Or it could be achieved by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation allocating funds towards electrifying both households and businesses in the form of zero-interest financial products. Ultimately, be assured: Australia does not have a shortage of gas. We have a shortage of political leadership to drive the transition to renewables which is urgently required. As the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said overnight, the 1.5-degree limit is still achievable, but it will take a quantum leap in climate action. Let's take that leap. Commonwealth Grants 102 18:40 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I want to call out the egregious revelations over the last few weeks regarding the previous government's industrial-scale rorting of grants. Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, we are only partway through an audit committee inquiry into grants administration. As the chair, I'm not going to pre-empt the recommendations—the member for Dunkley here has bearing witness to this nonsense that keeps emerging—but I do want to highlight the evidence. Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars were treated as a Liberal Party slush fund. Billions of dollars with no guidelines, allocated with no proper process but with secret decisions and secret criteria, and no records kept as to why decisions were made. I'm not contesting the right of ministers to make these decisions, but they are subject to the Financial Management Act, and they are subject to the grants guidelines. They say that ministers must receive written advice before making a decision, and they have to record the basis for their decisions. But the upshot is that billions of dollars were rorted for the Liberal Party. The most depressing thing, though, is that no-one is surprised by this anymore. That's a shameful and shocking thing our country. The second most depressing thing is they still don't understand that what they did was fundamentally wrong. They just come up with lines like: 'Oh well. You're the government now. Move on.' We have to interrogate this, and we have to learn the lessons. I will give you the example of the $4.8 billion Urban Congestion Fund: 83 per cent of funding from this just happened to go to Liberal and National electorates. It's a Deirdre Chambers moment. It's just a coincidence that there's only congestion in Liberal and National electorates. I don't think congestion only happens in their seats. It included, of course, the infamous commuter car parks rorts, a $656 million slush fund. Sixty per cent of that went to Victoria; apparently you didn't need commuter car parks in New South Wales or Brisbane or other states. The interesting thing in the audit report we have been inquiring into is that the department did some modelling and found out that most congestion in Melbourne—even if you just want to say, 'We were pushing the funding into Melbourne because Josh Frydenberg was worried about his seat,' and it turned out he was right on that front—is in the north-west of Melbourne, yet all the commuter car park funding went to the south-east. That's not a coincidence; that's where the seats that they were worried about were. But there was no process. They didn't write to state and territory governments who run the transport infrastructure. They didn't write to councils. It was just made up by Liberal MPs. Many were in Josh Frydenberg's electorate of Kooyong. Speaking of Kooyong, it is more than car parks now. You'd think the big national projects were going to be funded by the $4.8 billion Urban Congestion Fund. You were the minister at one point, weren't you? Mr McCormack 219646 I was a good minister! Mr HILL 86256 That's right, a very good minister—one that locked himself in rooms with no recommendations from public servants and wrote no records that the taxpayers— Mr McCormack 219646 How would you know? Mr HILL 86256 I'm chair of the audit committee. That's how I know. Because I've read the audit reports and we've had your evidence in. There are no records kept of why you locked yourself in a room and made these decisions. Billions of dollars of taxpayer funding. The former Deputy Prime Minister—he was former Deputy Prime Minister once, in the middle of the Barnaby episodes. Mr McCormack 219646 It's more than you'll ever be. Mr HILL 86256 This project on the books in the electorate of Kooyong was traffic lights, as I said. Mr McCormack 219646 You will never be the Deputy Prime Minister of this country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T Order! I'd ask the member for Riverina to— Mr McCormack 219646 He never will be the Deputy Prime Minister of this country. Mr HILL 86256 You'll never be the Deputy Prime Minister of the country again. You'd reckon that the Urban Congestion Fund might be for big, national— Mr McCormack 219646 You'll never be in the first place. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T Order! Mr HILL 86256 They do shriek, don't they? When you talk about integrity in public administration, it sets them off. They just kind of yell and scream—exactly what I said. I think it proves my point earlier that they still don't get that how they administered these funds was fundamentally wrong. It was legally wrong and it was ethically wrong. A $4.8 billion fund: it's funding a set of traffic lights at the intersection of Camberwell Road with Redfern Road and Monteath Avenue. Ms Murphy 133646 Ooh, that's important! Mr HILL 86256 They're two small side-streets, Member for Dunkley. The road is a state road, but it runs through some shops in Kooyong, one lane each way and on-street parking—a big national priority, this one. It's two side-streets of residential streets, just to make it clear. It was announced in 2019 that the then government was going to give $1.8 million in funding for this set of pedestrian lights. It was such an important national priority that they were going to fund 100 per cent it from their slush fund. They budgeted $1.6 million in the 2019-20 budget. No-one ever answered the question as to where the other $200,000 went, but let's not argue about that. The tender was out this year—$3.6 million. It's doubled. It's just a coincidence, I'm sure, that it's the intersection outside Josh Frydenberg's former electorate office, isn't it? This is how they used taxpayer money: handing out money and favours to their mates and then to themselves outside their own electorate offices. You would think also that for a national program of this scale there would be some independent assessment of proposals, maybe. There's a thought! A fact: just two of the projects out of the hundreds in the spreadsheets that we've got were referred to Infrastructure Australia for assessment: the Napoleon Road upgrade and the Dorset Road upgrade. What did Infrastructure Australia say about those? I've got the business case evaluation summaries here. They said: 'Not recommended for the infrastructure priority list.' That's what they said. Would you like me to table them? Deputy Speaker Wilkie, can I seek leave to table these documents? The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T You can seek leave to table the documents. Is leave granted? An opposition member: They're public documents. Mr HILL 86256 Yes? No? The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T Is leave granted An opposition member: No. Mr 86256 Okay. I didn't think they'd want those on the record. Let's make clear— The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T Member for Bruce: can I just clarify that. Is leave granted? An opposition member: No, it's not. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T Leave is not granted. Thank you. Mr HILL 86256 They don't want these facts on the parliamentary record. Infrastructure Australia said they were not recommended for the infrastructure priority list. For Napoleon Road, they initially allocated $3.5 million towards the upgrade. Then Alan Tudge, the former member—this is one of those ones in Aston—said they were going to fund $50 million. Yet that's actually $220 million short of what would have been required to deliver the project. So they allocated $3½ million, they announced a fake promise of $50 million and they were going to need $270 million to deliver the project. Then there's the Dorset Road upgrade. They allocated $6.5 million. Tudge looks like he promised $80 million, although the department said, no, they actually only pencilled in $50 million. But it would require another $120 million to deliver the project. Fake promises. Even the ones they put through Infrastructure Australia were not recommended. How were the $4.8 billion of projects chosen, you may well ask. No-one will ever know. The department gave evidence on Friday that they had no idea. It was done by ministers. Only some states and territories got asked—like New South Wales, a Liberal state. Other states and territories didn't get asked for input or advice. Then there's the Regional Growth Fund, a $272.2 million slush fund. Full marks for trying, though. You did try and cover your tracks on this one. It was dressed up. They had process, they had guidelines and they had evaluations, but magically, 96 per cent went to coalition seats. The other four per cent went to Lingiari, a seat you were trying to win from us. You didn't win it. But magically, in another Deirdre Chambers moment, $261,181,392 versus $11 million—they say the department assessed it. Well, yes, the department did assess these and then it gave a list of 148 applications to the ministers and said, 'You choose.' Why did they choose one over the other? No-one will ever know. It's just a coincidence that 96 per cent of it went to Liberal seats. The fund was for major transformational projects to deliver long-term economic growth and create jobs in the regions. There were a whole lot of sporting facilities. There was even one in the Casey electorate, on the edge of Melbourne. In fact, most of the voters in Casey live in a metropolitan area. Some of the funding went into a metropolitan area, but that should not be a surprise, because, as the Auditor-General observed, over 3½ years, 26 per cent of their so-called regional development funding went to major capital city postcodes. A government member interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 You're right, most of that you couldn't apply for, like the infamous North Sydney pool—apparently a regional development project. There was no requirement for benefit-cost ratios on this. The committee got the documents. It was a slush fund dressed up as a grants program. This cannot be normalised. I'll close by reading a couple of quotes from submissions. Regional Development Australia Northern Territory said: … BBRF became increasingly known for being a funding program marred by political influence. A long-term government worker, now consultant, said: The real point is that the last few years of the previous government was void of policy across almost every area of government. In my 43 years of working across 3 levels of government I had not before seen such a lack of policy depth across an entire government. …   …   … The sad side was that we didn't even try for Australian Government funding as the town is in the wrong location in the wrong electorate. How sad that in Australia, over the last few years, the location politically determines if children can have facilities … they also don't have the guts to stand up in front of the children and say because your town didn't vote for us, you are not getting a playground. Shame on you. (Time expired) Defence 104 18:50 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Last Friday at Jerilderie I had the enormous privilege and honour to deliver the thirteenth Monash oration. This speech is in honour of Sir General John Monash, 1865 to 1931. He was a soldier, a statesman and an engineer. He played a great part in the shaping of our nation, and he is remembered at Jerilderie, where he spent some of his early life. He is remembered right across this country, as he should be. I know the late great Tim Fischer had a special penchant for John Monash. Indeed, I have visited Sir John Monash's grave, his final resting place, at Brighton General Cemetery in Caulfield South. It's not far from the grave of John Chanter, who was the first member for Riverina in the federation parliament in 1901. These two great men played a large part in helping to define the Riverina and southern New South Wales in those formative years. The grievance I have is what I told the audience at Jerilderie on Friday. It was disputed by somebody in the audience, in fact. I don't think this gentleman could quite believe the statistics that I read to the room. The Institute of Public Affairs did a survey. It was quite a large survey. We actually— Mr McCORMACK 219646 Well, you can rubbish it all you like, but the statistics are worrying. Member for Dunkley, I think you will agree with me that, when a survey of 1,000 Australians is conducted and the respondents are asked, 'If Australia was in the same position as Ukraine is now, would you stay and fight, or leave the country?' and the results are 'stay and fight' just 46 per cent, 'leave the country' 28 per cent and 'unsure' 26 per cent, adding the results for 'leave the country' and 'unsure' gives a very disturbing 54 per cent. Only 32 per cent of those aged 18 to 24 said they would stay and fight, 40 per cent said they would leave the country and 28 per cent were unsure; and 35 per cent of those aged 25 to 34 said that they would stay and fight, 38 per cent said that they would leave the country and 27 per cent were unsure. Whether it's conducted by the IPA, Grattan Institute or whatever—it doesn't matter. I don't think the politics should come into it. Those statistics are worrying because it is a thousand people. We've probably swapped political leaders for less. Some of the poll figures used in this place as statistics or political weapons in question time and elsewhere, like down in the public press gallery, take the reflections of a lot fewer than a thousand people, I would say. The survey also gave the statement, 'Given conflict in Ukraine and growing rivalry between countries in our region, the federal government should do more to teach schoolchildren to be proud of Australian history.' The results were: 'totally agree', 63 per cent—which is an encouraging figure—'totally disagree' 12 per cent; and 'unsure', 25 per cent. I know statistics can be used whichever way you like—there are lies, damn lies and statistics, as they say—but 'total disagree' and 'unsure' make up 37 per cent. We should be proud of where we are as a nation. All too often, especially in this place, we talk down our nation. I don't, and I know the member for Mitchell doesn't, but all too often we have a bad habit of denigrating where we've come from, what we've done, what we've achieved and how it is that we've got to where we are in 2023. When you hear—and admittedly it's the IPA, but whoever conducted the survey, it was 1,000 young people, so you've got a large cohort saying this—that they would happily leave the country should the situation in Ukraine happen in Australia, and when 12 per cent totally disagree that there should be more teachings in school so that our children are proud of Australian history, that, to me, is something to be very worried about, and it's no wonder that it's my grievance. In that room at Jerilderie last Friday night were 70 proud patriotic Australians. As I said, one gentleman actually interrupted my address, feeling that he couldn't believe both statistics, but they are true; they are right. They're not correct in terms of what the sentiment should be, but unfortunately and sadly they are what the IPA found. We need to teach in our schools the fact that we have been a proud nation, that we are a proud nation. We've got much to celebrate. On the night, I handed around a Dead Man's Penny. A Dead Man's Penny is a memorial plaque that was struck, and it was the medal from World War I that no family wanted. It was sent to all the families of those who were not coming home. As such, it was a replacement for the soldier who was never going to come home, buried in a foreign field. Many of them were known only unto God. I handed around the Dead Man's Penny for a young fellow, just 24 years old, by the name of William John Mason, from Dubbo. He died of wounds on 5 July 1916. He was a miner. He was somebody who gave his life for our country. I am very proud, as we all should be, of our military. I know you served with distinction as well, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, and you are well aware of Kapooka. It's a fine establishment, currently headed by Colonel Tim Stone. It turns out the best and the bravest of our soldiers, and I am proud to say that it's near my home town of Wagga Wagga. Indeed, as I often say, Wagga Wagga is the only regional inland centre of its size that's home to all three arms of Defence. We have the Royal Australian Air Force at Forest Hill. If you spend any time in the blue, you end up at Forest Hill; you end up at RAAF Wagga. We've even got a Navy base, which is a long way from the nearest drop of seawater, but we proudly have 80 or so personnel serving there. Again, we should be proud of our military history, and indeed I am. We've had a Navy presence there since the early 1990s. We've had the Army there since the Second World War and indeed even before hostilities erupted in Europe between 1939 and '45. We had the Air Force taking over a property at Allonville near Forest Hill. But it was only the other day in my local paper—and it goes with the fact that young Australians are too ashamed to fight for their country—that we had an article from an academic, Jenna Price, decrying the investment we were making in defence and saying the money should be spent on social welfare. I think this is a terrible reflection as well, because we've got 80,000 job vacancies in regional Australia at the moment—80,000 jobs going begging for want of people to fill them. Yet we've got somebody from outside our region talking about all the money that we're spending on defence. I appreciate that we've had a $368 billion investment over the past week—and a good investment. And thanks to the Morrison government, that arrangement with AUKUS, with the United Kingdom and the United States, has been sealed. That arrangement with the submarines has been ratified. That is the strong defence investment that we made as a government. But, more than that, the editorial of that day's paper, just last Friday, on the same day I delivered the oration for Sir John Monash, talked about the relationship with the UK as being akin to being wedded to a corpse. I mean, really, in a military town? I know that some of the editorials are often written in a metropolitan city far away and disseminated around the regional papers that this group owns—and more is the pity. But seriously, we should be proud that we are a defence town. I certainly am proud that I belong to a tri-service town and I'm also proud of the fact that I have unmistakable and unshakeable faith in young people who will thankfully stand up and fight for our nation if the need arises. 19:00 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills In the House yesterday there was an acknowledgement of the anniversary of the Iraq war, and of the men and women who served in that conflict. I wanted to point out that all the Australian men and women who were asked to serve—men and women of the ADF, defence officials, diplomats, other security officials—in Iraq did so. Whether they agreed or not with the rule, whether they had issues with the reasoning behind the war, they did their duty—their obligation—and went and served their country in uniform or in their capacity as a security and defence official in Iraq. There has been a lot of commentary around the last 20 years and what it has meant for Iraqi people. Obviously, we also lost personnel in Iraqi in that conflict as well and we grieve for their families. I want to note on this occasion that I spent a year in Iraq. I was asked to serve as a security and defence official in Iraq. I made it publicly known in some media that I thought the war was wrong, that it was a strategic error, and a humanitarian disaster unfolded. But having said that, the people who did go to Iraq, the Australians who served there, whether they agreed or not with the war, also had a responsibility after the Saddam Hussein regime had been removed to help rebuild that country. They did so professionally and they achieved a lot in that rebuilding. Iraq has had a lot of problems over many years but it is still intact as a sovereign state. Some of that is due to the work that Australians did at the time helping rebuild the political and economic structures of that country during that period. It is important to note the service of all Australians who spent time there. Closer to home, we know as a government that the cost of living is front of mind for many Australians right now. The basics are costing a lot more. Australians are walking away from the supermarket with less for their money. Rising interest rates are making it harder to pay the mortgage. Many renters are feeling the pressure of costs being passed on, increasing their rent. Surging rents have actually kept many Australians trapped in the rental cycle for prolonged periods. The Albanese government is acutely aware of how difficult it is right now for people just to get by and that is why we are so focused on doing what we can to relieve the pressure on Australians. Although we have been in power for some 10 months, we have actually done a fair bit to relieve that pressure so far. I will just quickly run through a couple of things we have done. There are changes to child care. As many parents will know, childcare costs are such a significant burden. Our cheaper childcare reforms will actually help families save up to 90 per cent on their child care. This will provide much needed relief from 1 July this year and will make child care more affordable and accessible for Australian families, and ensure families with children in care are better off. The Albanese government has also reformed paid parental leave. This reform recently passed the parliament. It will now better meet the needs of modern Australian families, with a single paid parental leave. From 1 July, new parents will be able to use a total of 20 weeks leave as they choose, sharing the leave however it works best for that particular family. Parents will also be able to access leave in multiple blocks of as small as one day, with periods of work in between. The new combined family income limit will also see an additional nearly 3,000 parents become eligible to access paid parental leave and have access to that 20 weeks of paid parental leave, an increase from 18 weeks. This is just a start. There's more to do to help working families, and we will be delivering on paid parental leave of 26 weeks in 2026. We're also delivering on cheaper medicine. That has already occurred. Over 3.2 million prescriptions were cheaper in the first two months of this year. Thanks to our policy, which came into effect on 1 January, Australians have saved more than $36 million since that time. The maximum out-of-pocket cost for most medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is now $12.50 lower. For a family relying on two or three medications, that's going to put as much as $450 back into the household budget, back into people's pockets. That's real. That's making a difference to people. It's delivering real savings. Actions taken by the Labor government, the Albanese government, are relieving the pressure on families. We're also working to strengthen Medicare and reduce the pressure on hospitals. That's part of our $750 million Strengthening Medicare funding package, which will implement the recommendations of the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce report. We're delivering $220 million in infrastructure grants to strengthen general practice and we're delivering 50 urgent care centres, which will be rolled out over the course of this year. We're committed to making it easier for people to see their GP. We're expanding the seniors health card, helping more Australians access cheaper medicines on their visits to the GP. The government is committed to this because it's ensuring Australians receive the quality health care they deserve. We are all aware—I think it's a fact we all know—that Russia's illegal, abhorrent invasion of Ukraine has led to energy prices going to historic levels globally. As much as the opposition want to politicise this, it's just a fact, a reality of that war. The Albanese Labor government has taken action, though, to help shield Australians from the worst of those rising energy costs. Last week's release of the draft default market offer, the DMO, for electricity showed increases that are up to 29 percentage points lower than the Australian Energy Regulator projected late last year. That wouldn't have occurred if it weren't for the action taken by the Albanese government to cap prices late last year, when we were called back to parliament—all of us remember this—and we were asked to cap the prices of domestic coal and gas. If we hadn't done that, the increases would've been much more significant. There are estimates of around 40 to 50 per cent instead of 20 to 22 per cent. That Energy Price Relief Plan includes consumer and small business rebates to protect Australians from the worst of the rising energy costs. It included targeted relief on power bills to households receiving income support, pensioners, Commonwealth seniors health card holders, family tax benefit A and B recipients, and small business customers. That was the investment into those people, those Australians. And I have got to say that those opposite said no. They voted against that relief. That's also a fact that can never actually be changed. We came back because we knew how serious this was. We recalled parliament, we came back to vote on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill, and those opposite voted no. They voted no to relief. O pposition member s interjecting— Mr KHALIL 101351 You voted no, and you voted no, and you voted no to that relief, and those facts will be there indelibly in the Hansard record, in the historical record. You opposed price relief for all of those Australians, and that is something that you are responsible for. Thankfully, we got it through the parliament and it is having an effect, as I said. Lastly, I do want to touch on something else that they might be opposing—I hope not. We all know that safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of all Australians. It's something I personally understand, as does the Minister for Housing and the Prime Minister. We grew up in housing commission. We're all housos and proud of it because it gave us a roof over our heads. It gave us stability. It was something that allowed us to then maximise our potential and our contribution to this great country. So many Australians are struggling with rising rents, struggling with mortgage payments and struggling to buy a home. Sadly, too many are facing or experiencing homelessness. That's why our government is committed to the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund and is putting that in place. That's 30,000 new social and affordable homes. It's the most significant investment in generations, and it will deliver our commitments to help address acute housing needs. It will provide $200 million for the repair, maintenance and improvement of housing in remote Indigenous communities. It will ensure Australians have access to safe and affordable housing, reduce the pressure on the rental market, help provide 40 per cent of the purchase price and repayments for a new home in the Help to Buy Scheme for an existing home. This is a government focused on addressing the housing and rental crisis, and those opposite want to oppose it—again. You're going to go down in history as opposing all the types of support necessary for Australians to get through this difficult period, and you should be ashamed of that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 I'd just like to remind the chamber that this is the grievance debate, so it is quite common for people to raise grievances. HMAS Cerberus 107 19:10 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I stand up not to make a grievance but to launch into a celebration. Sunday was the much anticipated open day of HMAS Cerberus in my electorate of Flinders—the first one that's been able to be held in six years. The HMAS Cerberus open day was a resounding success, with over 15,000 tickets reserved and snapped up in advance before the day and an additional 3,000 ticketholders coming up and turning up on the day at the gate. In addition, over 100,000 people visited virtually via HMAS Cerberus's magnificent Facebook page, which I cannot recommend highly enough. Not only is it informative but it contains some of the most beautiful photography of the Western Port side of the Mornington Peninsula that you will ever see. Very importantly, some 60 people enlisted to become Navy recruits on the day. I can only hope that will grow from 60 to 600 to 6,000 over time. We need you all. On open day, visitors to the Crib Point base were able to see myriad different displays and demonstrations including marine engineering, RAAF and Army communication, marine rescue, survival at sea simulation, vintage warplane flyovers, vintage military vehicles, helicopter wet winching, drone racing and more. It combined to make a magnificent day out and an introduction to many for a future life in the Australian Navy. HMAS Cerberus is the nation's premier naval training base and the place where our brilliant Defence Force recruits begin their military careers. Indeed it is hard to meet a member of the Australian Navy without a proud story of their time at Cerberus and the remarkable training it has been providing onsite, one way or another, for over 100 years. It goes without saying that HMAS Cerberus is an important part of the Mornington Peninsula community. It is a significant source of local employment and a great contributor to our local economy. Many who served continued to live there after their time of active service to our nation. It is important economically. Back in 2017, at the time that the Parliamentary Committee on Public Works was looking into a possible investment into the redevelopment of HMAS Cerberus, the shire indicated that Cerberus contributed $547 million to the local economy and around a thousand local jobs. The 1,517 hectare site, affectionately known as the cradle of the Navy, is located on the Western Port side of the Mornington Peninsula and boasts a rich and fascinating history that matches its impressive world-class facilities. It was originally purchased back in 1911 at the recommendation of Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson KCB, RN, after extensive study of the Australian coastline for suitable locations for our major naval bases. It was originally called the somewhat less colourful Flinders Naval Depot, but it was commissioned as HMAS Cerberus on 1 April 1920. Its main role today is in initial training for the Royal Australian Navy across all relevant domains: the Navy Recruit School; Navy marine and weapons, electric engineering and electronics; Navy gunnery, seamanship and ship survivability and survival at sea; Navy maritime logistics; and Navy maritime communications and information systems. Some time ago, three tri-service schools were also established at Cerberus for dental, physical instruction and catering skills, so Cerberus now contributes to the skills and services of the entire Australian Defence Force. In addition to the permanent workforce of around 1,000, Cerberus can welcome as many 1,200 trainees at any one time on the base throughout the year. It is a registered training organisation, partnering with a number of specialist training organisations, local TAFEs and universities, and its qualifications meet the Australian quality training framework, making sure that graduates can travel all around Australia or, indeed, work in many places around the world. I've had the opportunity to observe some of those classes in action in maritime communications and electrical engineering and have seen how that training is imparted by lots of different media, including highly impressive lifelike computerised simulation, with a focus on practical applications ensuring the graduates have operational preparedness when they graduate. Between the 1990s and 2017 Cerberus had very little by way of new funding in terms of upgraded facilities or infrastructure. However, the former coalition government invested more than $460 million to upgrade critical underground services and build new technical training, physical training and survival at sea facilities. Many of these works were on display for the first time at Sunday's open day. I congratulate all involved with this amazing project, especially commander Cameron Eastman OAM RAN, who was project officer for the redevelopment. The redevelopment, funded by the coalition, has ensured that the Navy's premier training establishment, HMAS Cerberus, will be delivering capability well into Australia's AUKUS future. The new fit-for-purpose school of survivability and ship safety is a thing of pure wonderment. One element is a very deep pool and a number of true to life structures designed to teach students, under the direction of highly qualified senior staff, to work in teams to manage floodwaters, to escape from a capsized vessel and to safely evacuate or be rescued at sea in rather daunting storm-like conditions. Students also undergo training in managing fire at sea and combating nuclear, biological and chemical defence attacks. The drills do indeed look daunting at first, but students are trained according to a careful methodology to crawl, walk and then run to build confidence, capability and remarkable human courage. I have had the privilege of visiting HMAS Cerberus on two occasions in recent months. Firstly, I went with members on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade: Senators Raff Ciccone and David Van, and the members for Bruce, McEwen and Adelaide, during which the member for Bruce aptly demonstrated the emergency exit through a marine evacuation system super shoot in a suit. I can be paid for access to the video after this speech! I then attended HMAS Cerberus at the conclusion of Navy Week this year with the shadow minister for defence, member for Canning, Andrew Hastie, only to find that Andrew had been trained by Cerberus Commanding Officer Captain Ainsley Morthorpe, company sergeant major of the Royal Australian Navy, in an earlier part of Andrew's stellar career in the Australian defence forces. I thank Captain Morthorpe, or as we call him affectionately Captain Ainsley, and his colleagues for the remarkable tours and tales of this beautiful site and the importance it has played in the defence of Australia, and the role it will continue to play as AUKUS becomes central to Australia's strength and defence. I particularly thank Captain Ainsley for his remarkable photography, not only of the base, but of the surrounding countryside that he loves so much. He is an asset to our community in so many ways. With the recent submarine announcements made through AUKUS, it's exciting to think that the future crews of those vessels may start their naval careers in the beautiful Mornington Peninsula in the electorate of Flinders. They will be served no better in their training than what they will find there. I thank the staff, the officers and the recruits of HMAS Cerberus for being so welcoming on each of my visits so far, especially Captain Ainsley and command visit liaison officer Gary Swanton, and for the continued service that you all give to Australia. Around 4 pm on Sunday afternoon, as I headed towards the airport to come here for this week's sittings, I watched the ceremonial sunset from HMAS Cerberus. It was being broadcast live on Facebook, performed by the Royal Australian Navy Band Melbourne and the precision drill team of engineering officer trainees fresh from their triumphant performance at the Melbourne Navy Week closing ceremony. As someone said to my office manager Julia, who stuck it out until the very end on opening day, 'I am here because it is like being invited into Charlie's chocolate factory.' But if there's something that watching the closing ceremony settled once and for all, it's that the HMAS Cerberus's band is so much better! Now, I will finish with a small grievance—after all, this is the Federation Chamber's grievance debate, so oddly named! My grievance is that, on Friday night, running around in my best friend's backyard, I took a tumble playing ball with my favourite furry friend, Archie Bear, a mischievous but utterly forgivable West Highland Terrier. So under this tailored pant leg is a series of bandages and braces holding together a rather blue to somewhat purple foot, which, thanks to the good care of the member for Robertson, the Parliament House physio and a local radiology department, we now know not to be broken. But it did quite ruin my weekend, on crutches and ice. So, not consistent with the field of dreams for heroes and adventurers scaling in the commando course at HMAS Cerberus, I missed Open Day, other than what I could watch on Facebook, which I did, and am now counting down the 365 sleeps till the next one, at which, hopefully, I will be able to stand up. I thank my team, who over the last year have grown so fond of HMAS Cerberus, and particularly Captain Ainsley and his team, who sent me photos throughout the day of their explorations and adventures, involving helicopters, bushmasters, a rock-climbing wall and target practice and watching flyovers sore through the skies above. It was a lovely day. Medicare 109 19:21 Ms 298800 Swan MASCARENHAS () (): I'm unsure about other people's parents, but my mum and dad rarely show any positivity towards each other and rarely any sweetness or tenderness. So, when I got a phone call from my mother and she said to me in a serious voice, 'Dad has had a fall, and he needs to go and have emergency brain surgery,' the tone of her voice was something that I'm not used to. Mum only does that when she shows her real emotions, which is that she deeply cares for Dad and that she was really worried about what was going to happen. We didn't know whether surgery was going to happen that day or the next day. The brain surgeon gave me a call, because I was on the form, and he explained to me that Dad needed to have the surgery straightaway. I tried to go and see Dad before the surgery, but I didn't get to the hospital in time. I asked the brain surgeon, 'Is there a possibility my dad will survive the surgery or not?' The surgeon said, 'There's a possibility that he might pass away.' I asked, 'Can I please speak to my dad before he goes into surgery?' The surgeon said, 'Sure, I'll use my mobile phone.' He gave me a call, and I said, 'Good luck, Dad.' The thing that was fascinating about that moment is that I had a four-week-old bub, and it was kind of a beginning-of-life/end-of-life scenario. I just wanted to see my dad before that happened. It also made me realise that all I wanted was to make sure that my dad was going to be okay and I didn't have to think, 'Who is going to pay for this? Is this surgery something that's going to be cost prohibitive? How much do I need to pay for this?' So I'd say that I am really proud of Australia's Medicare system. It's something that Labor built. It's something that we will protect. The other thing that I'll add is that my dad survived the brain surgery and he's going well, two years on. But that moment made me realise how proud I am to be Australian and how amazing our system is—1984 is not only great for movies like Footloose or Ghostbusters; it's also the year that the Labor Party introduced Medicare. I think it's one of Labor's proudest legacies. It's a source of pride for so many Australians, and it's one of our defining national characteristics. The thing that's fascinating is that my dad has six brothers and sisters and they all migrated to California; we're the only ones who ended up in Australia. When you have a look at the healthcare system of countries like the US versus Australia, it seems like it's an alien planet. I think that we have a system that has been amazing in the past and can be amazing. I believe that in Australia it should be your Medicare card, not your credit card, that guarantees quality health care. For me, it's fundamentally about a fair go and helping a mate out when they're in need. It gives peace of mind to so many Australians, and it also ensures that support and care is given when we need it most. After a decade of cuts and neglect by previous Liberal governments, the Albanese government is committed to rebuilding Medicare. We've inherited this primary care system and it is in a terrible state. The former government froze the Medicare rebate not for one or two or three years but for six years. For six years it was ripping billions of dollars out of primary health and causing gap fees to skyrocket, and this is something that Australians have been feeling right across the nation, but particularly in my electorate of Swan. This has increased the number of Australians who have had to pay out-of-pocket expenses to visit a GP. We said at the election that there was no higher priority in the health portfolio than strengthening Medicare and rebuilding general practice. In Swan there are lots of amazing general practices, but the thing that we've been seeing is that the model that has existed has not been able to flourish and survive under the previous coalition government. When I went doorknocking during the campaign—and during the campaign we knocked on 45,000 doors—people said time and time again that they were so worried about the state of Medicare and the level of disrepair and neglect that had happened previously. This government knows that bulk-billing is in decline and that this has caused additional stress on Australian families that are already dealing with cost-of-living pressures. When you've got it crying child with a fever, the last thing you need to be thinking about is out-of-pocket expenses that your GP will impose on you. That's why we have committed $750 million to implement the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce. This is a really exciting initiative. It's about increasing the amount of primary care access. What this means is developing a system where Australians are supported to be healthy and well and making sure that the system is equitable and affordable and that we have patient-centred primary care services. Where people live or the type of care that they need shouldn't matter. We need to make sure that the financing that supports it is sustainable. We need to make sure that it's simple and easy to navigate for people and their healthcare providers. To reduce fragmentation and duplication and to deliver better health outcomes, we're also looking at encouraging multidisciplinary teams. Too often people treat health in silos, but what we need to do is make sure that we're thinking about the patient and the way that allied health services work together. We need to make sure that we improve people's health outcomes, because, in the end, that's what it's about. It is also about modernising primary care, and this includes using data and digital systems to better help support diagnosis. We are moving into cool medical technology, and we need to make sure that we're actually using this to benefit all Australians. We need to share critical patient information and empower people to participate in their own health care and also drive insights for planning and resourcing and continuous quality improvement. We need to make sure that we're continuously trying to improve the system, rather than seeing it fall backwards. It's also about supporting change management and cultural change in the healthcare sector. This is something that happens in the private sector all of the time, and this is something that we need to do better. We need to make sure that we systematise it. Our universal healthcare system is the envy of the world. It's something that we should work to strengthen and protect. It's something that we should do with bipartisan support every day. In the October 2022 budget we announced a $2.9 billion package to drive an innovative revamp of Australia's primary healthcare system. This included $220 million for the Strengthening Medicare general practice grants program to support general practices and eligible Aboriginal community controlled health services to apply for up to $50,000 to make improvements to their practices and to extend patient access and provide better primary care. This is really exciting, and I encourage people to try to participate in it. There is also $135 million to commence the establishment of 50 Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia to give families more options to see a healthcare professional when they need to. This is a really smart idea. What it will do is divert people who can't access a doctor through their GP using Medicare without a gap fee and prevent them from going to emergency rooms. This is a smart policy which will help both of those systems. These clinics will be bulk-billed and will be open seven days a week. For my electorate, the two neighbouring areas that will support them will be in Perth and Midland, so I'm really excited about those coming up. I'm proud to be a part of a Labor government that is investing in Medicare. It is a proud legacy of this government. When you think about the alternate—of winding it back and seeing the disrepair of it—it's just not fair. It's un-Australian. The truth is that only Labor can be trusted on health care. I'm amazed at the number of GPs and doctors who have been elected to the 47th parliament. I think we have at least three who have been elected to the class of 2022, which is phenomenal. What this will do is make sure that we create patient-centred and better health policies, informed by professionals. But we also want to make sure that it has a real impact for our constituents. I am proud of what the Labor Party has done and I'm proud of what we will continue to do. The DEPU 290544 There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:31