﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-03-22</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 22 March 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Apology for Forced Adoptions: 10th Anniversary</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>4</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That further statements on the recognition of ten years since the National Apology for Forced Adoptions be permitted in the Federation Chamber.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>4</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>4</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>4</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 11 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private business on Monday 27 March 2023. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 21 March 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 21 March 2023 and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 27 March 2023, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> 1 MR PIKE: To present a Bill for an Act to declare Australia Day, on 26 January, to be the national day, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Australia Day Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Notice given 20 March 2023.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak </inline> <inline font-style="italic">to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR HAMILTON: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Online Safety Act 2021</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Online Safety Amendment (Breaking Online Notoriety) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 20 March 2023.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order </inline> <inline font-style="italic">142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MS SHARKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Interactive Gambling Act 2001</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit Card Ban and Acknowledgement of Losses) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 20 March 2023.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may spe</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must </inline> <inline font-style="italic">be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 DR HAINES: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Cheaper Home Batteries) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 21 March 2023.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjou</inline> <inline font-style="italic">rned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR RAE: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the Government inherited an economy defined by a decade of stagnant wages, flatlining productivity, weak business investment, skills shortages and energy policy chaos; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that in the first ten months, the Government has:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) successfully argued for a minimum wage increase and passed legislation to get wages moving again;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) legislated cheaper child care and cheaper medicines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) legislated emissions reductions targets and invested in cleaner and cheaper energy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) invested in fee-free TAFE and more university places; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) handed down a budget that delivered responsible cost of living relief and invested in the drivers of economic growth without adding to inflation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes the next budget will build on these strong foundations with help for energy bills, higher wages for aged care workers and investments in economic growth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 21 March 2023.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minu</inline> <inline font-style="italic">tes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Rae</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue at a later hour.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MS SHARKIE: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that the regulation of retirement villages in Australia is highly complex and varies significantly between states and territories;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that retirement village fees can include upfront incoming payments, ongoing service charges, and exit or deferred management fees, the latter of which may equate up to 25 to 40 per cent of the resident's ingoing contribution or resale price;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further recognises that while these fees are of a quantum which may apply to a prospective resident when purchasing a property freehold, most retirement villages offer only loan/license agreements or leasehold or similar agreements, which do not provide comparable security of tenure nor other rights;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) expresses concern that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) negotiating and understanding a lengthy and complex retirement village contract can be difficult for some prospective residents; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the fees charged place some residents in financial hardship when they depart, such that they may not be able to afford a higher level of care if needed subsequently;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) calls on the Government to recognise that many retirement village contracts represent a financial product, and therefore warrant federal oversight and regulation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) further calls on the Government to work with the states and territories on national reforms for the harmonisation of retirement village regulation regimes such that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) improved consumer protections and increased transparency and consistency are provided for all Australians entering retirement villages; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) consideration is given to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) regulation of retirement village contracts as financial products by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) improved consumer protections and regulation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 20 March 2023.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Sharkie</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that co</inline> <inline font-style="italic">nsideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MR LITTLEPROUD: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia's live sheep export industry employs more than 3,000 people in Western Australia and is worth $85 million;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) since 2018, this industry has delivered extensive and comprehensive reforms which have significantly improved animal welfare outcomes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Australia has the highest standards of animal welfare in the world;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) Australian sheep are high quality, disease-free and perform well in feedlots and at sea, creating demand overseas for them as a premium product; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if the trade is banned, alternatives will be sourced from countries that do not have Australia's high animal welfare or quality standards;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) condemns the Government for its reckless and ideological decision to forcibly shut down Australia's live sheep export industry;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is the independent regulator of the live animal trade, and any decisions made in respect to the trade should always be predicated on science and independent of government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to urgently explain what factual evidence or science its decision to ban the live sheep export industry is based on; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) urges the Government to immediately reverse its decision to forcibly shut down this industry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 21 March 2023.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Littleproud</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS MCKENZIE: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) under the Government we have now seen interest rates rising for nine straight months; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) we have not seen consistent rate hikes like this in more than 30 years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the latest increase means that a family with a typical mortgage of $750,000 now needs to find an extra $20,000 a year to keep up with mortgage repayments; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) at the same time energy bills have soared and grocery costs are rising; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to take real action to address cost of living pressures.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Notice given 21 March 2023.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms McKenzie</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Commi</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ttee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MRS PHILLIPS: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Saturday, 1 April 2023 will mark the six month anniversary of the introduction of the Government's Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee has helped over 2,700 Australians into home ownership;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that as well as establishing the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, the Government has started delivering on its ambitious housing agenda, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, which has unlocked up to $575 million to be spent on delivering social and affordable housing;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) establishing the interim National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide expert advice to Government on housing supply and affordability; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) striking a National Housing Accord to bring together all levels of government along with investors and the construction sector, alongside $350 million in additional federal funding to support the delivery of social and affordable housing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further acknowledges that the Government will continue to work to improve housing outcomes for Australians by establishing the Housing Australia Future Fund, developing a new National Housing and Homelessness Plan and providing approximately $1.6 billion per year to the states and territories through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 21 March 2023.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">50 minute</inline> <inline font-style="italic">s.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mrs Phillips</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MRS ANDREWS: To move—That this House</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) foreign interference online poses a unique risk to the national security of Australia, particularly on social media platforms;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) these platforms have been successfully weaponised by authoritarian states in an attempt to interfere in our democracy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) under the previous Government, Australia led the world with its foreign interference, espionage and influence reforms of 2018;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the cybersecurity measures implemented by the previous Government are now being adopted by likeminded countries around the world; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) cyber-enabled foreign interference is a unique challenge which requires further reforms; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to continue to monitor and adapt to the ever-changing threats posed by foreign actors in cyberspace.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 29 November 2022.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mrs Andrews</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee d</inline> <inline font-style="italic">etermined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS DANIEL: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the consequences of harm from gambling are poorer health and wellbeing for individuals who gamble, their family members, friends and community;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) family and relationship problems, emotional and psychological issues, including distress, depression, suicide and violence and financial harms are all costs of gambling;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the potential for harm has increased with the proliferation of online gambling, and the proliferation of sports bettors gambling online which significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a three-year study by La Trobe University with 50 thousand respondents revealed that more than three quarters felt they should be able to watch sport on television free from gambling ads and that young people are exposed to too much gambling advertising; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) expenditure on gambling advertising in Australia has increased by 320 per cent in the past 11 years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) exposure to gambling advertising normalises betting and increases the risk of harm;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) current restrictions have failed to reduce children and young people's exposure to gambling, especially sports betting; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the prolific promotion of sports betting does not align with community values.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">(</inline> <inline font-style="italic">Notice given 21 March 2023.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Daniel</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — contin ued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR WALLACE: To move—That this House acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the social media platform TikTok poses a serious national security threat and should be banned on all government devices;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Australian user-data is accessible in mainland China, and that Chinese companies are required under its national security laws to assist its intelligence agencies and to keep that assistance secret;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) the Government was warned of the serious threat nine months ago, and must now immediately act to follow the lead of our close security partners including the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and the European Union by banning TikTok on government devices;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) given the close relationship between TikTok, and its parent company Bytedance, and the Chinese Communist Party, the social media platform could be used to promote pro-Chinese Communist Party narratives, to suppress anti-Chinese Communist Party narratives, to stoke divisions in our country, and to influence our political system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 21 </inline><inline font-style="italic">March 2023.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Coulton</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 LABOR GOVERNMENT: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 28 November 2022</inline>) on the motion of Ms J Ryan—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that in May 2022, Australians voted for change and for a Labor Government to build a better future;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) further notes that in the six months since the election, the Parliament:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) has already legislated to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) fix the mess the previous Government made of the aged care sector;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) deliver a cleaner and greener future to tackle climate change;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) deliver cheaper medicines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) provide ten days paid family and domestic violence leave;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) repeal the cashless debit card;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) expand access to the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vii) deliver a 'Future Made in Australia' with Jobs and Skills Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is currently debating legislation to deliver:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) secure jobs and better pay;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a national anti-corruption commission;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) safer and secure workplaces for Australian women; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) cheaper childcare for Australian families; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that the Government is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) delivering on its election commitments to build a better future; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) being a responsible government in the face of challenging times globally.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes </inline><inline font-style="italic">each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MS STANLEY: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the COVID-19 pandemic showed us how vulnerable Australia's supply chains are;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) revitalising Australian manufacturing will diversify our economy and create sustainable and secure jobs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Government is delivering on its election promise of creating a $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund (NRF); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the NRF will invest in the priority sectors of transport, medical science, renewable and low-emission technologies, value-add in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, value-add in resources, defence capabilities, and enabling capabilities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that the NRF will support:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the development of strategically important industries and shore up supply chains;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) targeted investment in manufacturing capability to create well-paid jobs for Australians including in regional communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the diversification and transformation of Australian industry and the economy, to take advantage of emerging opportunities, including the global transition to net zero.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 20 March 2023.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Stanley</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MR PASIN: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the vital role the Australian trucking industry plays in the transportation of goods along the supply chain;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that the trucking industry is an industry made up of, amongst others, almost 60,000 small and family-owned businesses, operating on tight margins;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes that that the National Transport Commission anticipates that by imposing a 10 per cent annual increase to the heavy vehicle road user charge the tax paid on fuel would increase from 27.2 cents per litre to 36.2 cents per litre by July 2025, equating an additional $1.35 billion per year by 2025-26;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) recognises that many heavy vehicle road users are unable to pass on the increased costs, which will impact viability of logistics business, leading to inevitable collapse over coming months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) calls on the Government to rule out increasing the heavy vehicle road user charge by 10 per cent in the interests of the heavy vehicle sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 21 March 2023.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 m</inline> <inline font-style="italic">inutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Pasin</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">ECONOMY: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mr Rae—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the Government inherited an economy defined by a decade of stagnant wages, flatlining productivity, weak business investment, skills shortages and energy policy chaos; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that in the first ten months, the Government has:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) successfully argued for a minimum wage increase and passed legislation to get wages moving again;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) legislated cheaper child care and cheaper medicines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) legislated emissions reductions targets and invested in cleaner and cheaper energy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) invested in fee-free TAFE and more university places; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) handed down a budget that delivered responsible cost of living relief and invested in the drivers of economic growth without adding to inflation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes the next budget will build on these strong foundations with help for energy bills, higher wages for aged care workers and investments in economic growth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">22 March 2023</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>10</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6992" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>MADELEINE KING (—) (): I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The bill to amend the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016('the act') proposes to:</para>
<list>increase the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility's ('the facility') appropriation from $5 billion to $7 billion;</list>
<list>add Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, collectively the Indian Ocean Territories, to the definition of 'Northern Australia' in the act; and</list>
<list>clarify that the persons to which section 7(1A)(b) of the act refers are Indigenous persons, and that the objectives of the act include the provision of financial assistance for the development of northern Australia economic infrastructure for the benefit of Indigenous persons.</list>
<para>This government committed to increase the facility's appropriation in the October 2022-23 budget, and this amendment legislates that commitment. By providing the facility with an additional $2 billion to provide financial assistance to businesses and communities in Australia's north, this government is demonstrating its commitment to developing the north. To date, the facility has committed over $4 billion to projects, generating substantial public benefit.</para>
<para>By extending the definition of 'Northern Australia' to the Indian Ocean Territories, this government is empowering the facility to provide financial assistance for the development of economic infrastructure that provides a basis for economic growth or stimulates population growth in the Indian Ocean Territories. Allowing the Indian Ocean Territories to benefit from financial assistance provided by the facility will enable local businesses to diversify and create jobs in line with our core principle of 'no-one left behind, no-one held back'.</para>
<para>Clarifying that the persons to which section 7(1A)(b) refers are Indigenous persons, and that an objective of the act is to benefit Indigenous persons, removes potential ambiguity in the act. Further, it makes clear this parliament's expectation that the facility is empowered to provide financial assistance for the development of northern Australia economic infrastructure, including for the benefit of Indigenous persons. This government is fully committed to advancing Indigenous outcomes.</para>
<para>The bill being introduced today will, if enacted, deliver these outcomes for Australia's north.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6995" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Australian government makes substantial investments in infrastructure across the nation including in transport infrastructure, through the Infrastructure Investment Program; in communications infrastructure, through the National Broadband Network and mobile connectivity; in energy infrastructure, by supporting rebuilding the electricity grid; and in water infrastructure, to build essential water supplies across Australia. Good investment in infrastructure creates significant opportunities by creating jobs, building communities and unlocking economic growth and productivity.</para>
<para>Infrastructure Australia was established by the current Prime Minister in the last Labor government to provide independent, expert advice to the Australian government on infrastructure investment that Australians need. Since then, Infrastructure Australia has been sidelined with a lack of genuine influence. It's been stretched too far and too thin and has lacked focus. These amendments ensure that Infrastructure Australia is the adviser to the Australian government and that it is evaluating proposals submitted by the Australian government, states and territories.</para>
<para>The infrastructure environment has also changed significantly since its establishment, which is why this government commissioned an independent review to identify the changes needed to restore Infrastructure Australia and to refocus its priorities.</para>
<para>This bill responds to the recommendations of the independent review of Infrastructure Australia that was conducted by Nicole Lockwood and Mike Mrdak AO.</para>
<para>The government's response to the review recommendations will position Infrastructure Australia to achieve its core purpose—to provide quality, independent advice to the Australian government on infrastructure that supports the economy, builds the nation and addresses the challenges and opportunities of the future.</para>
<para>This bill makes important changes to the Infrastructure Australia Act to provide the framework for implementing the government's response to the review's recommendations.</para>
<para>The bill's amendments will provide for greater alignment between Infrastructure Australia's work program and the advice that government needs to make informed infrastructure investment decisions.</para>
<para>This government intends to clearly set out its infrastructure policy objectives, which will inform Infrastructure Australia in carrying out that work.</para>
<para>Infrastructure Australia's focus will continue to be on transport, water, energy, and communications infrastructure, the nationally-significant infrastructure that connects our cities and our regions, and is an enabler of our economy.</para>
<para>Infrastructure Australia will be strengthened as an adviser on project merits and priorities, and will deliver a more refined and targeted infrastructure priority list linked to its audit, government priorities and Australian needs. These changes will remove duplication and build on the strong relationships with the jurisdictions, harmonising processes and leading to better targeted advice to appropriately inform Australian government decision-making.</para>
<para>Importantly, Infrastructure Australia will retain its statutory independence, which will ensure it continues to provide impartial advice to the Australian government, particularly on infrastructure project selection and on prioritisation, for investment in projects where it matters the most.</para>
<para>The new governance model put forward for Infrastructure Australia, will ensure it has the eminence, authority and standing to be a national leader and coordinator amongst infrastructure advisory bodies. The three commissioners will collectively have strong and relevant expertise and be responsible for the delivery of Infrastructure Australia's functions.</para>
<para>The government expects the commissioners will be engaged in delivering the work of Infrastructure Australia, rather than being merely an oversight body. Persons appointed to the commissioner roles will have been identified through a merit-based process and will be highly experienced members of the infrastructure sector.</para>
<para>Infrastructure Australia is now providing advice on infrastructure proposals through the budget process and will support the slimmed-down governance structure with an advisory council consisting of infrastructure experts and Commonwealth agency senior officials.</para>
<para>The advisory council will provide strategic advice to the commissioners and help improve Infrastructure Australia's interactions with government investment and decision-making processes.</para>
<para>Whilst the bill implements the recommendations of the independent review of Infrastructure Australia requiring legislative changes, a new Statement of Expectations will be issued to Infrastructure Australia to implement the remaining recommendations of the review.</para>
<para>Together, these changes will set Infrastructure Australia up to once again be the Commonwealth's expert adviser on infrastructure of national significance.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6999" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Today I'm introducing the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023.</para>
<para>The bill delivers on the government's commitment to fully establish Jobs and Skills Australia as a statutory body to provide independent advice on the labour market, and the skills and training needs of workers and employers, now and in the future.</para>
<para>Australia is facing skills shortages across many of our critical industries. The healthcare and social assistance industry alone has a projected employment growth nationally of over 300,000 workers by 2026.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, our labour market is tight, with the unemployment rate sitting at 3.5 per cent in February 2023, and job advertisements over the last 12 months to January 2023 having increased by 4.5 per cent.</para>
<para>As at December 2022, 65 per cent of recruiting employers had difficulty finding staff—meanwhile, the number of occupations in shortage doubled in 12 months from 153 occupations to 286, which really underlines the scale of the challenge.</para>
<para>Jobs and Skills Australia's quarterly labour market update, released in February, found employment continues to shift towards jobs that are commensurate with some level of post-secondary school qualification.</para>
<para>Over the past year, around 36 per cent of total employment growth has been in occupations associated with university qualifications, and over 60 per cent of total employment has been in occupations where VET qualifications are the primary pathway.</para>
<para>This demonstrates the importance of both the VET and higher education systems to growing a highly skilled Australian workforce, and importantly Jobs and Skills Australia's independent advice related to the labour market and education and training.</para>
<para>The government is already taking action on these issues.</para>
<para>As at the October 2022-23 budget, the government is budgeting $6.3 billion for VET in the 2022-23 financial year. This is $451 million higher than estimated at the March 2022-23 budget, in no small part due to new funding for 180,000 fee-free TAFE and vocational education places this year.</para>
<para>We are investing $921.7 million over five years from 2022-23 to strengthen Australia's VET system and address skills shortages, providing 480,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places, and $50 million to establish a TAFE Technology Fund to modernise IT infrastructure, workshops, laboratories, telehealth simulators and other facilities at TAFEs across Australia.</para>
<para>The government is committed to working collaboratively with states and territories to deliver a new five-year national skills agreement in accordance with the vision and guiding principles agreed by skills ministers and endorsed by National Cabinet in August 2022 and announced in the Jobs and Skills Summit following that National Cabinet meeting.</para>
<para>We are investing almost $100 million over the next decade to deliver 10,000 New Energy Apprenticeships.</para>
<para>Pertinently to the bill I am presenting to the House today, the 2022-23 October budget also included funding for the establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia and building the body's capacity for tripartite partnerships and engagement.</para>
<para>We have provided funding for Jobs and Skills Australia to deliver a clean energy capacity study, to provide critical evidence and insights to support the workforce planning and policy development needed to build a strong and vibrant clean energy sector and contribute to the Australian government's Powering Australia plan.</para>
<para>Jobs and Skills Australia will also conduct a national study on adult literacy, numeracy, and digital literacy skills to provide an up-to-date evidence base on levels of these foundation skills among Australian adults. This will be the most comprehensive study ever undertaken in Australia. The results will inform the design of future programs and policies.</para>
<para>This government committed to undertaking a genuine consultative approach with stakeholders in designing the permanent model of Jobs and Skills Australia, so that everyone could benefit.</para>
<para>Introducing the legislation in two stages, including this amendment bill, has allowed the government the time and opportunity to consult with key tripartite partners and stakeholders, like state and territory governments, business leaders, unions, training and education providers, and civil society representatives.</para>
<para>Taking into consideration what we heard, this bill sets out the full range of functions and governance arrangements to establish the permanent model.</para>
<para>Jobs and Skills Australia will operate as a truly tripartite organisation, with unions, employers, and state and territory governments brought in as partners informing and resolving the skills and labour market crisis we are facing and in building the workforce we need for Australia's future.</para>
<para>It was clear through consultation that partners and stakeholders saw what an opportunity Jobs and Skills Australia has to help shape the nation as we grapple with labour shortages, and as the training and education sectors are required to make significant choices in adapting to the challenges posed by climate change, rapid technological change, and a migration system being revamped.</para>
<para>In November 2022, we formally established Jobs and Skills Australia as a priority, and to hit the ground running. Professor Peter Dawkins was appointed as the interim JSA director and has been leading the body through a period of rapid growth in scope, particularly the heightened focus on engagement with tripartite partners and industry stakeholders.</para>
<para>In the interim phase, Jobs and Skills Australia has begun a new, critical workforce forecasting and scenario planning role. This work is supporting the skills and training system to respond to current and future workforce needs, by assessing workforce requirements and undertaking a whole-of-economy outlook.</para>
<para>Jobs and Skills Australia has commenced a major study of the workforce implications of the transition to a net zero economy through the clean energy capacity study. It has begun work on a new foundation skills study to develop a stronger evidence base on the skills needs of some of our most vulnerable cohorts.</para>
<para>This new work has been underpinned by the core functions of Jobs and Skills Australia, such as producing data and analytics, focused on skills demand and labour market insights.</para>
<para>This bill now establishes the permanent Jobs and Skills Australia, including its full range of functions and governance arrangements. The government is committed to strengthening Jobs and Skills Australia as an independent advisory body, trusted to produce a robust evidence base on the critical issues facing Australia's labour market.</para>
<para>State and territory governments, industry leaders in unions and employer groups, local leaders, education providers and experts have provided their views to the government about what is needed from Jobs and Skills Australia.</para>
<para>Such partners are essential in both influencing the design of Jobs and Skills Australia, and in providing advice to government. They provide us with the understanding and expertise about skills and labour market issues, and those issues prevalent for their industries and regions. Consultation has been ongoing, including through the government's Jobs and Skills Summit, through bilateral meetings and roundtables, and through a public discussion paper process.</para>
<para>Stakeholders have told the government they want to see Jobs and Skills Australia maintain its independence through its analysis and advice to produce insights that will benefit everyone—from state and territory governments, industry, and education providers.</para>
<para>The advice provided by Jobs and Skills Australia will be independent—while the Minister for Skills and Training and the department secretary can request advice from Jobs and Skills Australia, the advice provided will be made independently by the JSA commissioner and the minister will not give direction about the content of any advice.</para>
<para>The department's role is limited—as a statutory body Jobs and Skills Australia can leverage corporate resources from the department, including property, digital and operational infrastructure, and staff. It is common practice for independent bodies (both primary and secondary) to be resourced by Commonwealth public servants.</para>
<para>While independent, it will not have responsibility to direct funding at a Commonwealth or a state and territory level. Rather, Jobs and Skills Australia's role is advisory and may inform and provide analysis on government responses to skills and workforce measures. States and territories and other agencies will retain autonomy and flexibility to make their own policy and program decisions.</para>
<para>I have committed to state and territory colleagues that they will have a role in Jobs and Skills Australia to ensure it is working effectively to provide analysis and advice crucial for them to deliver their training needs in their respective jurisdictions.</para>
<para>This is reflected by the particular role they have with Jobs and Skills Australia—two representatives on the Ministerial Advisory Board, the requirement that the JSA Commissioner must engage with them on the work program, and the ability to collaborate and second experts.</para>
<para>I will work closely with my colleagues across the states and territories and ensure they contribute to the development of Jobs and Skills Australia's advice.</para>
<para>Likewise, I expect our partner industries, unions, business peaks and education providers to play a strong role in informing the analysis and advice of Jobs and Skills Australia based on their deep networks and understanding of the system and how it operates practically.</para>
<para>This bill establishes the governance of Jobs and Skills Australia, with a commissioner, deputy commissioners and a ministerial advisory board, who will provide critical leadership support, engaging widely to support the delivery of the work program of Jobs and Skills Australia.</para>
<para>This body will be led by an independent commissioner, who will be appointed in a long-term permanent capacity through a merit-based selection process.</para>
<para>The commissioner will be supported by no more than two deputy commissioners—who will have broad-ranging skills and experience in representing the views of stakeholders to assist the government in addressing skilling, workforce and labour market needs.</para>
<para>Experts may be engaged on a shorter, time-limited basis to lead some studies and to assist the commissioner in the exercise of their functions. This will allow the work of Jobs and Skills Australia to be best supported by leadership, where work is required on specific studies or where work is required with other government agencies and key stakeholder groups, to ensure appropriate expertise, consideration and consultation is undertaken.</para>
<para>The Ministerial Advisory Board will be truly tripartite and representative. It will ensure Jobs and Skills Australia builds strong relationships and will provide the government with expert advice on its work plan and other products.</para>
<para>Board members will be diverse in their skills and experience and consult with and represent the views of their respective sectors, industries and cohorts. Relevant advice from the Ministerial Advisory Board must be considered by the JSA Commissioner when performing their functions.</para>
<para>The Ministerial Advisory Board will ensure advice is informed by a wide range of views, insights and expertise, including experts representing the views of states and territories, tertiary education, employer groups and unions, data and analysis, workforce planning, those representing priority cohorts and those most disadvantaged in the labour market.</para>
<para>The bill legislates the requirement of two representatives for the states and territories, three members representing unions, balanced fairly and equitably, and three members representing employers. Up to four other members can be appointed, but they must be from non-union and non-employer groups.</para>
<para>During consultation, we have heard from tripartite partners about the importance of workforce planning functions for strengthening the economy. This bill clarifies the extra functions Jobs and Skills Australia will undertake to support the government's objectives of maintaining full employment, cultivating positive labour market outcomes and meeting our future workforce needs.</para>
<para>The government is determined that the trend over the last decade towards more insecure, low-paid and unskilled work is turned around. To do this, we need to have the data and analysis, and the bill establishes a requirement for Jobs and Skills Australia to give advice on the impact of workplace arrangements, including insecure work, on economic and social outcomes, building an evidence base by analysing the experiences of affected Australians.</para>
<para>This complements the government's moves to make secure work an object of the Fair Work Act 2009, with the passage of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Billin December 2022.</para>
<para>Jobs and Skills Australia, as part of its expanded functions, will improve the identification of labour imbalances across the economy and analyse the demand and supply of skills. During consultation, stakeholders have reminded us of the importance of having improved supply and demand analysis to better understand barriers to workforce participation.</para>
<para>We know that both the vocational education and training and higher education systems are required to skill Australians for jobs both now and in the future. More than nine out of 10 new jobs are projected to require post-school qualifications. Some of our critical industries, like the care workforce, have skills gaps across skill levels, requiring both VET and tertiary-level qualifications.</para>
<para>The advice provided by JSA will consider tertiary qualifications—both through the VET system, including apprenticeships and higher education—to ensure there are flexible pathways to develop skills and knowledge for employment across the economy.</para>
<para>People living in regional, rural, and remote areas face unique challenges. The bill will ensure Jobs and Skills Australia produces enhanced regional-level data and analysis of skills and workforce needs, to provide a greater understanding of jurisdictional differences, such as changing economic conditions, emerging or growing industries, and where some regions are going through economic transition periods.</para>
<para>The bill will also ensure JSA considers workforce and skills needs relating to migration. This will allow for JSA's role in the migration program to be embedded following further policy development by my colleagues the Minister for Home Affairs and the minister for immigration.</para>
<para>The government has frequently heard through its consultation period about the need for more granular data to inform workforce planning and policy and funding decisions at the regional level. This enhanced function for JSA will include nowcasts and forecasts so that stakeholders can use this data to implement place based solutions.</para>
<para>The bill expands functions of JSA to undertake studies to improve the analysis and understanding of Australians that have historically experienced disadvantage and exclusion in the labour market.</para>
<para>Some of these groups are marginalised, by way of age, health, gender or background. We need to do more for these groups, and work with stakeholders that can help the government to understand labour market disadvantage and exclusion—like First Nations Australians, women, people aged over 55, people with disability, our cultural and linguistically diverse community, and young people.</para>
<para>JSA will also undertake comprehensive workforce and occupational capacity studies for government funded services, like early childhood education.</para>
<para>As part of its functions, JSA will regularly contribute to industry consultation forums, to strengthen the national evidence base and industry-specific expertise. This function specifically includes collaborating with jobs and skills councils to help facilitate their role in defining jobs roles, mapping pathways, determining sectoral workforce needs, and developing fit for purpose qualifications and microcredentials.</para>
<para>I expect JSA will establish a subcommittee devoted to collaboration with jobs and skills councils.</para>
<para>The government is determined to continue to restore tripartite consultation and genuine partnerships. This bill will legislate for the workplan of JSA, setting out the key outcomes and priorities for the JSA commissioner to be established in consultation with all jurisdictions and tripartite partners, and it must invite public submissions.</para>
<para>This will ensure its workplan is supporting workforce shortages, and long-term capacity is built in Australia's workforce through shared solutions. This workplan will be published each financial year.</para>
<para>For JSA to operate as intended and for the benefit of all stakeholders, the bill includes a requirement for a statutory review to begin within two years after commencement of this bill.</para>
<para>The advice of JSA and its expanded functions will help build a better trained workforce and a more productive economy. The government supports the aspirations of all workers for secure work, meaningful work, and a better future. With work comes purpose and identity.</para>
<para>Australians who have the right skills have more job security, satisfaction, and more job choices. A skilled workforce is also a more productive workforce.</para>
<para>Learning new skills, acquiring knowledge, and cultivating innovation is key to opportunity, wage growth and job security for workers, and to increasing productivity and revenue for industries.</para>
<para>The government understands immediate action is needed to address critical skill shortages and JSA has an important role to play.</para>
<para>The core business of this government is to create more opportunities for all Australians to prosper. That is why establishing JSA as a trusted national source of data, analytics, and workforce forecasting and planning has been a priority of the government. I firmly believe that JSA is, and will be understood widely as, one of Australia's essential social and economic agencies. If, as a nation, we are to improve productivity and wellbeing, then we need high-quality analysis regarding our human capital. This is the task of Jobs and Skills Australia today and in the decades to come. I'm excited about how public policy will improve because of Jobs and Skills Australia's influence, and I want to note that their work is of national significance and will help improve people's lives. I commend this bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6993" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023 amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to incorporate the measures in five customs tariff proposals and to correct references to new tariff headings and subheadings made by the 2022 Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (the Harmonized System). The customs tariff proposals were tabled in Parliament in August and November last year. The measures in the bill support improved access to essential hygiene and medical-related goods, greener technology, and respond to the illegal invasion of Ukraine and follow from Australia's international obligations.</para>
<para>The bill inserts into the Customs Tariff Act a new provision for the temporary application of a 35 per cent additional duty to goods that are the produce or manufacture of Russia or Belarus. The additional duty applies to goods imported between 25 April 2022 and 24 October 2023 that left for direct shipment to Australia from 25 April 2022. This duty applies in addition to the general rate of customs duty applicable to imported goods. Importers of these goods are able to access concessional treatment under certain items of schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act. This ensures that Australia is meeting its commitments under various international agreements. This measure commenced on 25 April 2022 for an initial six-month period and was subsequently extended for a further 12-month period. The measure and the extension are a response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the support provided by Belarus for this invasion. The measure and the extension are necessary for Australia's essential security interests as Russia continues to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and undermine the rules based international order. Australia is committed to upholding these principles that are essential for Australia's international, regional and domestic stability and security. Economic measures against Russia and Belarus are a necessary part of the international community's response to their flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations.</para>
<para>The bill incorporates a provision which provides for a temporary 'free' rate of customs duty for goods that are the produce or manufacture of Ukraine, other than tobacco, alcohol and petroleum products. The 'free' rate of customs duty applies to goods that are imported into Australia from 4 July 2022 to 3 July 2023. The measure complements the additional duty applied to Russian and Belarusian goods and seeks to assist the economic recovery of Ukraine.</para>
<para>The bill incorporates the extension and expansion in scope of concessional item 57 of schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act. This concession provides for a 'free' rate of customs duty for imported hygiene and medical-related products. The measure was first implemented in 2020 as a temporary response to the pandemic, extended on several occasions and was ultimately made permanent on 1 July 2022. At this time, the scope of the concession was extended to cover ingredients to be used in the production of certain medicaments and containers for medicaments, in addition to goods such as face masks and gloves. This permanent tariff concession ensures that Australians continue to have access to critical hygiene and medical-related goods.</para>
<para>The bill incorporates a measure that provides a 'free' rate of customs duty for new passenger motor vehicles with a customs value less than the luxury car tax threshold. The 'free' rate of customs duty applies to electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and hybrid vehicles with an engine capable of being plugged in to an external source of power. This measure commenced on 1 July 2022 and complements other measures aimed at accelerating the uptake of these vehicles.</para>
<para>The bill will also amend a reference to the tariff heading for blood-grouping reagents in a note to chapter 13 of schedule 3 of the Customs Tariff Act and insert the correct tariff subheading for certain goods that are herbicides, antisprouting products and plant-growth regulators to ensure that these goods are subject to the correct preferential rate of customs duty as agreed under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7002" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>17</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>17</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is committed to the task of saving lives and delivering a better future for the veteran community.</para>
<para>When an Australian signs up to our Defence Force, they make a solemn vow to defend Australia, to operate in support of our national interests.</para>
<para>They do so knowing that they may find themselves in harm's way and could make the ultimate sacrifice for our nation.</para>
<para>This is why as a government and as a nation we have a solemn obligation to look after our Defence Force personnel, veterans and families.</para>
<para>To make sure for those who find themselves injured or needing support, that this is readily available.</para>
<para>I am pleased to introduce today the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023.</para>
<para>This bill introduces a number of measures that will improve the way we support veterans and their families, address some technological anomalies, and make some minor technical improvements to the operation of veterans' legislation.</para>
<para>The amendments contained in the bill, a number of which are long overdue, demonstrate the government's ongoing commitment to implementing practical support measures to better support defence personnel, veterans and their families.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 will require the Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA) to provide an annual report for tabling in parliament. This item addresses the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee's recommendation in their July 2019 report, 'Annual reports (No. 1 and No. 2 of 2019)', that the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) be amended to publish an annual report. The RMA has, as a matter of practice, already been tabling an annual report, so this measure will convert this existing practice to a legislative requirement.</para>
<para>The RMA have, of course, been consulted and supports this measure.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 amends the language contained in section 330 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA) and section 58 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-Related Claims) Act 1988 (DRCA).</para>
<para>This is important because the language in these provisions is reflected in communications with veterans, and the present phrasing regarding the Military Rehabilitation Compensation Commission refusing to process a claim until further information is provided is distressing to many veterans. The phrase will be replaced so that the commission will instead 'defer' processing of the claim, which reflects actual practice.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 fixes incorrect references in the Veterans' Entitlements Act to a provision in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 amends the <inline font-style="italic">Defence Service Homes Act 1918</inline> to clarify the determination, revocation, replacement, variation and content of the statement of conditions made under section 38A of that act.</para>
<para>The statement of conditions is similar to a product disclosure statement for insurance. It is the legislative instrument that sets out the risks against which the Commonwealth will undertake insurance under the relevant part of the act, and other terms and conditions relating to insurance by the Commonwealth under that act.</para>
<para>The original drafting of section 38A left it ambiguous as to the extent the minister may re-make or otherwise revoke and replace a statement of conditions.</para>
<para>The amendments in schedule 4 repeal certain subsections under section 38A and substitute provisions that clarify the operation of the statement of conditions and the conditions to vary, revoke and replace the statement of conditions.</para>
<para>The new provisions continue to ensure that any revocation or variation of the statement of conditions must not remove the right of a person to receive a payment to which the person had become entitled before any revocation or variation took effect.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 will automate the alignment of the private vehicle allowance rate in the <inline font-style="italic">Military Rehabilitation and Compen</inline><inline font-style="italic">sation Act 2004</inline> and the <inline font-style="italic">Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-Related Claims) Act 1988</inline> so that they continue to align with the <inline font-style="italic">Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988</inline>.</para>
<para>This will ensure consistency and create ongoing administrative efficiencies. Clarity and certainty will be provided for both clients and the department through the creation of a transparent and legislated process for the rate.</para>
<para>This bill is just one of many ways that the Albanese Labor government is working to better support veterans.</para>
<para>We came to government with a commitment to invest in a better future for defence personnel, veterans and families.</para>
<para>The October 2022 budget delivers on this commitment, with significant investments including:</para>
<list>$46.7 million for 10 new veterans and families hubs across the country.</list>
<list>$24 million to deliver the Veterans' Employment Program.</list>
<list>$4.7 million to develop the Op Navigator smartphone app to better support Australian Defence Force personnel in transition.</list>
<list>$97.9 million for a $1,000 increase to annual totally and permanently incapacitated payments.</list>
<list>$46.2 million to boost defence force personnel and veterans' homeownership.</list>
<para>We're also responding to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide's <inline font-style="italic">Inter</inline><inline font-style="italic">im </inline><inline font-style="italic">report</inline>:</para>
<list>We've invested $233.9 million to engage 500 new frontline staff at DVA to eliminate the compensation claims backlog, delivering on a key election commitment, and we've already employed 275 of those staff;</list>
<list>$87 million to modernise IT systems in DVA, improving claims processing;</list>
<list>$24.3 million to provide increased support to veterans who are having their claims processed and to improve modelling capabilities needed to forecast and manage future demand for DVA services;</list>
<list>$15.5 million to support DVA's continued and timely engagement with the royal commission.</list>
<list>And vitally, we've invested $9.5 million into developing a pathway for the simplification and harmonisation of veterans legislation. Consultation on that pathway is now underway.</list>
<para>This government is committed to implementing practical support measures to better support defence personnel, veterans and families.</para>
<para>The amendments contained in the bill before us today, while modest, demonstrate our government's ongoing commitment, while we also work on our Veterans' Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway.</para>
<para>We want our service personnel, veterans, and veteran families to know that they will get the support that they not only need, but deserve.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7004" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>18</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>18</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>A good leader never asks a person to do something they would not.</para>
<para>Since being elected to government almost 12 months ago, the Albanese government has demanded accountability and transparency from the aged-care sector.</para>
<para>It was a demand almost everyone welcomed, except of course the coalition, who predictably criticised oversight as being unrealistic and unfair.</para>
<para>The Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill reinforces the Albanese government's commitment to be open and transparent with the Australian public.</para>
<para>To hold ourselves to the same high standards we demand of the sector.</para>
<para>This bill will establish an independent Inspector-General of Aged Care, who will monitor and investigate the Commonwealth's administration and regulation of the aged-care system.</para>
<para>An inspector-general who will shine a light on uncomfortable, systemic issues and investigate their root cause.</para>
<para>An inspector-general who will report their findings and recommendations to government, to parliament, and to the public, to instil greater accountability and transparency across the aged-care system, and, in turn, facilitate positive change for older Australians and their families.</para>
<para>Through nine years of neglect, the Australian public lost trust of how our most vulnerable Australians were being cared for.</para>
<para>This bill is another step to restoring that trust.</para>
<para>Systemic problems must be thoroughly understood if they are to be effectively corrected.</para>
<para>But successive Australian governments have brought a level of ambivalence, timidity and detachment to its policy and administration.</para>
<para>Some changes to the system have been far reaching, others have been incremental.</para>
<para>But all have contributed to the ad-hoc and piecemeal development of aged care reflecting the circumstances and concerns of the day.</para>
<para>We can list every error or fault in the aged-care system until we are blue in the face—and some try, if you just look at the comments on my Twitter.</para>
<para>But pointing out faults does not address the root causes of the problems that are embedded in the structural design of the aged-care system.</para>
<para>The royal commission found that these factors have hindered the smooth administration of the system. They have made it more difficult to provide high-quality and safe services.</para>
<para>As the needs of older Australians have evolved over time, so too has our aged-care system.</para>
<para>We are at the precipice of the next great test of our aged-care system, the baby boomer generation.</para>
<para>If we do not address these issues now, we will not be prepared for the greatest challenge our aged-care system has faced in the past century.</para>
<para>The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety highlighted a clear need for independent oversight of the administration and regulation of the aged-care system.</para>
<para>The commission recommended that the governance of the aged-care system be subject to such ongoing scrutiny.</para>
<para>That government bodies responsible for governance, regulatory and pricing roles within the aged-care system must be held accountable for their processes, their decisions, and, above all, their performance.</para>
<para>Aged care is not a single service.</para>
<para>It is a large and complex system that involves several agencies and a range of programs and policies designed to care for and support Australians as we age.</para>
<para>The commission saw the Commonwealth having four distinct roles in the governance and administration of the aged-care system.</para>
<para>The system governor—the Australian government and the Department of Health and Aged Care.</para>
<para>The policy owner, the market steward, working to ensure equitable access and appropriate policy settings across the system.</para>
<para>Designing and driving an aged-care system that provides older Australians with access to aged-care services and appropriate care.</para>
<para>The quality regulator—the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, charged with regulation of aged-care providers, ensuring they deliver the safe, dignified, and quality care that our mums, dads, grandmas and grandpas all deserve.</para>
<para>The prudential regulator—an expanding role within the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission which ensures a strong, financially viable, aged-care sector that is compliant with prudential obligations, where quality and safety of care is not compromised by financial instability.</para>
<para>And the pricing authority—whose functions were recently consolidated in the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority, providing independent advice to ensure that aged-care funding is driven by the actual cost of delivering care.</para>
<para>These four roles comprise the framework that the aged-care system operates within.</para>
<para>The inspector-general will be independent from these bodies, but they will each fall within the scope of the inspector-general's oversight.</para>
<para>Importantly, the inspector-general will not duplicate the functions of the existing bodies within the aged-care system.</para>
<para>The inspector-general will be empowered to review these government agencies, to consider their actions, their decisions, and their performance.</para>
<para>To consider how the programs and grants they administer are meeting their objectives. To consider whether regulatory settings are right and drive compliance with the standards which keep older Australians safe.</para>
<para>To ask 'Have they got it right?' To question whether these bodies are bringing about positive change, whether the aged-care system is getting better as a whole.</para>
<para>The inspector-general will also focus their attention on reviewing existing complaints mechanisms to consider how complaints are handled and provide recommendations to support a continuous improvement model for all complaints processes to make sure people's concerns get a fair hearing.</para>
<para>One benchmark against which these bodies will be measured is the implementation of the royal commission's recommendations. The inspector-general will monitor and evaluate the progress of implementation of these recommendations and ask 'Is that what the royal commissioners envisaged? Is it something better?' And if not, why not?</para>
<para>Independence and impartiality are cornerstones for the inspector-general who will have autonomy and discretion as to how they perform their functions and exercise their powers.</para>
<para>The bill gives the inspector-general coercive information gathering powers. The powers enable the inspector-general to compel the production of any information or documents relevant to their functions. The power to compel someone to appear and to answer questions or to enter premises for the purposes of performing their functions.</para>
<para>These powers extend to anyone the inspector-general reasonably believes has information that supports the exercise of their functions. They override secrecy provisions and they abrogate privileges. They ensure the inspector-general can access all the information necessary to investigate systemic issues, to identify and promote best practice and innovation across the aged-care sector, and to make recommendations that will bring about real change.</para>
<para>The inspector-general's functions can be seen broadly as monitoring, reviewing and reporting.</para>
<para>Monitoring</para>
<para>Independent oversight means understanding what is going on across the aged-care system.</para>
<para>The bill enables the inspector-general to use their information gathering powers to monitor decisions, programs, operations and funding under aged-care laws to maintain a comprehensive understanding of what is occurring, what trends are emerging, what systemic issues are prevailing, and what insights can be seen from a holistic view.</para>
<para>The bill does not prescribe a framework for how the inspector-general will monitor the aged-care system. It gives the inspector-general the discretion to apply information-gathering powers in the most appropriate manner, to seek the most appropriate information to analyse, and to interpret and report their findings to the public, government and the parliament on the health of the aged-care system.</para>
<para>Reviews</para>
<para>The bill sets out a more prescriptive framework for the inspector-general to investigate systemic issues through targeted reviews. More prescription to reflect the investigative and resource intensive nature of these reviews.</para>
<para>To give assurance to the public and aged-care government bodies on the priorities of the inspector-general, the bill requires the inspector-general to publish a work plan each year, outlining the reviews they intend to conduct and when they intend to commence each review. This plan may be varied at the discretion of the inspector-general.</para>
<para>While the inspector-general will consult on the plan, the bill gives the inspector-general discretion to determine what will be reviewed, and when and how they will do so, within the framework outlined in the bill. We know that deciding what to review will be a critical matter for everyone. We have heard already, while consulting on the bill, that people want to contribute to the work plan. But we need to be smart and targeted and allow the inspector-general to hear, then focus their resources on the most pressing systemic issues.</para>
<para>The inspector-general will focus reviews on pervasive, systemic problems in aged care. Detailed investigations that dig into the root cause of issues, not just addressing the symptoms on the surface that everyone can see. Looking at the why and the how.</para>
<para>The bill does not allow the inspector-general to review a single case, complaint or breach under an aged-care law. Their role focuses on broad, systemic problems. This avoids duplication between the inspector-general's functions and those of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission or the Commonwealth Ombudsman, as well as minimising confusion as to where complaints should be directed.</para>
<para>The review framework focuses on transparency and procedural fairness.</para>
<para>When necessary, the bill allows the Inspector-General to use their information-gathering powers to obtain the information they need. This could be documents or data. The Inspector-General may conduct interviews, access premises and interrogate computer systems.</para>
<para>The bill allows the Inspector-General discretion to seek information through submissions from the public, or to target certain people, or sectors of the community or aged care, in order to understand lived experience or seek an opinion or knowledge from the specialist sectors or groups.</para>
<para>The bill provides protection from victimisation and immunities to those who provide information or assistance to the Inspector-General's performance of their functions, with strong penalties for those that breach secrecy or protection provisions.</para>
<para>The bill requires the Inspector-General to be transparent and produce a report for each review they conduct, to be tabled in parliament and published. These investigations will not be conducted in secret, and findings and recommendations will not be hidden from the Australian public.</para>
<para>These reports will be fair. Where anything is expressly or impliedly critical of a person, whether it be a government official or a member of the public, that person will receive a fair hearing. They will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond and to present their case. The Inspector-General will consider any responses, any comments on any drafts, and any recommendations where they have asked for one.</para>
<para>Reports</para>
<para>The Inspector-General will report on more than just their reviews.</para>
<para>The Inspector-General may at their discretion report on the outcomes of their ongoing monitoring, reporting publicly and to parliament on whether the aged-care system is meeting the objectives of the aged-care legislation, whether Australian government bodies are performing in a way that enables an effective aged-care system and whether they are driving excellence.</para>
<para>The bill also empowers the Inspector-General to report to the government, the parliament and the public on the progress of implementing the recommendations of the royal commission.</para>
<para>Progress reports from the Inspector-General will occur annually to ensure that aged-care reform remains a priority. To ensure that older Australians see the benefit of the reform coming from these recommendations, this bill requires the Inspector-General to undertake a detailed review and report to the government, the parliament and the public by the five- and 10-year mark.</para>
<para>In the hearing for the royal commission, both Uncle Brian Campbell and Professor John Pollaers asked the royal commissioners essentially the same question. Will anything get done following this royal commission? Will anyone be held accountable for its learnings and implementing the recommendations?</para>
<para>This bill makes sure of it.</para>
<para>It makes sure that the royal commission is not just another missed opportunity, another report completed. It makes sure that someone is watching over and someone is making sure things gets done, someone who has the autonomy to say whether those things are effective or not.</para>
<para>The bill I introduce today will steer a course to an aged-care system that delivers safe and high-quality aged care and underlines our commitment to holding ourselves accountable.</para>
<para>We can't demand accountability from the sector without turning that mirror to ourselves.</para>
<para>Reforms like the Inspector-General will help avoid a repeat of the previous nine years of malaise and mismanagement from the previous government and uplift the standards of aged care.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6998" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>21</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>22</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 makes consequential and transitional amendments to Commonwealth laws to support the establishment of the Inspector-General of Aged Care.</para>
<para>The bill amends the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018 to ensure information can be shared with the inspector-general for the purpose of carrying out its functions.</para>
<para>The bill also amends the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 to require that a person, having already been investigated by the inspector-general, can only be investigated by the commission where it is in the public interest to do so.</para>
<para>Finally, the bill provides for transitional arrangements to move from the interim administrative arrangements within my department to the statutory inspector-general.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>22</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to move the following motion:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the Member for Berowra presenting a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding immediately for a period of no longer than one hour; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) any questions required to complete the passage of the bill then being put without delay.</para></quote>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the Member for Berowra presenting a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding immediately for a period of no longer than one hour; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) any questions required to complete the passage of the bill then being put without delay.</para></quote>
<para>I rise today to support the suspension motion that will allow the member for Berowra to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code Act of 1995. The coalition is seeking to have the Criminal Code amended to prohibit the display of Nazi symbols. Nazi symbols are, of course, associated with one of the most heinous regimes in history. Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany carried out the deliberate, calculated and organised mass murder of six million European Jews as well as five million prisoners of war and other victims. The Nazis' systemic and state sponsored campaign of persecution dehumanised an entire people and its industrialised extermination resulted in the Holocaust, one of the worst crimes committed in history. In all, the Nazis murdered 11 million human beings they considered to be life unworthy of life.</para>
<para>The Nazi regime is one of the greatest evils ever visited on humanity. Nazism is an ideology of unparalleled hate. It's an ideology which, through its contempt for the rights of man, can lead only to darkness and to the destruction of humanity. Thus, in what they represent, Nazi symbols are no ordinary symbols. They must be condemned wherever and whenever they are found and displayed. Today, we must stand united as a parliament. Those who display Nazi symbols are either ignorant of history or they are knowingly lionising an evil, which must never be revisited upon humanity. Sadly, and repugnantly, there is growing incidence of the glorification of Nazism in Australia. A Nazi symbol is a symbol of action commonly associated with the Nazi party. It would include the Nazi swastika, the Nazi salute, Nazi uniforms and other types of symbols identified in the Executive Council of Australian Jewry's anti-Semitism reports.</para>
<para>In seeking to amend the Criminal Code, we seek to make it an offence to display such symbols without a reasonable excuse. A person would have committed an offence if the person displays a Nazi symbol or the person knows that the symbol is a Nazi symbol. The penalty would be 100 units or 12 months imprisonment. In these amendments there would be exceptions, and to avoid doubt the display of swastika in connection with Buddhism, Hinduism or Jainism does not constitute the display of a Nazi symbol. Moreover, to ensure the prohibition does not interfere with the vital work of teaching young people about the evils of the past, there are limitations and carve-outs in terms of genuine educational, scientific and artistic purposes such as films and documentaries. Furthermore, the prohibition does not apply to journalism or where symbols are displayed for another purpose in the public interest.</para>
<para>There will be those who complain about these amendments to the Criminal Code being an infringement of civil liberties. To those people, I can say that the historical context here is everything. We owe it to all of those who were victims of one of the greatest crimes ever committed that such crimes are never repeated. As a parliament and as a people, ours is a duty to the present and the future, informed by one of the greatest sins of the past.</para>
<para>We seek support from the government today to suspend standing orders to bring on an important bill. It goes to the points that I raised earlier in this contribution. It allows us as a parliament to deal with this issue as a matter of urgency. It's clear to this parliament that there is no matter on the agenda today which has precedence over this matter, which we seek to bring in a bipartisan way into this chamber. It's obvious, through the drafting by the shadow Attorney-General, that we have been able in a concise way to provide words to the parliament that will enhance the Criminal Code and give the ability to authorities to stamp out a repugnant practice, a practice which is on the rise and which we must condemn.</para>
<para>As the Minister for Home Affairs in 2020, I wrote to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and asked the committee to examine this very issue—the issue of symbols—particularly in the context of coming from a period where we had been worried about ISIL attacks, including attacks that had taken place in our own country, and a rise in the incidence of right-wing extremism, which is not to be tolerated by anybody but to be discouraged by all. The committee, to their credit, said that they had a heavy agenda and that they would consider it in due course. The now Attorney-General was a member of the PJCIS at that time. The government says that it will examine this through the PJCIS process. That's a commitment that I understand the government had given. We're 10 months into the period of government, since May of last year. The government still hasn't dealt with this matter, even though I had written to the committee in 2020.</para>
<para>We seek to work with the government, through this suspension, on a particularly important issue. The Leader of the House has the opportunity now to read through the proposal that we put, and we would ask for his respect in allowing the chamber to deal with this important matter.</para>
<para>I want to join with everybody, not just on this side of the House but on both sides of the House, in working as one to do what we can to make sure that the Criminal Code reflects the reality of having to deal with this scourge. That is why it is important for us as a parliament to suspend standing orders to deal with this in a balanced way. We call on the support of the Independents, who have come into this place saying that they have an open mind, and many of them have made a commitment to considering each bill that comes before them. There is no more compelling bill before the House than that which we present this morning.</para>
<para>We ask for the support of the Leader of the House, who's good enough to be here in the chamber, and the Attorney-General as well, and we respect that. We don't seek to divide; we seek to unify through this action in the parliament today. We don't seek to vilify people for spurious reasons. We don't seek to cast completely baseless aspersions on their character. We don't seek to occupy that ground. In fact, it's completely the opposite. We seek to work together to send a very clear message, particularly to young Australians, predominantly young males, who may be influenced and indoctrinated quickly online. As the Director-General of Security in our country has pointed out, it can happen very quickly. A period of history may be glorified, and denialism may somehow appeal to them as it did in a previous generation.</para>
<para>We come together to send a very clear message that it is not Australian to adopt these symbols, to publicly display them and glorify that period of history. It is Australian to condemn that period of history. It is Australian to stand with people of Jewish faith. It is Australian to stand against those anti-Semitic incidents that we see globally and in our country as well. It's on the rise. Today it is an opportunity for our parliament to show our country and, frankly, to show the world that we will take action which is significant and will send a clear message to those that might otherwise be influenced by people of bad faith.</para>
<para>There are Australians who live to this very day with the horrors of knowing that their loved ones were tortured, gassed, murdered and abused in so many violent ways. They deserve the support of this parliament. They deserve to know that we stand with them in the condemnation of the rise of Nazism and the display of these symbols, which are meant to deliver hate on those people that seek love. We will work with the government. We've allowed them as much time as possible to contemplate, to deal with this matter as a matter of urgency in the parliament. I want to thank the member for Berowra for a lifetime of work in this area. I want to thank him for the drafting. He is a renowned legal expert, as we know, and he's been at work on drafting this. It's not in a complicated form. It reflects some of the legislation in New South Wales as well. There should not be any difficulty for the government to support what we're reasonably proposing today.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Leader of the Opposition. Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion. The events on the streets of Melbourne at the weekend were offensive to all Australians. They are offensive to the memory of the one million Australians who served and the 39,600 Australians who made the supreme sacrifice in the Second World War. They are offensive to me as a Liberal, as a Jew and most importantly as an Australian.</para>
<para>This offence, this dishonouring of earlier generations of Australians and this abuse of our political discourse, deserves a comprehensive response today. What we witnessed in Melbourne on the weekend was the glorification and mimicking of an ideology whose fundamental tenet is the racial superiority of one group of people over another. We know the idea of racial superiority is a myth, but it's not a myth without consequences. Its consequences are real. Six million Jews were murdered, a figure that represents two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe, and millions of innocents, people of faith, homosexuals, political prisoners and people with disabilities. It was industrial-scale murder the likes of which the world has never seen.</para>
<para>Last Saturday we saw little men in Melbourne with steroided arms and stunted minds seeking to mimic and impersonate the evil that the greatest generation fought. These cowards, many of them with their faces covered by the cloths of shame, celebrated Nazism. Their actions sicken me to the core. To them I say, we say, 'Not in our country.' Not in the country that took in more Holocaust survivors per capita than anywhere else on earth.</para>
<para>The worst part of what we saw in Melbourne on Saturday is that it is part of a trend across our country. The Director-General of Security has spoken about the growth of grievance motivated violent extremism. He said, 'As a nation we need to reflect on why some teenagers are hanging Nazi flags and portraits of the Christchurch killer on their bedroom walls and others are sharing beheading videos. Just as importantly, we must reflect on what we can do about it.'</para>
<para>The Director-General of Security is right. There must be no place in Australia for Nazi-style flags, uniforms, salutes and boycotts, because they are the means by which this sickness seeks to perpetuate and promote itself. Such actions should be and must be a crime. I invite the government to put aside any partisan hesitation and support this motion initiated by the Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday he said in this place that we would support legislation that makes illegal the display of any aspect of Nazi glorification. The bill that we seek to have debated shows that we are true to our word.</para>
<para>Unfortunately yesterday the Attorney-General did something abominable. He attributed anti-Semitism to someone who is not anti-Semitic, to a whole party that is not anti-Semitic. That action was a mockery of the seriousness of anti-Semitism. The Attorney-General is the first law officer of the Crown and a lawyer of considerable distinction in his own right. He should be an example to so many in this country. The tragedy is that the Attorney-General all too often cannot rise above these appalling political misjudgements.</para>
<para>By contrast, today we approached Labor and the crossbench in a spirit of goodwill and good faith. I recognise the good work of people in this place such as the member for Wentworth and the member for Macnamara, who I work with so closely as co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.</para>
<para>I want to say something of a personal nature. In seconding the motion today I am thinking of a person who demonstrated to me the courage we need during times such as this. Her name was Katie Popp. She was German, had olive skin and wore her grey hair in a bun. She lived in the Dorian Towers apartment building in Double Bay. When I knew her, she was an old lady. When I visited Katie, she would make my brother and I tasty German cakes. She was such a part of our family that she sewed our names on our school uniforms. She was so much from another time and place that she made her home here, like so many Europeans from that time.</para>
<para>I didn't know it as a boy, but I know now that Katie helped get my family out of Germany in 1936. Katie was Catholic. If you want to know why I have such a deep passion to protect the religious freedoms of other Australians such as my Catholic friends, it's because a Catholic woman saved a Jewish family—my family. Katie had been the family housekeeper, and as Germany went from bad to worse she took risks to help get my grandmother and her brother to Switzerland, then to England and finally to Australia in 1936. I come from a tradition which says 'whoever saves one life, it is as if they had saved the world'. Katie Popp was what we call Righteous Among the Nations. Her decision not to turn a blind eye and not to be a bystander because of the risk to herself, but the risk for all which is right, is an example that lives through time.</para>
<para>Katie is part of the moral barometer of my life, to know we must confront evil and oppose racial prejudice and do everything we can to keep it at bay. This is what the bill we seek to present is about, and this is why we seek support for the suspension of standing orders.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, I acknowledge the tone from those in the opposition as to how this has been presented. There is a set of speaking notes that I've sighted that I won't use. The tone from both the Leader of the Opposition, in particular, and the shadow minister is one that has kept completely to the issue that is contained in this bill that we've just seen, so I intend to confine my remarks in a similar way.</para>
<para>Can I say, first of all: no government ever, whether it was us or the opposition, has had a private member's bill brought forward in a suspension of standing orders and immediately said 'yep', without going through cabinet, without going through any processes or without going through its party room, and said, 'We're going to vote on it and deal with it all in the next hour.' I respect that there'll be objections to that, but no government anywhere in the history of Federation would have taken the suspension of standing orders that's in front of us and voted for it. That doesn't go against the principles that are contained within the private member's bill in any way. I'm advised by the Attorney-General—we had a conversation before I knew this was coming on, given issues that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition in an indulgence he took yesterday, where he raised this principle—and I have clarified with the Attorney-General that there is work being done within his department that has been going on for some time that goes to these exact issues. What the government won't do is take a bill that has been handed to us now, without us being able to go through any of our own procedures, and deal immediately with it for a period, as it says here, of no longer than one hour and then have any remaining questions put without delay.</para>
<para>Just to confine it to the issue the way those opposite have, I put it in these terms: every time we introduce legislation, I have kept to a very strict rule of there being delays and allowing those opposite to go through their party room procedures. It wasn't always done for us.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">An opposition member interjecting</inline>—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, no, hear me out. On those rare occasions, as the former speaker has just interjected, where something is more urgent—and we had some of that, for example, that happened at the start of this year, with respect to some regulations as well—we have always made sure that there are briefings that happen beforehand, and we do everything we can—because occasionally something is genuinely that urgent—to make sure party procedures are able to be followed.</para>
<para>Any legislation that we deal with on this issue would be government legislation. For example, questions as to whether the number of penalty units that is proposed here is the right number of penalty units in the context of the rest of the act—should it be higher or lower?—is something that you'd get formal departmental advice on. Whether the exemptions here are right, whether there is anything that has been missed, whether it should be tighter or narrower, is something that you would formally work through. But, as I say, I've been advised that work on this exact area is being done and has been underway for some time in the office of the Attorney-General.</para>
<para>Because of the tone of the debate, I am not criticising the opposition in any way, shape or form for raising it in this way. Nobody should take the government's decision to not immediately, without any process, go ahead with the private member's bill as being some sort of lack of commitment to this cause. On issues relating to this, we have had previous debates, over about a decade, with respect to 18C and other areas where people have toyed with various pathways. But ultimately the previous government never went ahead with those changes, and I respect that they ended up not going ahead with them.</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear you. They didn't go ahead with them. We've had previous debates. We are in a situation where there are objections to Nazi symbols being used. They are symbols that are horrific. People go to a freedom-of-speech argument, but, when it comes to just straight hatred, symbols can be bullets, words can be bullets, and the horror of that salute is, in real terms, an act of violence in itself. Those are views that are shared around this room.</para>
<para>There are particular reasons why no government has ever agreed to a private member's bill in the form that is put here, but, as I said, every state parliament now, pretty much, has been working through these issues. There has often been a debate before they've got there, and often some people have tested the water with freedom-of-speech arguments before things have landed. I say this as someone who will go through their entire life without being a victim of racial bigotry, but I am surrounded by neighbours whose experience can be utterly different. Of all the symbols of bigotry, this is one we have a particular need to unanimously oppose. The fact that we will end up dividing on a procedural motion, as we're about to, should not be seen to change the unanimity on the need to oppose those symbols.</para>
<para>The shadow minister quite rightly—the Leader of the Opposition may have as well, but for part of his speech I was walking to the chamber, so I can't pretend to have heard the whole of the speech—referred very specifically to the horror of the Holocaust. We have members within this chamber for whom the Holocaust is not simply something they learnt about; it's something that has touched their families very personally. It was a level of hatred that has been crystallised in particular symbols. Some Australians—for reasons that I will never be able to fathom, and I suspect no-one in this room will be able to fathom—somehow see a level of security or something in reverting back to those symbols. Well, the parliament won't have it. This private member's bill potentially goes some way to being able to deal with it, but, as I say, there are processes that are already underway in the Attorney-General's Department, and there are further processes that we have to go to. But I would not want anyone—anyone at all—to see the parliament dividing on a vote in a few moments time and see that as evidence of division on the need to oppose the use of these symbols. These symbols have become the symbols of the worst of humanity, and I was stunned and horrified to see them appearing in Melbourne.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We all were.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, we all were, and I think I've been including everybody in the way that I've dealt with this in this speech. I think I've been dealing with everybody in the way that I've turned this speech, and I've done it very deliberately.</para>
<para>So I make no criticism of the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this resolution forward—no criticism whatsoever. But I do want to make the point very clearly—I guess two points. One is that no government ever, in a circumstance where something like this is moved, would be in a position to vote for it. That's never happened. It won't happen. Secondly, while we'll vote in different ways on the voices, I don't know whether a division will be called, but, if a division is called, no-one who uses these symbols should see a division about procedure on the floor of this parliament as giving them the solace of thinking that they have supporters. Nobody should think, because we divide on the procedure, that somehow that creates a divide on the repugnancy of Nazism and the symbols that go with it. So for those reasons the government will not be supporting the suspension motion that's before the House.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate that the member for Wentworth is seeking the call, but the time allotted for this debate has expired.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be disagreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [10:56] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>73</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Aly, A.</name>
                <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                <name>Burns, J.</name>
                <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                <name>Clare J. D.</name>
                <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                <name>King, C. F.</name>
                <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                <name>Murphy, P. J.</name>
                <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                <name>Zappia, A.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>70</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                <name>Le, D.</name>
                <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                <name>Morrison, S. J.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Robert, S. R.</name>
                <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                <name>Young, T. J.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>27</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6994" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>27</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>27</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Special Recreational Vessel Amendment Bill 2023 will extend the sunset date of the <inline font-style="italic">Special Recreational Vessels Act 2019</inline> (the SRV Act) from 30 June 2023 to 30 June 2025. This act allows foreign special recreational vessels (also known as superyachts) to apply for a special recreational vessel temporary licence to operate on the Australian coast, if they choose to opt in to the coastal trading regulatory regime. This allows these vessels to be offered for hire or charter.</para>
<para>The proposed amendment means these vessels can continue to operate under temporary licences, bringing overseas dollars into regional communities around Australia. Encouraging special recreational vessels to come to Australia to charter is important, particularly for the post-COVID recovery.</para>
<para>Special recreational vessels bring a range of economic benefits—Australian producers and services industries all stand to benefit from the continuation of superyacht charters. The opportunity to supply food and beverages to the vessels as well as the onshore demand for tourism, accommodation and cafes and restaurants will provide much-needed business.</para>
<para>Extending the repeal date of the SRV Act for two years will allow more time to consult stakeholders on a longer term solution for special recreational vessel regulation. Earlier consultation was paused because of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting supply chain issues, and will not be completed prior to the SRV Act sunsetting.</para>
<para>In the interim, the SRV industry needs certainty to continue to operate in Australia.</para>
<para>The Australian government is committed to ensuring Australia's regulatory framework for our maritime industries remains fit for purpose, meets community expectations and supports Australian businesses.</para>
<para>The government has appointed a task force to provide advice on how to establish an Australian strategic maritime fleet. As part of its terms of reference, the task force is expected to provide advice on any changes to the coastal trading regulatory framework required to support establishment of this fleet. The government will consider the task force's advice, which is due by 30 June 2023, before determining whether wider regulatory reform is required to support and grow Australia's maritime industry more broadly, including consideration of a longer term solution for regulating superyachts.</para>
<para>The superyacht industry will no doubt make an important contribution to our post-COVID-19 recovery as we look to reopen the economy and permit more leisure activities in Australia.</para>
<para>The Australian government recognises the economic opportunities that superyachts afford Australian businesses, as well as our regional and urban communities.</para>
<para>This bill permits special recreational vessels to continue to charter in Australia and have these opportunities realised.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6996" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>28</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>28</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving our Tax System) Bill 2023 contains a number of measures to remove unnecessary administrative and compliance burdens associated with our tax system.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 to the bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give the force of law to the new tax treaty signed by Australia and Iceland on 12 October 2022.</para>
<para>The number of Icelandic people in Australia is not large. The 2021 census counted 405 Icelandic-born people and 1,328 people of Icelandic ancestry. However, Iceland's GDP per capita is one of the highest in the world and this tax treaty will make Australia a more attractive investment destination for Icelandic capital. It will also reduce the tax barriers to Australian businesses trading with Iceland.</para>
<para>The treaty also reflects the government's commitment to ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax.</para>
<para>As part of our first budget last October, we've already taken meaningful steps:</para>
<list>We are making it harder for multinationals to shift profits by charging themselves for intangibles that happen to be based in countries with low tax rates;</list>
<list>We are strengthening Australia's thin capitalisation rules to reduce the amount multinationals can deduct from their tax bill as debt;</list>
<list>We are increasing reporting requirements for large multinationals to enhance tax transparency; and</list>
<list>Recognising that a well-equipped public service pays off in the long run, we are investing over $1 billion to strengthen the Australian Taxation Office's Tax Avoidance Taskforce.</list>
<para>This treaty builds on that work by incorporating important integrity measures from the G20 and OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project and providing mechanisms to support stronger cooperation between tax authorities to detect and combat tax evasion.</para>
<para>This treaty presents a welcome opportunity to strengthen our economic and cultural ties with Iceland, a country with which we share many values.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 to the bill amends the law to exempt wholly owned Australian incorporated subsidiaries of the Future Fund Board of Guardians, which I will refer to as the Future Fund Board, from corporate income taxation.</para>
<para>Currently, the Future Fund Board is exempt from income taxes, but this exemption does not extend to its wholly owned subsidiaries. Extending this exemption will remove the administrative burden associated with the payment of tax by these subsidiaries and the subsequent claiming of a refund by the Future Fund Board.</para>
<para>The legislation will not change the net position for either the Commonwealth or the Future Fund—that is, no income tax is collected by the Commonwealth from the Future Fund Board.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 of the bill transfers administration of four unique deductible gift recipient categories to the Australian Taxation Office, and repeals provisions relating to the maintenance of departmental registers.</para>
<para>The Australian Taxation Office currently administers 48 of the 52 categories under which an organisation may be eligible for endorsement as a deductible gift recipient. Four deductible gift recipient categories—environmental organisations, harm prevention charities, cultural organisations, and overseas aid organisations—are currently administered by ministers through departmental registers.</para>
<para>The amendments transfer practical responsibility for assessing deductible gift recipients from these four ministers to the Australian Taxation Office. The amendments will make all deductible gift recipient categories consistent in administration, reducing the regulatory burden imposed on endorsed organisations and streamlining application and reporting requirements for organisations.</para>
<para>Approval times for these four categories will be reduced from up to two years to around one month. It will prevent the situation we saw prior to the last election, in which worthy charities that were not politically aligned with the Morrison government did not receive their deductible gift recipient listing in a timely fashion. This included the Grace Tame Foundation, which had to await the election of the Albanese government before receiving its deductible gift recipient listing.</para>
<para>These changes are just part of our commitment to strengthening the charity sector.</para>
<list>We have ended the war on charities, and the needless attacks on charities that engage in charitable advocacy;</list>
<list>We have completed the largest consultation of non-government organisations and charities in Australia's history;</list>
<list>We have launched a once-in-a-generation Productivity Commission review of philanthropy—aiming to double giving by 2030;</list>
<list>We have secured an in-principle agreement with the states and territories to harmonise charitable fundraising laws; and</list>
<list>We have appointed the highly respected Sue Woodward to head the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.</list>
<para>Schedule 4 to the bill provides deregulatory benefits to small and medium businesses that engage with the fuel or alcohol excise system or import excise-equivalent goods. Instead of the existing ability to apply for weekly or monthly reporting and payments, such businesses can also apply for permission to lodge and pay their duty quarterly. This measure will reduce administrative burdens and help small and medium businesses with cash flow.</para>
<para>The proposed amendment will commence on 1 July 2023. Eligible businesses with an aggregated turnover of less than $50 million in an income year, who pay fuel and alcohol excise or customs duty on excise-equivalent goods, will then be able to apply for permission to the Commissioner of Taxation or Comptroller-General of Customs to move to the new reporting schedule.4</para>
<para>Currently, businesses are required to lodge and pay excise and customs duty on excise-equivalent goods when goods enter home consumption unless they have permission to defer lodgement and payment. This permission can only be given for lodgement and payment weekly or, for certain eligible businesses, monthly.</para>
<para>This new quarterly schedule will better align fuel and alcohol excise and customs duty on excise-equivalent goods with other indirect taxes such as the goods and services tax. Fuel and alcohol businesses will benefit from reporting and paying excise and customs duty at the same time as they lodge their business activity statement.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 to the bill provides deregulatory benefits to retail and hospitality venues who repackage beer from bulk quantities into small containers for immediate retail sale. From 1 July 2023, this measure introduces a targeted exemption from alcohol excise licensing requirements for the repackaging of the first 10,000 litres of beer from kegs into non-pressurised containers of no more than two litres capacity—commonly known as growlers—for immediate retail sale at particular premises in a financial year.</para>
<para>Currently, businesses that package duty-paid beer into these containers are required to hold a manufacturing licence for excise purposes and pay duty again, in effect paying double duty. These licences carry significant obligations which are more appropriate to entities fermenting, brewing or repackaging beer on a commercial basis in order to protect the lower alcohol excise rate of keg beer. However, filling specified containers in retail settings does not pose this integrity risk. This measure will benefit the hospitality sector, and reflects the Australian government's commitment to our local bars and clubs.</para>
<para>While the first 10,000 litres of beer in a financial year is exempt, subsequent amounts are captured by existing arrangements. This will ensure that larger businesses engaged in this practice in more significant commercial quantities remain appropriately regulated.</para>
<para>Sale of takeaway alcohol in retail settings will continue to remain the regulatory responsibility of the states and territories. This amendment is intended to remove disproportionate regulatory requirements on this practice created by the alcohol excise system.</para>
<para>The measures in schedules 4 and 5 reflect the Australian government's strong commitment to a thriving small-business sector. It complements small-business measures that we are already implementing, including:</para>
<list>Strengthening protections for small businesses from unfair contract terms;</list>
<list>Making it easier for small businesses to access government procurement contracts;</list>
<list>Funding an energy savings grant program for small businesses, helping them reduce energy use and lower energy bills;</list>
<list>Providing more than $15 million to support small-business owners with free mental health support and financial counselling; and</list>
<list>Improving payment times for small businesses.</list>
<para>Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister. Does it mean we get more Icelandic crime fiction here?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Leigh</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It could well do!</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6997" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>30</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>30</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Today, I introduce the Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023. After nine years of neglect from the former government, the government is committed to improving health care for all Australians.</para>
<para>This bill will strengthen Medicare by making it fair and equitable for young people needing cleft palate and craniofacial procedures. It will also support doctors, nurses and allied health professionals to work in regional and rural communities by:</para>
<list>Supporting the development of an automated system to place doctors on, and remove doctors from, the Register of Approved Placements, and;</list>
<list>Enhancing the administration of the Bonded Medical Program.</list>
<para>Schedule 1</para>
<para>Schedule 1 of the bill removes the aged restrictions for patients with eligible cleft and craniofacial conditions through the Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Scheme.</para>
<para>Cleft and craniofacial services listed on the MBS provide patients and families with much needed financial assistance for major dental and skeletal treatment.</para>
<para>In Australia, about one in every 800 babies is born with a cleft lip or palate, and early medical intervention is critical for improved health outcomes. Persons diagnosed with a cleft or craniofacial condition often require ongoing treatment, particularly during their growth and development years.</para>
<para>This bill proposes changing the Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Scheme to remove the unfair age restrictions that deny a small cohort of patients a Medicare reimbursement for treatment beyond the age of 22 years. This bill will confer Medicare benefits eligibility to patients who did not have treatment organised by their parents before reaching the age of 22 or those who have their treatment delayed beyond the age of 22 for other reasons, for example due to the COVID-19 pandemic.</para>
<para>Age limits for access to the scheme were initially established on the basis that patients suffering cleft and craniofacial conditions would generally have completed most specialist dental work associated with their condition once their facial growth was complete. Age limits for some patients were amended under the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review and Other Matters) Bill 2002<inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para>
<para>A small number of patients, however, continue to be denied access to Medicare benefits for treatment based on age. These changes will provide equity of access to treatment for cleft and craniofacial conditions, by removing the age restrictions currently associated with these services so that access is based on clinical need, in line with other Medicare Benefits Schedule services. This bill will allow for a more structured treatment plan that considers individual patient circumstances.</para>
<para>Schedule 2</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill will support the distribution of a high-quality general practice workforce across Australia by ensuring Services Australia can develop a system to place a doctor on, and remove a doctor from, the Register of Approved Placements.</para>
<para>Through the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (ACRRM) fellowship program and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) fellowship program medical graduates can claim MBS benefits if they have an approved placement entered into the Register of Approved Placement.</para>
<para>Specified bodies like the Department of Health and Aged Care and the general practice colleges are responsible for determining if a doctor is eligible to be placed on the Register of Approved Placements. The specified bodies notify Services Australia of their decision, and Services Australia places doctors on, and removes doctors from, the Register of Approved Placements accordingly.</para>
<para>Currently, the Health Insurance Act 1973 does not allow for this step of the process to be automated through a computer system. This bill enables Services Australia to achieve efficiencies by developing systems that support an automated approach. Specifically, systems to support placing doctors on, and removing doctors from, the Register of Approved Placements once a decision has been made by a specified body. There are over 10,000 placements processed each year.</para>
<para>Schedule Three</para>
<para>Schedule three also supports our government's commitment to grow the health workforce after a decade of neglect by enhancing the administration of the Bonded Medical Program.</para>
<para>The Bonded Medical Program provides a Commonwealth-supported place in a course of study in medicine at an Australian university in exchange for a participant completing a Return of Service Obligation working as a doctor in a regional, rural or remote community.</para>
<para>This Bill will further enhance the administration of the Bonded Medical Program by rectifying inconsistencies between the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the Health Insurance (Bonded Medical Program) Rule 2020, simplifying the length of a bonded participant's return of service obligation.</para>
<para>For the benefit of bonded participants, the bill will also clarify how the return of service obligation will be calculated—as well as support automatic calculation in the Bonded Return of Service System—and ensure that the administrative penalty will only be applied when it is appropriate.</para>
<para>To be specific, this amendment corrects the inconsistency between references to '3 years' and '1 year' in the act and the definitions of how a participant can accrue a 'week' of 'return of service obligation', as outlined in the definitions of a "full-time basis", "part-time basis" and "per-day basis" contained in section 4 of the Health Insurance (Bonded Medical Program) Rule 2020.</para>
<para>Requiring bonded participants to complete their return of service obligation in weeks simplifies the requirement and allows for automated calculation in the Bonded Return of Service System.</para>
<para>Conclusion</para>
<para>In conclusion, the Labor Party has a longstanding history of contribution to the legacy of universal health coverage in Australia.</para>
<para>With this Bill, we will make it fair and equitable for young people needing cleft palate and craniofacial procedures, ensuring access to essential health care. We will also make significant administrative improvements to support our health workforce to deliver the care regional and rural communities need.</para>
<para>In doing so, the Australian Government is strengthening Medicare and putting the health of Australians first.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>32</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Privileges and Members' Interests Committee, Selection Committee, Electoral Matters Joint Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee, Human Rights Joint Committee, Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>32</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That Members be discharged and appointed as members of certain committees in accordance with the following list:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests—Mr Chester be discharged from the committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Selection Committee—Mr Bandt be discharged and Mr Bates be appointed a member.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—Mr Chester be discharged from the committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Mr Coleman be discharged and Mr Buchholz be appointed a member.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—Mr Coleman and Mr Khalil be discharged and Mr Broadbent and Ms Murphy be appointed members.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—Mr Coleman be discharged and Mr Pike be appointed a member.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>32</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6987" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>32</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>32</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6988" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>32</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [11:31] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>58</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>9</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the bill be agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>34</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6986" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>34</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>34</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6985" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>34</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>34</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6983" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>34</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>35</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6984" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>35</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>35</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6957" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>35</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If the recent supply chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic and the evolving geopolitical tensions that we're seeing in the Indo-Pacific region have highlighted anything, it's that sovereign risk associated with the loss of local manufacturing is ever present. Cement production is an important part of that. Cement is, of course, the key ingredient of concrete, and concrete is a critical material that underpins our residential and commercial construction industry. If you're talking about nation-building projects—if you're talking about anything to do with the construction industry—then you're talking about cement and concrete. Concrete is the most consumed human-made material in the world and will continue to be crucial in supporting a modern decarbonised world. Without cement and concrete there would be no dams, no bridges, no wind turbines, no hospitals, no apartment blocks, no offices, no schools—and on and on it goes. Even this place is made of good old concrete.</para>
<para>Lime is also an essential product when it comes to this critical industry. It's used for a number of environmental and industrial applications, including the refinement of critical minerals and as a purifying agent that allows Australians to have clean drinking water. And, of course, lime is an essential part of managing soil pH in our agricultural soils and improving the soil biome in order to grow the nation's food.</para>
<para>Cement and lime are critical to Australia's sovereign capability, but the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, as it stands, is putting those sectors in jeopardy. What makes the Australian cement and lime industry unique is that 100 per cent of what's manufactured in Australia is used in Australia. But it's also an import-competitive industry. This means that our cement industry directly competes with imported goods. This is basic Business 101, but it's obviously beyond the Albanese government. For the cement and lime sector to remain competitive, to remain viable, the cost of manufacturing domestic clinker cement and lime cannot be higher than the landed imported price. This means that this legislation, which is proposing a mechanism that imposes a cost on domestic manufacturing that is not imposed on the imported product, is going to create an incentive for the production of cement and lime offshore. Let's be clear: in putting forward this legislation, the Albanese government is saying that it wants to shut down our local cement and lime production to support overseas companies and to force us to rely on imported materials.</para>
<para>I cannot believe what I'm seeing in this bill. It's not as if the cement sector isn't moving towards decarbonisation all by itself. Since 1990, the emissions arising from the cement sector have been reduced, by the industry itself, by 25 per cent. That's a fantastic achievement, and we should be celebrating it, not demonising it. Despite cement and lime being classified as one of the most difficult-to-abate sectors, the industry is 100 per cent committed to decarbonising its products by 2050. However, the number of decarbonisation pathways available during the next decade presents the real challenge for this industry. This is because the technologies required are currently not viable in Australia.</para>
<para>Around two-thirds of cement scope 1 emissions—that is, emissions that are sourced from their own and direct control—cannot be addressed until technology such as carbon capture, use and storage, hydrogen and oxyfuelling become viable technologies in Australia, along with the associated infrastructure and transport requirements. So, to me, the solution is to support the industry not demonise it to the extent that this bill does. Unlike Labor, we in the opposition know that we have to be right behind our industries, and cement is certainly one industry that has our back. They have our confidence.</para>
<para>We'll continue to invest in this crucial sector over the next two decades. These technologies will support the cement industry to fully decarbonise that over time. It's a win-win: a win for the environment and our need to decarbonise the industry and secure the future of cement and lime, like our Railton plant, on the north-west coast of Tasmania, and its continuance for the next 100 years. What the sector needs from government is long-term assurity, over-the-horizon market indicators. But, again, 'Business 101'—they're not seeing it in this bill.</para>
<para>For the cement industry to invest significant capital in new processing technologies as well as supply chain components, there must be surety that that market will supply and return a dividend to that investment, and we're not seeing it. This bill before us right now is not doing what's intended. The unintended consequences of this are going to fall at the feet of the cement and lime industry.</para>
<para>Fundamental to each investment decision the industry makes is the degree of certainty associated with key elements such as demand and relevant regulatory settings. The safeguard mechanism must clearly define how domestic production will not be disadvantaged relative to imported product. Only then will the sector have the certainty required to underpin ongoing capital expenditure in what will be required in order to decarbonise the industry.</para>
<para>In conclusion, it is in all our interests to better this, when it comes to reducing emissions. We need to be proactive and aggressive when tackling the challenge of climate change in Australia but we also need to recognise that Australia doesn't live in a bubble. This is a global issue that requires a global response. There is no doubt that Australian industry is onboard to play its part. There's no question in my mind that our large emitters clearly understand the significant responsibility they carry in decarbonising their products in their industries, if we are to meet our emissions reduction benchmarks. But globally they must also be on a level playing field.</para>
<para>Addressing carbon leakage is critical for Australian cement manufacturers and this is not addressed at all in this bill. Australian manufacturing is one of the most trade exposed sectors. Over 40 per cent of clinker is used to produce cement, and that's imported product. Up to 10 per cent of that cement is now being imported already, so we're seeing the signs. The end the nigh. This bill is eroding the international competitiveness of Australian cement and lime facilities, and if Labor continues down this path it is likely that domestic production will, increasingly, be replaced by lower cost imported product with a higher emissions profile. Great Australian companies will close down and we will receive our cement from high-emissions-producing overseas companies.</para>
<para>That's why I'm opposing this bill and that's why the coalition will strongly oppose this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support this Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, and I'd urge all colleagues in this place to support this bill, because this is very important. It is important that we meet our emissions reduction targets, and this safeguard mechanism is central to that policy. Labor made a commitment in opposition, during the campaign, that we would reduce emissions and have targets, and that's what we're doing. We were committed to this. We listened to the electorates. Certainly in the last 10 years, I've heard loud and clear from my electorate that people want a commitment to reduce emissions for the safeguarding of this planet.</para>
<para>We have an absolute duty as members of this parliament, and I've said it many times, to commit to it and to give to the next generation a clean environment that will sustain them for generations to come. I don't want to be asked by my grandchildren in years to come, 'You were in parliament, what did you do about it?' Each and every one of us are going to have to live with that question if we do nothing at this point. So it's a very important bill. I'd urge everyone to support it. I'd urge everyone to think carefully about it and to see that this is so important for the next generation of Australians.</para>
<para>The message was loud and clear from the electorates. We heard it during the campaign. I certainly heard it in my electorate. One of the No. 1 issues was that they wanted reform in this area. It was very unfortunate that for 10 years we saw a government that had umpteen policies in this particular area and none actually came to fruition.</para>
<para>The safeguard reforms are expected to save about 205 million tonnes of emissions in the period to 2030. That's equivalent to, say, two-thirds of Australian cars being off the road in the same period. The naysayers may say, 'Two-thirds of cars off Australian roads? What about other nations that aren't doing anything?' We are one of the highest emitters per capita, in the world, of carbon. If we don't show the way, why would others want to join, when they can point the finger at us and say, 'We are very low emitters. We have a high population. If you're not doing anything as one of the highest emitters in the world, why should we join?' That is why it's so important that Australia takes action on climate change and does deliver on its targets and shows the way for other nations the join.</para>
<para>In the last 10 years there were bills before this House that didn't go through because of a particular minor party that decided to stifle them. Nearly 10 years ago exactly, to the day, there was a policy in place by the then-Labor government that would have seen a reduction of carbon over those last 10 years. We would have seen a reduction in emissions. We absolutely missed the boat because some people wanted it all their way or no way.</para>
<para>I hope that the Greens, this time, see the reality of this and know that we have to start somewhere. It is so important that they jump onboard and support this bill. Because of their actions 10 years ago, there's been no movement in this area. Because of their actions in not passing the bill 10 years ago, we have seen an increase in emissions. That cannot be a good thing for the planet. So I urge people in this place to think carefully about this bill and their responsibility in reducing emissions.</para>
<para>We've seen support for taking action on climate change. We've seen students go out marching in the streets over the last four or five years. What they were marching about—when you think about those children, some were as young as 12. Sure, climate change was an issue but they wanted leadership. They wanted to see some leadership from those people around the world that run governments, especially here in Australia, and by us sitting back and doing nothing we showed no leadership. They were crying out for leadership because it's their future. It's their future that is in jeopardy, not ours.</para>
<para>I can't urge people enough to think about this policy that will make a change. After a decade of delay, a decade of denial and dysfunction, all the opposition have to offer is this half-baked scare campaign that's made up of the same old talking points that we've been hearing for the last 10 years. In fact, I truly believe that most of them still deny that climate change exists. Most of them are still deniers. You have to ask yourself, in a world where we've had the greatest scientific research done by people who are not political and have no Left, Right or whatever—Callithumpians. These are people who look at the science, and that's all you have to look at.</para>
<para>Have a look at the United States, where Joe Biden has brought in the IRA policy, which is an uncapped system assisting firms and companies to go to renewables—billions and billions of dollars. You've got to say the United States is not exactly the bastion of left-wing politics. It's the bastion of capitalism. Most companies around Australia know that their future is in renewables. It was only last week that we were in WA and we went to Fortescue Future Industries. They're spending millions of dollars on research. They were telling us the future is in renewables. If that were not the case, you wouldn't see million-dollar companies, including multinationals, pouring so much money into renewables, trying to find as quickly as possible the quickest solution to not burning coal and emitting gases. They wouldn't be doing it. They have shareholders. They have people who pay money to buy parts in their company. Just thinking of that, you've got to work out in your mind what's best for this nation. Multinational companies know what's in their best interests, and that's why they're developing new safeguard mechanisms that they're putting in place to ensure that they do transition to renewables.</para>
<para>It is a race. It is an absolute race, in the development of the high technology, as to who is going to develop things first, because I've got to tell you the next massive export for this nation will be renewables, whether it be hydrogen or cables, like the ones for which Suncorp and other businesses are working on models right now as we speak. Around the world it is a race to see who can develop more quickly than their competitors. We want this nation to be an exporting superpower in renewables. We want this nation to be one of the first—to be right there at the ground level going upwards when the world does transition, and it's not far off.</para>
<para>This safeguard mechanism covers around 215 large industrial facilities, accounting for around 28 per cent of Australia's emissions. Emissions from covered sectors are among the fastest-growing across the economy and are projected to overtake emissions from the electricity sector without policy action. That's why we require this policy action today. We have to take the politics out of this area. It is one of the most serious things that we are facing as a government, as a nation and internationally. The more we play politics with climate change, the worse it will get. Time is running out, and that's why I urge those opposite and those on the crossbenches to think carefully when they vote on this bill and to support this bill.</para>
<para>The government released the proposed safeguard reforms on 10 January 2023 to impose requirements comparable to the commitments and actions of other countries at the sectoral and whole-of-economy levels. Our reforms would see Australia's largest industrial emitters make a proportionate contribution to meeting our 2030 target by reducing facility baselines by 4.9 per cent each year between 2024 and 2030. That means, on average, safeguard facilities reduce their emissions at the same rate as the rest of Australia's economy so we can meet our targets in 2030. We're committed to reducing national emissions to 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. This government made this commitment and we are going to stick to it—and to net-zero emissions by 2050. These targets are realistic. They're achievable with this mechanism in place. It will take deliberate and sustained effort to meet them, and that's what this bill is all about. Every sector must play a role in this area. The government's Powering Australia plan commits to building on the existing safeguard mechanism to reduce industrial sector emissions. The safeguard mechanism provides a well-established legislative framework that places emissions limits on large industrial facilities. I urge all to support this bill.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>38</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Procurement: Submarines</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Last week, Prime Minister Albanese, US President Biden and UK Prime Minister Sunak announced the Optimal Pathway for Australia's acquisition of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines.</para>
<para>This was a historic event in our nation's history.</para>
<para>The acquisition of this formidable capability is the single biggest leap in Australia's defence capability.</para>
<para>It will see Australia become one of only seven nations to operate nuclear-powered submarines.</para>
<para>It will strengthen our capacity to defend Australia and its national interests.</para>
<para>And it will significantly enhance our contribution to the security and stability of the region.</para>
<para>While the starting point for Australia's acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines is our defence and national security needs, last week's announcement also represents the start of a transformative pathway for Australian industry, technology and scientific advancement.</para>
<para>Optimal Pathway</para>
<para>This will be a complex, multi-decade undertaking.</para>
<para>And the Parliament can be assured that the Albanese Government has adopted a methodical, phased approach that will build our capacity as a nation to safely and securely build, maintain and operate conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines.</para>
<para>This plan will see Australia build a next-generation nuclear-powered submarine—known as SSN-AUKUS.</para>
<para>These submarines will be based on a UK design, incorporating the very best of Australian, US and UK technology.</para>
<para>Australia's next-generation submarines will be Australian sovereign assets, commanded by Australian officers, and under the sovereign control of Australia. And they will be built by Australian workers in South Australia.</para>
<para>SSN-AUKUS will be a common platform operated by both the UK and Australia, with two productions lines—one based at Barrow-in-Furness in the UK, and one based at Osborne in South Australia.</para>
<para>The first submarine will roll off the UK production line in the late 2030s for the Royal Navy. The first Australian submarine will be delivered in the early 2040s from Osborne.</para>
<para>Subsequent Australian submarines will roll off the Osborne production line at a three-yearly drumbeat.</para>
<para>This arrangement will spread the risk over two production lines and improve efficiencies, as we avoid a bespoke design and delivery model.</para>
<para>To reach this goal, we will need to build experience and expertise among Australian service personnel, workers and industry.</para>
<para>And that work starts right now.</para>
<para>From this year, Australian military and civilian personnel will begin embedding with the Royal Navy and the US Navy, and within UK and US submarine industrial bases, to accelerate the skills development of our workforce and sailors.</para>
<para>From this year, we will see an increased tempo of visits to Australia from UK and US nuclear-powered submarines.</para>
<para>From 2027, the UK and US will have a rotational presence at HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Stirling</inline> in Western Australia.</para>
<para>This will ultimately comprise one UK Astute class submarine and up to four US Virginia class submarines, and will be known as Submarine Rotational Force-West.</para>
<para>This rotational presence will be consistent with Australia's longstanding policy of no foreign bases on Australian soil.</para>
<para>The increased tempo of visits and rotational presence will enable Australia to grow the required submariner cohort to operate our own Virginia class submarines from the early 2030s.</para>
<para>Through this we will also grow the wider workforce within and beyond Defence that has the familiarity to work with nuclear-powered submarines.</para>
<para>This will accelerate our ability to become 'sovereign ready' as responsible nuclear stewards, managing this technology safely and securely to the highest international standards.</para>
<para>In the early 2030s, Australia will acquire its first of three Virginia class submarines.</para>
<para>The provision of these submarines is an unprecedented contribution to our defence capability by our US ally.</para>
<para>To facilitate this, and ensure Australia receives Virginia class submarines at the earliest opportunity, Australia will assist the US in improving its sustainment facilities to have more Virginia class submarines come out of maintenance and back into operational service.</para>
<para>We will also help improve the US submarine construction facilities to increase the production rate of new Virginia class submarines.</para>
<para>However, the amount we invest in our own industrial base will far exceed our investment in the US, both over the Forward Estimates and through the life of the program.</para>
<para>Ultimately the early purchase of the Virginia class submarines will ensure that there is no gap in our submarine capability as a result of a lost decade.</para>
<para>As with SSN-AUKUS, once the Virginia class submarines carry an Australian flag they will be sovereign Australian assets operating under the complete control of the Australian Government.</para>
<para>The Optimal Pathway reflects a truly trilateral partnership.</para>
<para>It will meet Australia's long-term defence needs, while creating tens of thousands of jobs and delivering benefits to our national economy for generations to come.</para>
<para>This pathway ensures a methodical, safe and secure transition from Australia's current diesel-electric Collins class submarines to the Australian-owned Virginia class submarines and finally to SSN-AUKUS—an Australian built nuclear-powered submarine.</para>
<para>Ultimately, this will see the Royal Australian Navy operate a fleet of eight nuclear-powered submarines by the mid-2050s.</para>
<para>Nuclear stewardship</para>
<para>As we become 'sovereign ready' to operate nuclear-powered submarines it will be essential that we also become responsible nuclear stewards.</para>
<para>This will mean developing the full suite of skills, facilities and institutions along with an appropriate regulatory and legislative architecture to be nuclear stewards.</para>
<para>The Government will establish a new dedicated executive agency responsible for delivering the Optimal Pathway for Australia's nuclear-powered submarine program.</para>
<para>This agency will be responsible for delivering the entire nuclear enterprise.</para>
<para>As a responsible nuclear steward, the Government will also establish an independent regulator, responsible for regulating the nuclear-powered submarine enterprise.</para>
<para>Legislation will be required to underpin the nuclear enterprise and its regulation.</para>
<para>Nuclear waste</para>
<para>Australia has maintained regular, close engagement with the International Atomic Energy Agency—the IAEA—throughout the development of the Optimal Pathway.</para>
<para>Australia will meet its non-proliferation obligations and commitments under the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.</para>
<para>The Government has been clear throughout this process: Australia does not want to, and will not, acquire nuclear weapons.</para>
<para>We are working with the IAEA to place the bar at its highest when one country shares nuclear naval propulsion technology with another.</para>
<para>Australia will work within the framework of our Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol with the IAEA.</para>
<para>Director General Grossi's remarks following the announcement last week reinforced that work will continue to enable the IAEA to exercise its verification and safeguards mandate in an impartial, objective and technical manner.</para>
<para>As part of satisfying our obligations, Australia has committed to manage all radioactive waste generated through the acquisition and operation of our nuclear-powered submarines.</para>
<para>This is a complex task, but we have time to get it right.</para>
<para>To be clear, we will not have to dispose of the first reactor from our nuclear-powered submarines until the 2050s.</para>
<para>Within the next 12 months, we will set out the process by which we will identify potential locations on the current or future Defence estate for storage and disposal of this waste.</para>
<para>I want to assure the Parliament that there will be appropriate public consultation, particularly with First Nations communities to respect and protect cultural heritage.</para>
<para>This will not be a matter of set and forget. We will continue talking to the Australian people about why we are undertaking this transformational endeavour.</para>
<para>International engagement</para>
<para>Engaging in a transparent and open way with our partners in the region is central to our approach to AUKUS. By building confidence and trust with our partners, we can better support a sovereign and resilient Indo-Pacific region.</para>
<para>That is why in the lead up to the announcement, it was a priority for our Government to talk to our partners in the region and beyond.</para>
<para>This announcement did not come as a surprise to them.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister, myself, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Minister for International Development and the Pacific made over 60 calls to our counterparts.</para>
<para>Since our announcement last Monday their reaction demonstrates the genuine appreciation they have for the transparency we have shown, but also an understanding of why Australia is making this decision.</para>
<para>Australia remains fully committed to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, known as the Treaty of Rarotonga.</para>
<para>Our AUKUS partners recognise Australia's obligations under international law, including the Treaty of Rarotonga. Every aspect of the Optimal Pathway will be consistent with those obligations.</para>
<para>Industry, jobs and opportunity</para>
<para>While our future nuclear-powered submarines will be the single biggest acquisition in Australia's Defence history, it also offers so much more for Australia: for jobs, for industry and for investment.</para>
<para>This is an exciting pathway, which will require a truly whole-of-nation effort.</para>
<para>It will be one of the greatest industrial endeavours Australia has ever undertaken—rivalling the likes of the Snowy Hydro Scheme or the establishment of the Australian automotive industry.</para>
<para>Over the next 30 years, this project will create around 20,000 direct jobs; see $30 billion invested in Australia's industrial base; and result in massive infrastructure upgrades and expansion amounting up to $18 billion.</para>
<para>This project will transform our skills, productivity, industrial capacity and science and research capabilities.</para>
<para>Workers will benefit from massive investments to boost skills and training. We will invest $6 billion in uplifting Australian industry, infrastructure and workforce over the next four years.</para>
<para>In South Australia, which will remain the home of submarine construction in Australia, we will invest $10 billion in expanding infrastructure over the next 10 years.</para>
<para>At its peak, up to 4,000 workers will be employed to design and build the infrastructure at Osborne. A further 4,000 to 5,500 jobs are expected to be created to build the submarines.</para>
<para>In Western Australia, the home of Australia's submarine fleet, we will invest up to $8 billion over the next decade in expanding infrastructure at HMAS<inline font-style="italic"> Stirling</inline>, creating around 3,000 direct jobs.</para>
<para>We expect a further 500 additional jobs to sustain the Submarine Rotational Force—West from as early as 2027.</para>
<para>There will be opportunities for industry across the country to support not only Australia's industrial requirements, but also the industrial bases and supply chains for the UK and the US.</para>
<para>This work begins now: to expand and upskill our workforce; to invest in our industrial base across Australia; and to build the infrastructure required for decades to come.</para>
<para>Capability</para>
<para>Acquiring nuclear-powered submarines is a game changer for our capability and posture.</para>
<para>To be clear, the Collins class is a potent, highly capable diesel-electric submarine. We will extend the life of the Collins class submarines from 2026 so that they remain an effective capability until they are withdrawn from service.</para>
<para>But as we look ahead to the 2030s and beyond, the reality is that diesel-electric submarines will be increasingly detectable as they surface to recharge their batteries.</para>
<para>That will necessarily diminish their capability.</para>
<para>By the 2030s and 2040s, the only capable long-range submarine able to effectively operate in our ocean environment will be nuclear-powered submarines.</para>
<para>These submarines have the capacity to remain submerged and deployed for months, making them incredibly hard to detect.</para>
<para>As a corollary of their speed, stealth and endurance, a nuclear-powered submarine puts the biggest possible question mark in the mind of any potential adversary.</para>
<para>This is a capability that will make Australia a more difficult and costly target for anyone who wishes us harm.</para>
<para>Strategic Rationale</para>
<para>We are facing the most complex strategic circumstances since the Second World War.</para>
<para>Our national interest and our national security extends beyond our shoreline. As an island trading nation, we are highly dependent on global trade.</para>
<para>Since the Hawke-Keating Government opened up the Australian economy in the early 1990s, ushering in three decades of uninterrupted economic growth and prosperity, trade has become even more vital to our way of life.</para>
<para>That has brought tremendous benefits, reducing the cost of commodities and products, and expanding opportunities for Australian industry, jobs and growth.</para>
<para>But with that connectedness comes a reliance on maintaining that access.</para>
<para>Almost 99 per cent of our trade by volume passes by sea.</para>
<para>In 1990, trade represented 32 per cent of our GDP; by 2020 it was 45 per cent of our GDP.</para>
<para>The practical impact of this can be seen in just one example.</para>
<para>In the 1990s, we had eight oil refineries which were producing most of our liquid fuels on shore.</para>
<para>Today, we have two. Most of our liquid fuels we import, indeed, most of what we use, we import from one country: Singapore.</para>
<para>One doesn't have to think hard to see what the impact would be if just this one trade route was disrupted by an adversary.</para>
<para>Our interests lie in an open, stable and peaceful region.</para>
<para>And so the defence of Australia doesn't mean much without the security of our region and a settled global rules-based order.</para>
<para>As geo-strategic competition intensifies, we must act quickly to maintain balance.</para>
<para>Therefore, at the heart of Australia's strategic intent behind acquiring a nuclear-powered submarine capability is to make our contribution to the collective security of our region, and to the maintenance of the global rules-based order, which is so fundamental to Australia's future.</para>
<para>Increasing our military capability sits alongside our diplomatic efforts, promoting positive incentives for peaceful engagement in the region.</para>
<para>Clearly our future nuclear-powered submarines will be highly capable in conflict.</para>
<para>Any adversary who wishes us harm by disrupting our connection with the world will be given pause for thought.</para>
<para>But at the end of the day the true purpose of our nuclear-powered submarines will be to significantly enhance Australia's contribution to the stability, the security and, the peace of our region.</para>
<para>I want to assure the parliament that there will be appropriate public consultation, particularly with First Nations communities to respect and protect cultural heritage.</para>
<para>This will not be a matter of set and forget. We will continue talking to the Australian people about why we are undertaking this transformational endeavour.</para>
<para>International engagement</para>
<para>Engaging in a transparent and open way with our partners in the region is central to our approach to AUKUS. By building confidence and trust with our partners, we can better support a sovereign and resilient Indo-Pacific region.</para>
<para>That's why in the lead-up to the announcement, it was a priority for our government to talk to our partners in the region and beyond.</para>
<para>This announcement did not come as a surprise to any of them.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister, myself, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Minister for International Development and the Pacific made over 60 calls to our counterparts.</para>
<para>Since our announcement last Monday their reaction demonstrates the genuine appreciation they have for the transparency that we have shown, but also an understanding of why Australia is making this decision.</para>
<para>Australia remains fully committed to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, known as the Treaty of Rarotonga.</para>
<para>Our AUKUS partners recognise Australia's obligations under international law, including the Treaty of Rarotonga. Every aspect of the Optimal Pathway will be consistent with those obligations.</para>
<para>Industry, jobs and opportunity</para>
<para>While our future nuclear-powered submarines will be the single biggest acquisition in Australia's defence history, it also offers so much more for Australia: for jobs, for industry and for investment.</para>
<para>This is an exciting pathway, which will require a truly whole-of-nation effort.</para>
<para>It will be one of the greatest industrial endeavours Australia has ever undertaken—rivalling the likes of the Snowy Hydro scheme or the establishment of the Australian automotive industry.</para>
<para>Over the next 30 years, this project will create around 20,000 direct jobs; see $30 billion invested in Australia's industrial base; and result in massive infrastructure upgrades and expansion amounting up to $18 billion.</para>
<para>This project will transform our skills, productivity, industrial capacity, and science and research capabilities.</para>
<para>Workers will benefit from massive investments to boost skills and training. We will invest $6 billion in uplifting Australian industry, infrastructure and workforce over the next four years.</para>
<para>In South Australia, which will remain the home of submarine construction in Australia, we will invest $10 billion in expanding infrastructure over the next 10 years.</para>
<para>At its peak, up to 4,000 workers will be employed to design and build the infrastructure at Osborne. A further 4,000 to 5½ thousand jobs are expected to be created to build the submarines.</para>
<para>In Western Australia, the home of Australia's submarine fleet, we will invest up to $8 billion over the next decade in expanding infrastructure at HMAS<inline font-style="italic"> Stirling</inline>, creating around 3,000 direct jobs. We expect a further 500 additional jobs to sustain the Submarine Rotational Force—West from as early as 2027.</para>
<para>There will be opportunities for industry across the country to support not only Australia's industrial requirements but also the industrial bases and supply chains for the UK and US.</para>
<para>This work begins now: to expand and upskill our workforce; to invest in our industrial base across Australia; and to build the infrastructure required for decades to come.</para>
<para>Capability</para>
<para>Acquiring nuclear-powered submarines is a game changer for our capability and for our posture.</para>
<para>To be clear, the Collins class is a potent and highly capable diesel-electric submarine. We will extend the life of the Collins class submarines from 2026 so that they remain an effective capability until they are withdrawn from service.</para>
<para>But, as we look ahead to the 2030s and beyond, the reality is that a diesel-electric submarine will be increasingly detectable as they surface to recharge their batteries.</para>
<para>That will necessarily diminish its capability.</para>
<para>By the 2030s and 2040s, the only capable long-range submarine able to effectively operate in our ocean environment will be a nuclear-powered submarine.</para>
<para>These submarines have the capacity to remain submerged and deployed for months, making them incredibly hard to detect.</para>
<para>As a corollary of their speed, stealth and endurance, a nuclear powered submarine puts the biggest possible question mark in the mind of any potential adversary.</para>
<para>This is a capability that will make Australia a more difficult and more costly target for anyone who wishes us harm.</para>
<para>Strategic rationale</para>
<para>We are facing the most complex strategic circumstances since the Second World War.</para>
<para>Our national interest and our national security extend beyond our shoreline. As an island trading nation, we are highly dependent on global trade.</para>
<para>Since the Hawke-Keating government opened up the Australian economy in the early 1990s, ushering in three decades of uninterrupted economic growth and prosperity, trade has become an even more vital way of life for us.</para>
<para>That has brought us tremendous benefits, reducing the cost of commodities and products, and expanding opportunities for Australian industry, jobs and growth.</para>
<para>But with that connectedness comes a reliance on maintaining that access.</para>
<para>Almost 99 per cent of our trade by volume passes by sea.</para>
<para>In 1990, trade represented 32 per cent of our GDP; by 2020 it was 45 per cent of our GDP.</para>
<para>The practical impact of this can be seen in just one example.</para>
<para>In the 1990s, we had eight oil refineries which were producing most of our liquid fuel needs on shore.</para>
<para>Today, we have just two. Most of our liquid fuels we import. Indeed, most of what we use we import from one country: Singapore.</para>
<para>One doesn't have to think hard to see what the impact would be if just this one trade route was disrupted by an adversary.</para>
<para>Our interests lie in an open, stable and peaceful region.</para>
<para>And so the defence of Australia doesn't mean much without the security of our region and a settled global rules based order.</para>
<para>As geostrategic competition intensifies, we must act quickly to maintain balance.</para>
<para>Therefore, at the heart of Australia's strategic intent behind acquiring a nuclear powered submarine capability is to make our contribution to the collective security of our region, and to the maintenance of the global rules based order, which is so fundamental to our nation's future.</para>
<para>Increasing our military capability sits aside our diplomatic efforts promoting positive incentives for peaceful engagement in the region.</para>
<para>Clearly our future nuclear powered submarines will be highly capable in conflict. Any adversary who wishes us harm by disrupting our connection with the world will be given pause for thought.</para>
<para>But at the end of the day the true purpose of our nuclear powered submarines will be to significantly enhance Australia's contribution to the stability, to the security and to the peace of our region.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
    <electorate>Canning</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister for his statement. Let me begin where he ended, in highlighting the uplift in capability that our future conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines will give the Royal Australian Navy. The Virginia class submarines and our future SSN AUKUS, complete with the same vertical missile system, combat system, torpedos and sealed reactor, will give us a formidable capability edge that will protect not only Australia but also our neighbours who seek a secure, peaceful and prosperous future.</para>
<para>It is true that we are a trading nation. Our prosperity is tied to the oceans, and our sea lanes and lines of communication must be protected, and any potential adversaries must be deterred. It's a law of the universe that deterrence only works when your adversaries fear your counterpunch, and the vertical launch missile system will give pause to those who contemplate breaching the peace.</para>
<para>The Virginia class submarine operating clandestinely and undetected can launch a salvo of 16 Tomahawk missiles simultaneously and ring someone's bell out beyond 2,000 kilometres. That fact alone will change the risk calculus for a potential adversary. It will keep them off balance, guessing and wondering about the wisdom of breaching the peace. This capability will induce a cold sweat on the bridge of a hostile naval vessel threatening our security, and that is a good thing because it will help preserve and uphold the peace in our region.</para>
<para>The past year has shown us why deterrence matters. Russia's unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine reminds us that we need to be vigilant and that we need to invest in our security and that of our neighbours. Our Ukrainian friends have shown us why a powerful counterpunch is so important, and we are heeding their lesson with the acquisition of conventionally-armed nuclear-powered submarines.</para>
<para>Before I move on, I want to say something about the special operations capability in our future nuclear submarines. The Virginia class and SSN-AUKUS will give a massive lift to our force projection for our special operations capability. Not only will the Virginia class submarines be able to accommodate a special operations element for extended periods of time, but the nine-man lockout capability will also provide government with clandestine insertion and extraction options if the need arises. We don't have this capability at the moment. In my previous career, I was an assault swimmer at the SASR and I have conducted multiswimmer release from a Collins class submarine during training. It is a makeshift and risky task, swimming out of a submarine casing at four to six metres of depth from an underway boat. Not only that, but the Collins has to snort prior to conducting the multiswimmer release. That of course poses issues for the signature management of the submarine, which is why we are transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy on our submarines.</para>
<para>The Virginia class submarine resolves the special operations insertion and extraction challenge, and I'm excited about this step up in capability. Indeed, the AUKUS special operations capability will complement the over $250 million investment into Campbell Barracks made by the former coalition government, including the upgrade of the operations centre into one of the biggest top-secret facilities in this country. I also think, in the wake of the turbulent past few years, post Brereton, it's important that the SASR has a clear sense of purpose and mission, and this emerging water operations capability, which will be accelerated by the UK-US forward rotation from 2027 at HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Stirling</inline>, will certainly bring that purpose and mission.</para>
<para>The minister has made a comprehensive speech covering the details of the AUKUS announcement of last week. I won't traverse the same terrain, for the benefit of the House, but I will restate what the opposition leader said last week: we support AUKUS, come hell or high water, on the coalition benches. We are proud of our role in AUKUS and the way we negotiated it with the Biden administration and the Johnston government back in 2021. AUKUS is a truly historic achievement. It was only possible because we restored defence spending to two per cent of GDP and rebuilt our sovereign shipbuilding capability. This in turn rebuilt the confidence of our allies that we were a partner who takes defence seriously and who could be trusted with the sensitive nuclear technology transfer that is at the heart of AUKUS.</para>
<para>We will work with the government to make sure that we hit the crucial milestones, that we are ready to receive the forward rotation in 2027, and that we are sovereign ready, next decade, to own, operate, maintain and regulate a reactor as we receive our Virginia class submarine in 2033. But we are in opposition and we do have questions about AUKUS, especially how it will be funded. The Deputy Prime Minister has covered a lot of detail in his remarks today, but he has not mentioned the defence budget. This will be the largest capability acquisition that Australia has embarked on, but the Deputy Prime Minister has not addressed the cost of the project. I'm calling on the Albanese government to have a frank and honest conversation with Australians about the significant investment this decision represents to the national budget and defence spending. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, there is a cost to preserving peace, and the government should be honest about that. It is vitally important that the Australian people understand this and that we build trust with them on this journey, from a bipartisan perspective. Governments will change over the life of this project. We need to build financial continuity so that AUKUS will survive the political cycles of our democratic system.</para>
<para>It's not credible for the Labor government to say that there is no net impact on the budget, even over the forward estimates. The government has announced that $9 billion will be spent on progressing AUKUS over the next four years. They claim to be spending up to $6 billion over the next four years on Australian industry and workforce to support AUKUS. It's a good headline, but we need detail. Eight billion dollars has been announced in the deal for infrastructure in my home state of Western Australia, but in truth only $1 billion of that will be seen by 2027, when Submarine Rotational Force West will commence. It will need much more investment to realise the transition of HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Stirling</inline> from a conventional submarine base to a nuclear one.</para>
<para>We are also concerned about to opportunity costs in our defence capability. What capabilities are being cut by $3 billion from the existing Defence Integrated Investment Program to offset the AUKUS investments? Who is going to bear the brunt of these costs? These questions need to be answered. Cancellation of defence projects will result in lost regional spending, lost jobs and lost investment for defence industry. There are always tough decisions for government in managing the defence budget. Scarcity is a problem we all deal with and we cannot avoid. But the Deputy Prime Minister needs to be clear about how he will fund the $34 billion needed in addition to the existing $24 billion provisioned for a submarine program over the next 10 years to deliver AUKUS. Will the Albanese government cannibalise the Army or Air Force or Navy or ASD to pay for AUKUS? These are vital questions. We need answers. Labor have committed to a major undertaking, taking the next step in our AUKUS agreement, and they need to explain to Australians how they'll pay for it.</para>
<para>Finally, a few words about unity and AUKUS. This program does have significant risks. We have our own domestic challenges. There are political, industry and workforce risks. Then there are defence delays—all too common now, as the Productivity Commission outlined. We also have the challenge of working alongside two other countries, the US and the UK—both robust democracies with their own domestic political issues to deal with. The United States is critical to AUKUS and the delivery of our submarines. Everyone in this House will need to work on our relationship with the US Congress—everyone. To everyone, each one of us: at every opportunity, when you have the opportunity to speak to a US congressman or senator, you need to be closing on AUKUS with our American colleagues, because our Virginia-class submarines are still pending congressional approval. We need to maintain a very tight weave with our American friends. Our strategic adversaries know this and will seek to undermine this goodwill and this relationship, and we will need to act in the national interest and maintain good relations with the US regardless of political affiliation or government. This project depends upon it. By the way, I haven't even touched upon pillar 2 of AUKUS, with the export controls that need to be negotiated to realise its full potential.</para>
<para>In closing—and noting the kids up there; welcome to parliament!—this is a multidecade, multigenerational, nation-building task. You kids will probably have jobs in AUKUS in the next 15 to 20 years; that's exciting! We look forward to working with this government on a bipartisan basis to make it happen.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>45</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6957" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>45</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Back in August last year, during the second sitting week of the brand new parliament, I supported the government's Climate Change Bill for a number of reasons, including the fact that we must reasonably do what we can as a country to cut emissions while taking advantage of the economic opportunities that exist for our country. When supporting that legislation, I also made it known that while I agreed with the goal of supporting more ambitious emissions reduction targets my views on how we might get there may differ.</para>
<para>Having reviewed this legislation very closely and methodically over the past few months, and consulted with relevant stakeholders, I have come to the conclusion that, although I won't be voting against it, I can't yet support it in this form as there are a number of concerns that have not been adequately addressed. I think my record in this place is a clear demonstration that I consider legislation that comes before me thoughtfully and that I always try to act in the best interests of my community. But I am concerned that the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, in its current form, leaves too many questions unanswered, and I'm uncertain about where it's going to land, so I don't see any alternative but to reserve judgement at this stage.</para>
<para>The safeguard mechanism, a coalition scheme originally introduced in 2016, is intended to be strengthened through this legislation to ensure that our biggest polluters are reducing emissions in line with our legislated targets. However, I don't believe that the original safeguard mechanism has achieved the goal it set out to, with emissions by our 215 biggest carbon polluters growing by seven per cent. The existing safeguard mechanism is not adequate or consistent enough to support the now legislated 43 per cent target. In this case, something is broken and we should seek to fix it. But I'm disappointed that the government has not sought to strengthen the legislation before presenting it to members of this House. I frankly believe the House is being used as a rubber stamp rather than the government seeking to undertake genuine efforts to negotiate before this bill gets to the Senate. We all know there remains quite a lot of uncertainty about what the Senate might do, and I was hopeful that by the time we got to this point we may have brought all sides together—but we're not there yet.</para>
<para>At first glance, the mechanisms proposed under this legislation provide a sensible pathway forward towards decarbonisation. At its very core it is consistent with Liberal values by avoiding heavy-handed government intervention in favour of a market based mechanism. That approach is also one that has the broad support of businesses across Australia from the manufacturing, resources and heavy industry sectors. Many companies in these industries have already set bigger emissions reductions targets than government. Industry has been leading the way for years, and this legislation provides another tool towards supporting their goals. Many of our major industries are already far ahead in meeting their own carbon goals and will be wanting to make further investments to meet these goals.</para>
<para>I want to recognise the significant support the safeguard mechanism has had from a broad range of industries. In January the Business Council of Australia came out in support of the legislation, stating that the safeguard mechanism is a crucial tool in Australia's ability to accelerate the decarbonisation of the economy while remaining internationally competitive and the government is right to ensure that it works as effectively and simply as possible. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has also welcomed the proposed changes to the safeguard mechanism to drive down carbon emissions while providing business with much needed certainty. 'The safeguard mechanism will play an important role in assisting Australia to reach its 2030 emissions reduction target and net zero by 2050,' ACCI Chief of Policy and Advocacy David Alexander has said. 'The 215 largest facilities covered by the safeguard mechanism should be doing their fair share of the emissions reduction task.'</para>
<para>The Australian Industry Group have also thrown their support behind the legislation as a step forward. AIG CEO Innes Willox has said that 'The crediting bill is essential policy infrastructure and it's strongly in everyone's interests to pass it.' Furthermore, the key lobby group for gas, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, are supportive of the legislation, as are the Minerals Council of Australia, with CEO Tania Constable stating that 'the parliament must maintain Australia's competitiveness and lower emissions. These are vital for driving investment, economic growth, and increasing prosperity.'</para>
<para>Over the past few months I have had many conversations with industry about what these changes might mean for them. In my electorate in northern Tasmania, Rio Tinto's Bell Bay aluminium smelter is one of the 215 companies that will be affected by this legislation, and one of five in Tasmania. The smelter is part of the Bell Bay industrial precinct just outside Georgetown, which produces 59 percent of Tasmania's manufacturing exports. As the former mayor of the town and now the federal representative, I understand how important the smelter is to the economy, providing hundreds of jobs and more than a thousand indirectly.</para>
<para>Looking ahead, understanding that a cleaner, greener future is inevitable, Rio Tinto signed an memorandum of understanding with the Tasmania government last year. Rio Tinto agreed to prepare a business case for the production of hydrogen on site with the aim of replacing existing supplies of natural gas. It is the opportunities for a greener future that have prolonged the future of this smelter. In regard to the safeguard mechanism, Rio Tinto is supportive, albeit with some caveats, which I will go into shortly. They have publicly stated their support for the reform, stating the government's climate ambitions align with their own commitment to net zero emissions by 2050.</para>
<para>I do note that while there is broad general support for these changes, it's not unanimous. I've had direct conversations with industry groups who have expressed concern over the financial impacts some aspects of the mechanism will have, particularly in regard to the decline rate. The ability for some businesses to deliver 4.9 per cent reduction, particularly in the first year, will be quite challenging and will create an additional financial burden. I know that these industries, including Rio Tinto in my backyard and Cement Australia, who have a significant facility based in the member for Lyons' electorate, have raised issues with the government. I am signalling here today that their concerns must be addressed through the relevant regulation. I note that an additional $600 million will be available to support investments in decarbonisation. I do think, though, that the decline rate is challenging, though manageable.</para>
<para>However, I strongly believe that in order to achieve the ultimate goal of reducing emissions and to strengthen the intended outcomes, the onus is on the government to bring the industries with them for the best outcome for the environment and economy. I also have some of my own concerns, particularly around allowing any big carbon emitters who exceed their baselines to maintain compliance by purchasing any combination of Australian carbon credit units or the new safeguard mechanism credits. The unlimited use of offsets is not sustainable, and offsets should only be used as a last resort. Big carbon emitters must be incentivised to prioritise genuine efforts to decarbonise, and I share the concerns of others in the House who have raised this issue. I agree with the member for Wentworth, who has said, 'We cannot offset our way out of the climate crisis.'</para>
<para>Then there are concerns I have regarding the seeming overuse of or overreliance on Australian carbon credit units, which have a legitimacy issue in the eyes of the public. Though I note that this legislation proposes a new type of credit, safeguard mechanism credits, to operate alongside ACCUs, this appears flawed, as it will allow facilities exceeding their baselines to maintain compliance by purchasing any combination of SMCs and ACCUs, potentially leading to a situation that encourages a reliance on ACCUs, which remain cheaper, and pushes out the need or incentive for facilities to purchase SMCs.</para>
<para>I applaud the efforts by the member for Wentworth and other crossbenchers to be constructive in their efforts to strengthen this bill, and I'm utterly exasperated by the lack of engagement from my own side to come to the table and engage in a constructive conversation about how the safeguard mechanism could be improved. It is an approach that is going nowhere. From the debate that I've heard across this chamber, the opposition to the legislation seems to fall in two categories: it goes either too far or not far enough. My fear is that this inertia will also lead us nowhere.</para>
<para>With such a divide, where does this end up? Our communities, and certainly my community, have an expectation that we as parliamentarians should collaborate and improve what is put in front of us. We should not just support or oppose it for political purposes; instead we should seek to adjust the legislation to get the best outcomes for our communities and the country. All parties should be engaging in good faith, which has not occurred on this critical piece of legislation.</para>
<para>I also hold concerns about where this legislation will land with the Senate and the danger of unwillingness by some to progress the safeguard mechanism. This will lead nowhere. As David Cross from Blueprint said to me, 'Any resulting uncertainty over future policy settings will disincentivise business investment in decarbonisation and over time lead to a deterioration in the competitiveness of Australia's trade exposed emitters as more and more countries and multinational firms begin to factor in carbon emissions in their purchase decisions'.</para>
<para>Fundamentally, this bill doesn't deal with many of the issues that are raised in the public debate on the safeguard mechanism. These issues will be dealt with by regulation. This bill deals with the implementation of safeguard mechanism credits, but it is a vehicle to discuss the whole package. Again, whilst I will not oppose the bill, I am concerned that the government is looking to pat itself on the back and claim victory for passing the legislation through the House before making significant amendments or agreements to pass it in the Senate. I can't support that on this important matter.</para>
<para>I'm well aware that neither my support nor my opposition makes a difference to the passing of the bill in the lower house. However, while I hope that my reservations are clear, I am also not seeking to stand in the way of these important changes, as clear action is needed. I want to see it succeed. We need it to. I am hopeful that, at the very least, my comments made here today will encourage greater debate and collaboration from all parties in the Senate, with subsequent amendments that may result in a better outcome for business, for the climate and for our future. I will be watching with interest the inevitable amendments that will make their way back to this House, and I'll consider my position very carefully at that time.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise today to speak in favour of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. I would like to take the opportunity to commend the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Prime Minister for their hard work on this legislation. I particularly commend the extraordinary work of their departments.</para>
<para>The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, released this week, confirms what we already know: there is a rapidly closing window for transformative climate action both here and around the world. This latest IPCC report shows global warming has increased at an unprecedented rate over the past decade, resulting in more frequent and severe droughts and cyclones. By the 2030s, every region in the world is expected to face increasing risks from climate change. We know that Australians will experience increasing and increasingly devastating climate events, just as we've seen in recent years. After a decade of denial and delay, Australia finally has a government that is committed to taking serious action on climate change. These reforms to the safeguard mechanism are the first opportunity in over a decade for action to bring down emissions from Australia's largest emitters. This is an opportunity we can't afford to miss.</para>
<para>I recall spending hours talking to voters on prepolls across Bean and meeting climate action communities during last year's election and, of course, meeting the same Canberrans and Norfolk Islanders during the whole duration of the last term. These are issues they care about. A consistent issue raised with me was the need for responsible and effective action on climate change and emissions reductions. Public servants that I spoke with often raised with me how ineffective the current safeguard mechanism was and how reforms to that mechanism could make a significant difference in a very quick way over the next five to 10 years.</para>
<para>The safeguard mechanism is one of three existing components of the Emissions Reduction Fund, or ERF. The ERF has been one of the central policy tools supporting the achievement of the Australian government's emission reduction targets in accordance with its nationally determined contribution under the Kyoto Protocol and, more recently, the Paris Agreement. It's key to meeting the reduction targets that we have set for 2030. The safeguard mechanism was intended to ensure that the emission reductions purchased through the ERF were not displaced by significant increases in emissions elsewhere in the economy.</para>
<para>However, the safeguard mechanism has been allowed to operate in a manner such that the emissions of covered facilities have increased in accordance with business as usual. It has essentially operated as an additional reporting mechanism rather than requiring covered facilities to reduce operational emissions—a perverse outcome. More specifically, the emissions of covered facilities have increased by seven per cent since the commencement of the safeguard mechanism in 2016. Emissions are projected to increase further by 2030 unless we achieve change. An enhanced safeguard mechanism is a crucial building block for Australia's transition to net zero. As announced with our Powering Australia plan, it will require Australia's largest industrial facilities to reduce their emissions gradually and predictably, in line with our national targets, but to do so with certainty.</para>
<para>I do not wish to re-dredge history, but history matters. In 2009, the crossbenchers and the opposition at the time blocked then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Australian people were then forced into a decade of climate change inaction because it was decided by a few that it wasn't good enough for them and so the whole country would have to go without. As someone who worked for more than a decade in science and engineering advocacy, I know the extent of the opportunity that was missed.</para>
<para>Last year the Albanese Labor party went to the Australian people with a proposal and said, 'We can get 43 per cent emissions reductions by 2030—an achievable and meaningful reduction that will encourage innovations in industry and won't cripple business.' On 22 May the Australian people emphatically said yes to that proposal. We have here today a bill that will ensure this country meets its emissions reduction targets and its international obligations. We have before this House legislation that makes it possible for climate action to happen.</para>
<para>The Albanese government was elected because we listened and created a policy that reduces our country's emissions without needing to cripple industry. By lowering the cost of reducing emissions, crediting and trading will help the safeguard mechanism meet Australia's climate targets in a cost-effective way and enable increased ambition over time. Kerry Schott, the Chair of the Energy Security Board from 2018 to 2021 and the nation's top climate adviser to successive Commonwealth governments, has described this policy as a really important policy measure to reduce emissions and has said that delaying the implementation of this legislation by even a year would mean the emissions reduction targets of the facilities with the heaviest pollution will become even more difficult to reach.</para>
<para>These reforms are critical to contribute about 30 per cent of the cuts needed to deliver on Australia's legally binding target to reduce our greenhouse gas footprint by 43 per cent by 2030. At the end of the day Australia will be locked into 43 per cent by 2030. This is the floor. This is the minimum. We could actually achieve a higher reduction. This country will not achieve anything if it's not passed because there are some people who, as the previous speaker said, think this legislation doesn't go far enough or who think it goes too far.</para>
<para>To those opposite, who've long championed the need for every market to run efficiently, this legislation targets inefficiencies in our emissions markets. This bill addresses one element of the reforms—crediting. It aims to support and encourage industry to unlock emissions reductions where they are most efficient. Under this bill some businesses that have low-cost abatement opportunities ready to go could reduce their emissions faster than required by the safeguard mechanism. To incentivise such action, the bill enables these businesses to be issued tradeable safeguard mechanism credits. Other businesses with more limited abatement options could buy these credits to help them meet their required emissions reductions.</para>
<para>I'd like to remind the House about what some of the country's industry leaders and businesses are saying about this legislation. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">With the new climate change legislation committing Australia to reduce national emissions by 43% below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050, changes to the design of the Safeguard Mechanism are essential.</para></quote>
<para>The Australian Aluminium Council says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The focus of policy design for Safeguard Mechanism should be on establishing a framework to maintain industry, jobs and competitiveness while also decarbonising, through the period to 2030 and beyond to achieve net zero by 2050. The success of this policy will not be measured in 2030 alone, but in the transformation of Australia's industry in the biggest clean industrial and economic revolution this country has seen.</para></quote>
<para>Rio Tinto, another group of radicals, say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Rio Tinto supports the use of a reformed Safeguard Mechanism as part of a suite of policy measures to incentivise genuine industrial abatement.</para></quote>
<para>Finally, the Energy Efficiency Council says: 'The Energy Efficiency Council strongly supports the government's proposal to enhance the safeguard mechanism by declining facility baselines. Overall the EEC believes that reforms to the safeguard mechanism should make a substantial contribution to Australia's emissions reduction targets and jumpstart the transition to achieving a net zero economy no later than 2050.'</para>
<para>It's clear that there is genuine support and demand for these reforms. This certainly doesn't sound like the Armageddon that those opposite, in different parts of the chamber, seem to think it is for different reasons. It sounds like industry has been waiting for an adult government to prepare achievable, mature policy that encourages innovation and drives efficiency.</para>
<para>Australian businesses and their investors know the world is changing and that they need the right signals in place to not just stay competitive, but to innovate and thrive. Many businesses that operate facilities covered by the safeguard mechanism have made long-term climate commitments that match or surpass Australia's climate targets. They demonstrate great levels of business frustration with the former government's lack of strong and coherent climate action policy.</para>
<para>We cannot be surprised that it's once again up to a transparent, climate conscious and responsible Labor government to legislate policy that isn't a smokescreen, but endeavours to deliver on this country's climate obligations. In September 2022 this parliament enacted the Albanese government's Climate Change Act 2022 which set out a national emissions reduction target of 43 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050. It was the beginning of this government's plan to ensure that Australia meets its target of being a net zero country by 2050. The Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 complements this government's responsible and effective approach to reducing emissions. Reforms to the safeguard mechanism will provide strong investment signals and provide a balanced scheme that is effective, equitable, efficient and simple.</para>
<para>To those constituents that came to me, during the election and during the term of the last parliament, concerned about the integrity of Australian carbon credit units: your concerns were heard. The Australian government commissioned the independent review of ACCUs to ensure that they and the carbon crediting framework have integrity and maintain a strong and credible reputation. The expert panel concluded that the ACCU scheme arrangements are sound. Further to this, industrial emitters will have a strong incentive to reduce their emissions, but many in hard-to-abate sectors will need options to use credits from those facilities beating their baselines or high-integrity carbon offsets.</para>
<para>A broad coalition of business leaders and groups support reforming the safeguard mechanism to provide policy certainty for large industrial emitters. Most importantly, the Australian people made it clear that they want a policy that delivers on climate change, delivers on industry innovation and doesn't hurt business. They made this view clear and delivered the Albanese Labor government a mandate to get this done.</para>
<para>This legislation complements the Albanese government's approach to deliver tangible change in emission reductions, to ensure that this country will reach its goal of 43 per cent reductions by 2030 and be a net zero country by 2050. I thank the minister and the Prime Minister again for their hard work along with the hard work of those public servants that have brought this bill to this parliament. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I take pleasure in joining the debate in relation to the safeguard mechanism. A bit like you, Deputy Speaker Georganas, I feel like we may have been on this ride once or twice before in the last 10 years. I appeal to those opposite and to the media covering this issue to recognise we need a balanced debate on this issue. We need a balanced debate and a balanced approach to ensuring we achieve our energy security and affordability needs and delivering the environmental outcomes that Australians expect.</para>
<para>I'll touch on environmental issues first. I believe the environmental debate we're having in Australia today has become too simplistic and obsessed with emissions and the climate debate, at the expense of the far more complex conversations we should be having about natural resource management and the complex conversations that regional Australians are having every day as they deal with failures to manage the natural environment appropriately. I accept that climate change is a global challenge and we must play our part as a responsible nation, but the other environmental challenges, the real environmental challenges we face every day, demand local action. What I'm talking about is more practical environmental action in this nation. I often refer to this as a policy which reflects the need for more boots and less suits—that's more boots on the ground doing practical environmental work and less suits in the cities making excuses for why things can't be done.</para>
<para>When I make those comments, I immediately think of the invasion of pest animals and plants right throughout our nation, which is particularly prominent in regional areas and particularly prominent on areas of public land being neglected by state governments. My state of Victoria is certainly no exception. What I'm seeing as I travel throughout Gippsland is farmers, landholders and people living in towns who are deeply concerned about the impact of feral animals—feral deer, feral pigs—in their communities. These issues demand greater attention in this place in partnership with the land owners, the state governments. We only need to think about issues such as foot-and-mouth disease and the risk it poses to the agriculture sector if it were to get loose in this country. The vector animal that would spread that disease through this country would be feral pigs, and feral pigs are now showing up in northern Victoria in my electorate of Gippsland.</para>
<para>So the environmental conversation we need to have, as much as it should recognise these global issues of emissions and climate change, has to also take into consideration the practical environmental management needed on the ground in local communities, focusing on pest animals and weed control, the need to improve biodiversity and tackle erosion and riparian vegetation—things like hazard reduction in our forests, where the fuel load has grown enormously even since the 2019-20 bushfires, and critical asset protection around our towns and catchments and other important infrastructure in regional areas.</para>
<para>It also has to include a serious conversation about a world-class and sustainable native timber industry in regions like Victoria, where the industry is under direct threat right now by Premier Daniel Andrews's obsession with closing down all timber harvesting in the native hardwood sector by 2030.</para>
<para>I would argue the true environmentalists in this nation don't reside in Canberra or Sydney or Brisbane or Melbourne. They live in our regional communities. They're the people who are out there every day getting their hands dirty. They're joining Landcare, they're joining Coast Care, they're doing feral animal control, they're planting trees. They're taking action locally to improve our environment, which after all is one of the key considerations of the bill before the House today. Unfortunately, in my state of Victoria the state government has absolutely gutted the workforce on the ground in public land management. We look at Parks Victoria or the department supposedly responsible for practical land management. The workforce on the ground has been absolutely gutted by a government which continues to invest in suits but not enough boots.</para>
<para>So I fear that the bill before us today doesn't get the balance right. The coalition's policy to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 is a responsible and balanced reduction plan that protects our economy. In government, as much as those opposite would like to claim otherwise, we had a record of achieving our international targets, in partnership with industry and other levels of government. We've always said that the approach to this challenge is through technology, not taxes. The coalition in government supported the carbon trading system that rewarded businesses that voluntarily reduced their emissions. In government we committed $22 billion to bring down the cost of lowering emissions, leveraging up to $132 billion in private sector investment and supporting 160,000 jobs. We would argue on this side of the House that we can grow the economy while taking effective action on climate change and undertaking practical environmental measures.</para>
<para>That is not what this government is proposing. They want us to use a carbon trading system to force businesses to buy carbon credits. That is effectively a tax. The bill intends to have 215 businesses that are impacted by the safeguard mechanism reduce their emissions over ten years. That includes 66 coalmines, 36 gas facilities, 26 iron ore mines and 49 manufacturing facilities, nine of which are in my electorate of Gippsland, which includes the coal fields of the Latrobe Valley.</para>
<para>What concerns me greatly—and I think any reasonable member of this place would share my concerns—is that we have a range of cost-of-living pressures right now that are severely impacting people on low and fixed incomes. My concern is that this policy is only going to do more to hurt Australians and drive up the cost of living in our everyday households. I fear that emitters who can't achieve the reduction proposed by this government will purchase their credits at inflated cost. In fact this legislation proposes a $75 carbon tax, three times the Rudd-Gillard carbon tax. Effectively, that will be passed on. When you think of who will pay this price in the end, it will be the people from the communities that every one of us in this place, the 151 electorates, represent. It will be the people in those communities who will pay the price when it's passed on to consumers. Businesses will pass the additional costs straights on to consumers through higher electricity prices, higher food prices and higher prices for building materials. We will see increases in things like the price of steel and concrete, which obviously are critical inputs into the construction of homes. We've just seen significant increases in housing prices right across Australia, particularly in regional Australia, where the cost of dwellings is rising in the order of 30 per cent across many regional communities. That's why people on this side of the House, in the coalition, fear this as a hidden tax. We fear that this is going to drive up cost-of-living pressures on households when they can least afford it.</para>
<para>We believe there are better ways to do our share in reducing global emissions. I recently visited Fortescue Metals in the Pilbara and saw firsthand how that particular company is using technology to drive down its emissions through alternative fuels like hydrogen, or the largest solar farm I've seen. They're investing in renewable energy sources and on track to reach decarbonisation themselves by 2030. This is one of the world's largest producers of iron ore, and it's a clear example of how our policy—the previous government's policy—in relation to technology not taxes was working in the community.</para>
<para>I want to reflect for a moment a little closer to home in my own electorate of Gippsland, and particularly the regional Latrobe Valley, which stands to be the most adversely affected region in Victoria if we get this wrong, and I fear we are already getting this wrong. For more than a hundred years the people of Latrobe Valley have supplied a reliable and affordable secure form of energy to all Victorians and much of south-east Australia. Victorians have depended on that reliable base-load energy from Latrobe Valley, from the brown coal-fired power stations. That community should be enormously proud of the achievements it has delivered and the wealth it has created and helped to create right across Victoria. The member for McEwen would know this very well: my region still bears the scars of the job losses associated with the decision to privatise the SEC more than 30 years ago. The member for McEwen will remember it as well as I do.</para>
<para>He'll have to forgive us and those opposite will have to forgive me if I'm a little sceptical about promises being made on just transition plans. What we have seen already in the Latrobe Valley with the precipitous closure of the Hazelwood power station, the planned closure of Yallourn W power station in 2028 and the announcement only last year that Loy Yang A will shut in 2035—prematurely shut in 2035—is that those plans will leave a gaping hole in energy supply. Yet we are being asked to trust the renewable energy zealots, like the minister for climate change. Minister Bowen will say there's large-scale solar and onshore and offshore wind supported by advances in battery technology that will help to create jobs and keep the lights on at an affordable price. But I fear it's a bit like the captain of the aircraft saying: 'Don't worry. We're going to take off and we'll add the wings to the plane when we get up in the air.'</para>
<para>Don't get me wrong, I believe there's a transformation underway towards more renewables and less fossil fuel-powered energy sources across Australia, and I freely admit I was at the forefront of the National Party design to support a net zero emissions target by 2050. But I reinforce my opening comments that this must be done in a balanced way. It must be done in a way which respects our communities, particularly in places like Latrobe Valley, and still delivers a reliable and affordable system for all Australians. Given our national contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is 1.3 per cent, we need to recognise that there is no Australian solution to these environmental challenges in isolation. We need to be in a position of economic strength to make our contribution to dealing with these challenges. Keep in mind, if we shut down every one of the coal-fired power stations in Latrobe Valley, total global emissions would go down by 0.11 per cent.</para>
<para>The decision by AGL to bring forward the closure of Loy Yang A will impact, obviously, local jobs and the economy by undermining the reliability of Victoria's power supply. ExxonMobil Australia acknowledged today that they will not be in a position to stabilise the grid if coal-fired power plants break down unexpectedly, like they did last winter. David Berman, ExxonMobil Australia's Commercial Director, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Gippsland Basin Joint Venture will no longer have the capacity to step in as it has in the past to provide whole of market solutions when planned or unplanned maintenance events occur, or when additional gas is required to support the electricity market.</para></quote>
<para>This is my concern, that we are rushing headlong into a weather-dependent form of energy supply without the security to back it up in a major manufacturing state like Victoria. International experiences leave me unconvinced that the planned renewables will offer the same reliable and affordability that Victorians have become used to expecting from Latrobe Valley generators. For example, projects like offshore wind off the Gippsland coast have great potential, but the turbines haven't been built, approval hasn't even been granted and the transmission lines through private property to connect them to the grid remain extremely contentious in my community. Given those challenges, I would be surprised if there were any wind turbines operating in Bass Strait by the end of this decade and contributing to the national grid. You won't be surprised to hear me say as a local MP my first priority is the social and economic prosperity of my community, and that is centred around long-term and sustainable job opportunities.</para>
<para>Our region has a rich and proud history of powering the wealth of Victoria through the delivery of affordable, reliable base-load energy, and my community has a very proud history of practical environmental management as well. They just want to see a balanced approach, and our power industry workers and their families should be proud of their contribution to the nation and should be respected as we make this transition.</para>
<para>Last year the Australian Energy Market Operator released the <inline font-style="italic">2022</inline><inline font-style="italic">I</inline><inline font-style="italic">ntegrated system plan</inline> for the National Electricity Market. I freely admit I know a lot of people probably haven't read it. I don't blame you. It was a soulless document, written by engineers and economists, with hardly any reference to the people who will be directly impacted by the changes in the electricity generation system. Moving to a system which is 100 per cent weather dependent before transmission lines are even built to link from large-scale renewable projects to the grid is a recipe for higher prices and unreliability for businesses and for blackouts and brownouts for family homes and industry in regional communities.</para>
<para>Finally, I want to make this simple point. People need to be at the heart of these decisions. The AEMO report was disturbingly light on any references to the likely social and economic impacts in directly affected communities like Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley. People need to be at the heart of these decisions—the people who currently work to generate the electricity, who are expected to install the new renewable capacity and the transmission lines, who need reliable and affordable energy at home and in their workplaces and who want to live in an environmentally sustainable system for their children.</para>
<para>If we put aside all our concerns about the capacity to meet our future energy needs from renewable sources alone by 2035, the issues facing Latrobe Valley demand a coordinated, strategic response from all levels of government. I believe there should be a high-level and bipartisan task force appointed to immediately deal with the long-term issues and provide long-term funding to help my community make the transition. As a local MP, my focus is on the region and on ensuring that Gippsland and Latrobe Valley families are not forgotten, when it's our families who have been working to power Victoria's wealth for the past 100 years.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When we talk about the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, we need to start with the first question. Why is it needed? Why do we need to have these bills? Because it's about our future and our kids' futures. It's about the No. 1 thing that we all should do as people in this place—to sit here and look at how we're going to make this nation better for the next generations.</para>
<para>We've gone through 10 years of climate wars that did not need to happen. They only happened because of the ideologues on the other side—not all of them, granted—that pushed against everything. We had the time when former prime minister Abbott claimed that there was a carbon tax, and we had every single one of those false statements put out about the words of then prime minister Gillard, even to the point where Peta Credlin admitted on TV that it was a lie. But they still keep holding to it. That's a real shame because, as I said, I know some of the people over there genuinely come to this place because they want to do better for our nation and our nation's future, and the most important thing we can do for our nation's future is to make sure that our kids and grandkids and the generations to come have an environment that's clean and safe and where we can actually have production of food and fibre and the things that we need to go forward.</para>
<para>I think it's fundamental that we should stand back and say, 'What are we doing now that is going to benefit our kids' futures?' because this goes to the crux of what this is all about. It's about doing things cleaner, greener and in such a way that we don't have as much impact on our environment. That's why we committed to reduce national emissions to 43 per cent below our 2005 levels by 2030 and to move to net zero emissions by 2050. This is about what's achievable and it's about what's realistic, but it's also about making us work to really have a deliberate and sustained effort to meet those targets, and every one of us has to play their part.</para>
<para>This is the way that we drive things forward. Let's move aside the absolutists who would have us do nothing at all or go all the way to where you can't actually do it. You've got to be practical. You've got to be sensible. One thing I agreed with the pessimistic member for Gippsland on was that we've got to bring people along. People need to be able to make change, see how it benefits them and see how it works. With every sector playing its part, we will be better off overall in terms of our environment and our kids' futures.</para>
<para>Our government's Powering Australia plan commits to build on the safeguard mechanism to reduce industrial sector emissions—something we know needs to be done. But it's about making sure that what we're doing is taking this country forward. For 10 years we've just wallowed in the pit of an inability to deliver positive steps for communities and for the nation as a whole. We want to take that technology, invest in what we can build and take that to the world. If we think back to the time of the former Howard government, PV cells were made and developed here—technology that goes around the world. But, because we had a government at that time that did not support the idea of renewable energy, that all went offshore. All that manufacturing, all those jobs, all that technology, went offshore, and we ended up buying it back. It's silly. We develop these things. We have the talent and the ability to do these things. But, unless we've got a government like our government that's actually on the side of people who develop technologies and who want to make a cleaner, greener environment, we're going to get nowhere. That's what we had for 10 years—constant fighting and bickering over what needs to be done.</para>
<para>Safeguard facilities are the country's largest emitters outside the electricity sector, contributing around 28 per cent of our total emissions. These reforms back in the climate commitments that companies have already made. These are steps that they're already taking. People are actually wanting do this. It's across industry wherever you go. People do want to have a better environment. They want to have a better future. By working with businesses and working with people, we can help meet our legislated national targets. The bill enables tradeable credits to be issued to facilities below their baselines. This provides an incentive for all covered facilities to reduce their emissions and access the lowest-cost abatement. We've had a broad coalition of business leaders and groups supporting the safeguard mechanism. This is because it will provide policy certainty for large industrial emitters.</para>
<para>What does the bill do? The safeguard mechanism will support and drive emission reductions from facilities covered by the safeguard mechanism. These reforms will help Australian businesses to remain competitive as the world decarbonises. We shouldn't be waiting. There is this theory on the other side: 'Let's not do anything. Let's just wait until others have done it. Then we'll start moving.' It's just wrong. You can't be international leaders if you're at the back of the pack. That's why we've got to be at the front of the pack. We've got to take the ability we've got through our science, through our manufacturing processes and through the skilled workforce that we have and will have for the future and utilise that best. Once we do that, the reforms will help Australian businesses to remain competitive and go forward as we continue through this 21st century.</para>
<para>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. That's the one thing that industry tells you—that over the past few years there's been nothing but instability in where we're going with our climate future, where we're going with pollution, because of all the chops and changes and the issues we've had during these climate wars.</para>
<para>This bill allows for the creation of a new unit type, a safeguard mechanism credit. The bill deals with matters like the issuance, transfer and ownership of the credits from facilities which beat their baselines. Credits will provide an incentive for all facilities to reduce their emissions if they have cost-effective opportunities—helping to deliver Australia's climate targets at the lowest cost. The bill also allows rules to be made about interactions between the safeguard mechanism and the Emissions Reduction Fund. This will support the integrity of both the safeguard mechanism and Australian carbon credit units. The detailed design of the safeguard mechanism, such as how baselines are set, will be in subordinate legislation referred to as the safeguard rules. The draft safeguard rules were released for consultation on 10 January this year.</para>
<para>The key reasons for these reforms are quite simple: we now have legislated emissions reduction targets, and the safeguard mechanism is a central policy to delivering our targets—announced in December 2021 as part of our Powering Australia plan and endorsed at the last election by the Australian people. This is the key: we took this to the election and we've received a mandate to do this, because the overwhelming majority of Australians want action on climate and they want action for our kids' future, whether it's through emissions reduction to remove the pollution from our air or whether it's about cleaning up waterways so that we've got cleaner water to run through our nation. That's why we've got to look even at things such as cleaning up the waterways so that our native fish can thrive. We need to do that through carp eradication programs, for example, as a way to do something positive to bring a better future for our kids.</para>
<para>These safeguard reforms are expected to save around 205 million tonnes of emissions in the period to 2030, which is the equivalent of taking some two-thirds of Australian cars off the road in the same period. Reforms to the safeguard mechanism have been consistently recommended and supported by businesses and business groups, including the BCA, AIG and ACCI. They're people that normally are probably not on our side of the fence; I guess that would be the thing we'd say. But they're businesses, and businesses know where the future's heading and why they need to be part of that. That's why they support these mechanisms: to be able to actually get a pathway forward and deliver better outcomes, something that we need to stop the climate wars that we've had for the last 10 years.</para>
<para>We know those opposite had grand plans for the safeguarding credit they announced back in May 2020 with their King review response in the May budget of 2020-21. In their crediting consultation paper in August that year and their long-term plan in October 2021, they put forward these reforms, which they never delivered and now oppose. I think that's been the key thing that we've learnt from this: we now have an opposition not only opposing the government's views but opposing their own views, a rather bizarre set of circumstances.</para>
<para>This is why we've got to bring these things forward and move this Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill through to get things done, because, after the decade of delay, denial and absolute dysfunction, all we have to hear is a half-baked scare campaign. We heard that through the previous speakers: 'I fear, I fear, I fear.' It is not about any positive plan or any way to actually address the issue that Australians want. It goes back to the standard 101 of the conservatives, and that's to run a fear and smear campaign, with no basis other than that they're planning to oppose everything.</para>
<para>When we look at what's happening, we see that 80 per cent of our facilities, representing 86 per cent of covered emissions, are already covered by the corporate net-zero commitments, because businesses know reducing emissions is essential to their long-term competitiveness in a global net-zero economy. We see that around the world with manufacturers who package stuff, send it overseas and then require the packaging to come back, to make sure that we re-use, recycle and cut our emissions globally.</para>
<para>When we're looking at around 215 large industrial facilities, accounting for around 28 per cent of Australia's emissions, the importance of this is to make sure there's integrity involved. We commissioned an independent review, the Chubb review, to ensure that carbon-crediting frameworks have integrity and maintain a strong and credible reputation. The expert panel concluded the arrangements are sound. The panel found there are appropriate checks and balances in the scheme, the methods and the projected level to protect the integrity of the scheme and the credits created underneath it. The panel made sensible recommendations to ensure the scheme aligns with modern expectations of best practice, including separating the functions of integrity assurance, regulation and administration; maximising the transparency of the scheme information; encouraging innovation in the method development and project implementation; and supporting greater participation, including by First Nations communities.</para>
<para>The government has agreed in principle to the 16 recommendations of the review and is working with its stakeholders on its implementation. We need to know that emissions from covered sectors are among the fastest-growing across the economy, and are projected to overtake emissions from the electricity sector if we don't take policy action. Reducing emissions from safeguard facilities is therefore a crucial part of meeting our climate goals and maintaining Australia's industry and competitiveness in a decarbonising global economy.</para>
<para>We released our proposed reforms on 10 January this year and imposed comparable requirements to the commitments and actions of other countries at sectoral and whole-of-economy levels. Our reforms would see Australia's largest industrial emitters take a proportionate contribution to meeting our target by reducing facility baselines by 4.9 per cent each year between 2024 and 2030. This means that, on average, safeguard facilities reduce their emissions to the same rate as the rest of Australia's economy in 2030.</para>
<para>The important message to start with and lead with is that this is a sensible approach. You can't take the absolutist views of the Greens, who want to do everything but can deliver nothing, or of the opposition, who, after 10 years of infighting and plans all over the place, left us in a worse position than what we started with. We need to continue on a sensible, safe and intelligent path to meet our emissions targets, but to do that with business and with communities. The only way we do this is by ending the scare campaigns, ending the internal fighting across the chamber and starting to focus on the nation, not ourselves.</para>
<para>I absolutely support this bill, and look forward to it having a speedy passage through this place.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. Last year, my wife told me, 'You need to speak with Leo.' Leo is my son, and he's 10. She said, 'He wants to talk to you about climate change.' I said, 'Okay; why does he want to talk to me about climate change?' She said, 'He saw that documentary on Netflix.' I said, 'What documentary on Netflix?' She said, 'It was <inline font-style="italic">David Attenborough</inline><inline font-style="italic">:</inline><inline font-style="italic">A</inline><inline font-style="italic">L</inline><inline font-style="italic">ife on </inline><inline font-style="italic">O</inline><inline font-style="italic">ur </inline><inline font-style="italic">P</inline><inline font-style="italic">lanet</inline>.' I know many other members of this place often cite that documentary because it came out of a time when most of Melbourne was locked down, so most of Melbourne watched it. For those of you who haven't seen it, it is quite a moving documentary. It charts his life as a person as well as the issue of climate change, and he makes a point at the end. There will be criticism about the form of advocacy and whether things are properly fact-checked, but as a piece of art it was very effective and it was moving. It goes back to when he was a young boy; he's sitting in what is an old Welsh mine and he's looking at the different gaps in the soil and talking about how the earth has changed. It then breaks through different pictures of him travelling around the world as he ages but there's a clock ticking down at the same time, and it's got this loud clicking motion, and it is the percentage of wild areas on earth. As he gets near the end, there's a crescendo of how much of the wild areas of earth have gone in his lifetime—it's quite moving—and he draws the link between that and the challenge of climate change. You would have to have a very thick skin not to be moved by the way that was put.</para>
<para>That's often used as a reason to support a particular bill or a particular proposal—that any actions taken in this place are somehow going to affect the visuals you saw in that documentary. It's dishonest to view it in that way because the things we do here must not only be important for the environment but be important for the issue globally and also in a responsible way for our economy. So let me quickly outline what it is we're dealing with because a lot of people outside of this chamber who might be listening or viewing may not know the details of this proposal.</para>
<para>In 2005, we were, as a country, emitting 621 megatonnes per year. The policy put to the election by the colleagues opposite was to reduce that by 43 per cent by 2030, which would take you, in 2030, to 354 megatonnes a year. The proposal that we have before the parliament now has a focus on 215 facilities which have been picked as the largest carbon emitters. They include mines, gas manufacturers, airlines and concrete facilities. Altogether they account for 28 per cent of emissions. This proposal sets limits on those, and that will have impacts on many different areas. But it's important to note that a lot of those sectors have made great strides in reducing their emissions to date. In particular, electricity, waste and agriculture have cut between 10 and 20 per cent of their emissions over the terms of the last government, but many others haven't. Transport and industry processors have not been able to obtain the same cuts. So the proposal is to give each facility a cap on their emissions and then to reduce that by a percentage each year. I think it's 4.9 per cent per year. If it's below cap, the facility can then sell to another facility, and they can also offset those with carbon credits, including by land restoration and other projects.</para>
<para>It's important to note that the coalition, when in government, achieved a lot of this without the burden which is going to be imposed on facilities and which will have an impact on inflation. It will probably have very little impact on the environment and almost no impact on the visuals that were shown in that documentary that my son watched. In government, the coalition had significant achievements in nine years of office. The government met and exceeded Australia's Kyoto targets and signed on to achieve net zero by 2050. The government reduced emissions by over 20 per cent on the 2005 base level, putting Australia well on track to beat Paris treaty commitments. It was a decade of balancing emissions without significant reductions in economic growth. In fact, the economy grew.</para>
<para>Labor is now rushing to impose this bill, which would lead to drastic cuts for Australian businesses. Labor is taking a scheme that did exist, but they are changing the scheme from one whose purpose is to stop emissions by encouraging businesses and to encourage them to back technology to a scheme whose purpose is to penalise businesses through taxes. The coalition, when in government, supported a carbon trading system that rewarded businesses that voluntarily reduced their emissions. Our plan for the safeguard mechanism was to create incentives and support businesses that made the transition to net zero. If the proposed bill is successful, businesses will be hit with what is, in effect, a carbon tax. By pricing carbon dioxide at $75, Australia will have a price that is three times higher than the one set by the previous government, and this will rise to $100 by 2030. This will make Australian businesses extremely uncompetitive, to the point that they will be driven offshore. You will have affected the economy in a serious way and you will have done nothing for climate change because those businesses will then be going overseas.</para>
<para>Many of our trading partners and international competitors for key industries, including aluminium, cement, copper, coal, gas and iron ore, do not have any national carbon pricing scheme and certainly not one on this level. Our exporters will struggle to compete in these markets. That means not only lost export revenue but less investment and fewer jobs. The economic activity will relocate overseas in markets with no climate policies and high rates of emission—in many cases more than double the emissions of Australian companies. So this will lead to higher building material costs, higher fuel costs and higher transportation costs at the very time when the last thing this country, the economy, families and small business need is higher costs. It's the very last thing we need at this time.</para>
<para>It should come as no surprise that Labor have rushed this proposal through. There's no evidence of the impacts of the policy to introduce a carbon tax. Instead, Labor promised a $275 cut to household electricity bills, and I know that side get very sensitive—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is now interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Given that you were interrupted, Member for Menzies, you will be given leave to continue when the debate is resumed.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>55</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wright Electorate: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For a number of years, the Tamborine Mountain Medical Practice has been working with my office to seek a sensible resolution to the introduction of Modified Monash Model healthcare boundaries, which has had a number of unintended consequences across Australia, including on Tamborine Mountain. The introduction of this new classification has seen our regional mountain community in the Gold Coast hinterland classified as MM1, or as a major city. Therefore, medical practices on the mountain have had to compete for doctors with Brisbane and Gold Coast practices that have not been able to recruit overseas general practitioners. The mountain is simply seeking that the classification of MM1 be reconsidered given the unique aspects of the community, including remoteness, distance from medical services and the regional nature of the town.</para>
<para>I'm pleased to report to the House that yesterday I had a very productive meeting with the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I thank him and his senior adviser for hearing our cause. My office, along with the Tamborine Mountain Medical Practice, will now be working closely with the minister and his office to find sensible resolutions to this unintended consequence of the Modified Monash Model. In 2019 there were 20 doctors; there are now eight. In closing, I thank the practice for their unwavering advocacy and work on this issue over a number of years. I look forward to reporting back to the House in the near future on the progress of this issue.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Motorsport</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My speech today is about a young woman from my electorate, Sarah. She's known as Drag'n Fly Junior Dragster because she is a phenomenal junior drag racer. I first heard about Sarah's talents when I was out doorknocking with my dad in Langwarrin, and we met her dad, who couldn't wait to tell us about his 13-year-old daughter who was a drag racer and to show me her vehicle, the ZR3 Rocket, which is totally mind-blowing. If you don't know, drag racing is a type of motor racing. The cars compete, usually two at a time, to be first across a set finish line. It is, as you might understand, a male dominated sport. But not for Sarah. To my great delight, over the years Sarah and her parents have continued to keep me updated on her racing. This is the latest. Sarah came runner-up in the Australian Drag Racing Championship. Her dad tells me that they drove to Perth, for the second time in three months, leading the championship after winning in Mildura the week before. Things didn't quite go her way, but she ended up No. 2 in Australia. Her dad said he's proud of their achievement—because it's a family effort—after driving 21,000 kilometres over a nine-month season. I'm proud of Sarah too, and this whole parliament, I think, is now proud of her as well.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mobile Black Spot Program</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today the Minister for Communications gave a truly appalling interview on 2GB with Ben Fordham which fully exposed her personal role in round 6 of the Mobile Black Spot Program. I'd encourage members and anyone who's listening to this broadcast to listen to the interview. You can find it at this URL: 2gb.com/answer-the-question-shocker-interview-with-michelle-rowland. It was indeed a shocker. The minister desperately tried to avoid answering questions but ultimately admitted that she personally hand-picked the list of sites in round 6 of the Mobile Black Spot Program. Seventy-four per cent of those sites were in Labor electorates. She also admitted today, for the first time, that 27 out of the 27 sites that she selected in New South Wales were in Labor electorates. Then she said, 'But it's not pork barrelling.' In New South Wales, 27 out of 27 are in Labor electorates, but the minister says it's not pork-barrelling. People can judge for themselves. I'd really direct people to have a listen to the interview at 2gb.com/answer-the-question-shocker-interview-with-michelle-rowland. This program is a disgrace, and this minister must be held to account.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Apology for Forced Adoptions: 10th Anniversary</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to share with the House a story I heard today when attending the morning tea after Minister Rishworth's statement on the 10-year anniversary that we commemorated here today. I met Betty Mills. Betty shared with me her story. She also told me that she had made a submission to the UK government inquiry 'The right to family life: adoption of children of unmarried women 1949-1976'. I'll use her words:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The experience of being a mother who went through adoption has had a long lasting impact on me. There was no respect for women or children in this situation. In 1953 when I became pregnant it was considered almost a criminal offence. Babies of unmarried women were labelled "illegitimate" and mothers were deemed to be unfit to be mothers.</para></quote>
<para>I want to thank Minister Rishworth, and I want to mark the importance of Labor women in this place. I want to thank former attorney-general Nicola Roxon and former prime minister Julia Gillard for seeing this through our parliament a decade ago, while people—children, mothers and sometimes fathers—are still waiting in the UK. I think it all speaks for itself.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Southern Cross Care</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The aged-care royal commission gave people hope that aged care would change for the better. But, despite being singled out for criticism by the royal commission, things seem to have only gotten worse at Tasmania's Southern Cross Care. For instance, constituents have told me terrible stories of neglect, including medications being missed and residents suffering avoidable injuries. The staff are hurting too, with a staggering turnover rate pointing to dreadful culture and morale—made all the worse, no doubt, by Southern Cross's proposal to cut some enrolled nurses and to replace them with lower-paid staff. Moreover, the problems extend to Southern Cross's lifestyle villages, with residents at Saint Canice outraged after discovering their fees will be hiked by more than 36 per cent.</para>
<para>I've made numerous attempts to meet Southern Cross's CEO, Robyn Boyd, but all have been ignored, which is entirely consistent with feedback from constituents that there's a disturbing pattern of complaints being dismissed outright and with the allegation from the ANMF that the CEO has 'zero interest' in the concerns of staff and residents' families. No wonder more than 1,000 people have signed a petition calling on the CEO and the board to resign. I urge the federal government to intervene and to ensure Southern Cross starts treating staff and residents with the care and respect they deserve. Anything less would be too little, too late.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Blair Electorate: Mates4Mates</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Friday I opened the Mates4Mates family recovery centre in Ipswich. The latest ABS data shows there are over 14,000 current and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members living in the Ipswich region. From coffee to counselling, from a gym to mental health and physical rehabilitation, Mates4Mates will deliver that in Ipswich. I have had the privilege of being in Brisbane and Townsville to see what they're doing, and finally they've come to Ipswich. I want to congratulate the general manager, Emma Whitehead, and the Mates4Mates board chair, Major General Stephen Day.</para>
<para>This complements what the Albanese Labor government is doing in Ipswich—that is, the $5 million we're giving for the defence and families hub in Ipswich. It was a commitment made by those opposite and never delivered. We are delivering it in Ipswich. This $5 million commitment will be about more than mental health and physical rehabilitation. It's about connection. It's about transition from the ADF to civilian life. Nearly one in 10 people who leave the ADF leave from the Ipswich region into civilian life, as in Townsville—it's nearly one in 10 there. Ipswich is an important defence hub, with the RAAF base at Amberley. This is a great commitment by Mates4Mates. It's much needed. We have great RSL sub-branches in the Ipswich region, but we need this support, and thank you to Mates4Mates for delivering it. I look forward to working with the hub that this government is delivering for Ipswich.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Floods</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we talk, most of the north-west corner of Queensland is underwater. I flew nearly 200 kilometres in a helicopter, and I never saw any ground underneath the helicopter for the entire distance. If ever there were an argument for a separate state—I don't know of a million people anywhere in the world that are ruled by a government over 1,000 kilometres away or 2,000 kilometres away. Nowhere in the world does that exist. But when you are a small, isolated rural community, you're forgotten because of that. When you are predominantly blackfella not whitefella, you're forgotten because of that. When you are so far from Brisbane, you are forgotten because of that.</para>
<para>The bridges are too low and they go under water all the time, the roads are too low and they go under water all the time, so there's little replenishment of supplies. They have now been cut off. The town of Doomadgee has been cut off, over 2,000 people, along with Burketown, probably climbing up close to 3,000 people, and they have been cut off for three months. Imagine your supermarket not having anything go into it for three months, except some emergency supplies on an aeroplane. We don't want you to fix up the bridges. We want you to build a proper bridge. I can pay tribute to Anthony Albanese because the access to North West Queensland was increased by two weeks thanks to him building a bridge across the Einasleigh River during the big floods in that year. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Territory: Workplace Safety</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to salute a great electrical safety initiative in the Northern Territory by the Electrical Trades Union, the ETU, to keep apprentices safe. It's called the Electrical Lockout and Tag Out Kit initiative. This campaign began after a couple of electrical workers in the NT were fatally electrocuted, one of whom was an apprentice. It urges all electrical workers to put safety first by disconnecting the power before they begin work and locking and tagging out the source of supply.</para>
<para>This initiative to supply every apprentice in the NT with a lockout, tag-out kit was first put forward by the ETU's Northern Territory subbranch. The kits include equipment to safely isolate the electricity supply and identify why it was isolated and who is working on that installation. This SURVIVE, don't work LIVE campaign sends a clear message to electrical workers with a focus on educating apprentices on the dangers of electricity. Lockout, tag-out kits are being supplied to all NT electrical apprentices. Sadly, this is being funded through enforceable undertakings—that is, fines imposed by NT WorkSafe on companies who failed these workers. Everyone should return home safely after a day's work. Well done to the ETU.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>E-Cigarettes and Vaping Products</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Any parent with a teenager would no doubt have received a barrage of notifications by now from their child's school around the rampant use of vapes. While rebellious smoking by students is not a new thing, the comparative ease of access and lack of federal regulation around packaging and safety standards is. The current prescription-only model for nicotine vapes hasn't worked and, in the interim, the black market for over-the-counter disposable vapes is thriving. We need to acknowledge that the average smoker looking to convert to an e-cigarette is not going to be lured into a product that smells and tastes like fake cheesecake or cola. These products are aimed directly at a younger market who are now far more likely to pick them up than a traditional cigarette.</para>
<para>While I appreciate that some studies point to vapes being a healthier alternative to tobacco, nicotine is still an addictive substance and we are now seeing data on the harmful long-term effects of vaping, particularly on young people. I believe we need to acknowledge our failure to appropriately safeguard prospective new users and see stronger regulation around the production and sale of vapes, replicating a similar model to traditional cigarettes. Plain packaging, consistent safety standards around ingredients, warning labels, minimum age requirements and enforceable penalties for supply are needed now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Robinson, Mr Bradley</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to congratulate local Hunter resident Bradley Robinson who was recently honoured as a finalist in the 2022 Community Education Student of the Year Awards, an award presented by Community Colleges Australia. This award celebrates student achievement in all its forms, including communication, team and leadership skills as well as development and student involvement in the community.</para>
<para>Bradley was selected as a finalist for the award as recognition of his leadership qualities and strong appetite for learning. Like me, Bradley decided he wanted to do an apprenticeship in high school. He studies a Certificate III in Engineering or, as tradies call it, 'He's a boilie'. He did this trade at Central Coast Community College, where teachers recognised his natural talent and nurtured it. His trade has taught him invaluable skills, such as boilermaking, consultation, design, testing and installation.</para>
<para>An apprenticeship can take you anywhere in life. I stand here, in this House, as an example of that. In the Hunter, there are opportunities for all students, no matter if you dream to work at a desk or if you dream to become a tradie. Congratulations to you, once again, Bradley, on your award. You've chosen an excellent trade. Good luck, and thank you to all the teachers, at all levels of our education system, across the Hunter for all your hard work.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Inland Rail</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week I was at a location called Merrywinebone, in my electorate. I met with farmers, rail operators, grain traders and representatives of the Walgett Shire Council about the need to upgrade the 52-kilometre section from Merrywinebone back to Burren Junction on the Walgett line. Rail is coming back into prominence now, with the Inland Rail under construction.</para>
<para>The completed section between Moree and Narrabri is already in full use, as the massive grain harvest from northern New South Wales is shipped down to your electorate, Deputy Speaker Claydon, to the port of Newcastle. To get the full benefit of Inland Rail, we need to have these connections into it. It's no good half loading a rail carriage at Merrywinebone only to have the vast majority of its journey to Newcastle in an underutilised train. So I will work with those groups.</para>
<para>It's a state government issue as well, and after the state election we'll be talking to them about building the case to upgrade this. Inland rail is a game changer. I can report that in the recent floods the only piece of infrastructure between Moree and Narrabri out of the water was the inland rail.</para>
<para>I do encourage the minister to get on with it. She's sitting on the Schott report. She's had that now for probably six weeks. There's starting to be a level of nervousness in the community. Give them confidence and finish this life-saving world-changing project.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hawke Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last weekend was a ripper for community festivals in Hawke. We started on Saturday with SunFest, and what a great day that was. SunFest's reputation, over the years, to put on a good show and turn out the local punters, is absolutely legendary. This year was no different, with fun for families young and old.</para>
<para>I caught up with Raquel and Kylie and the awesome team at the Sunbury Aboriginal Corporation who do so much for Indigenous and First Nations people in our community. I spoke to locals about our plan for Sunbury, including the new urgent care centre, which is on the way. SunFest was put on by the brilliant SunFest committee, led by Craig and Shona. The praise they get is very well deserved.</para>
<para>Then, on Sunday, the kids, Zoe and I caked up for the superhero themed Ballan Autumn Festival. This is a stellar community event in my home town, organised by the amazing Ballan Autumn Festival Committee. Thanks go to President Kevin Harper and the whole team who do such a fantastic job. My mates at the Ballan CFA took out the top prize for outstanding float by a community group. And it is true that not all superheroes wear capes. These heroes deserve our endless thanks and admiration, for the work they do.</para>
<para>Congratulations also go to the Ballan RSL, Ballan Primary School, the local Scouts, the Men's Shed, the Ballan Chamber of Commerce and too many others to name for their efforts throughout the day, and in the months leading up to it, to make it such a success. I'm deeply appreciative of all their efforts. Their work brings our community together and makes Hawke such a fantastic place to live and raise a family.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Henson, Mr Tony, Wingham Show Society, Bromhead, Mr Stephen Bruce, LLM, MP</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was pleased to join my state colleague Dave Layzell, the Nationals member for Upper Hunter, in Lorn on the weekend to present veteran and Bolwarra local Tony Henson with a Saluting our Service honour. Tony fought in Vietnam with the Royal Australian Navy and was involved in peace operations in the Far East Strategic Reserve. Thank you to Tony for his service and sacrifice.</para>
<para>I also had the pleasure of opening the Wingham Show and introducing ex-Olympic equestrian John Fahey OAM, who has the main arena at the showground now named, in his honour, as the John Fahey Arena. I presented him with the Wingham Show Society Patron badge.</para>
<para>I led one minute's silence for my dear departed friend and colleague Stephen Bromhead, a former member for Myall Lakes, who passed away after a long battle with mesothelioma. Stephen has left a lasting legacy to the people of Myall Lakes, and our deepest condolences go to Stephen's wife, Sue, and their whole family. Vale Stephen Bromhead.</para>
<para>Once again, I acknowledge the show committee at Wingham. Carl Schubert, Susan Harris, Sally Cutts, Drew Munro, Mark and Glenda Pretti, Elaine Turner, Irene Hannan, Paul and Cody Hamilton, James McCarthy, Nigel Pereira, the Chainsaw crew and community volunteers excelled in their organisation, and their hard work paid off, ensuring another wonderful show at Wingham. Well done to the whole Wingham Show committee.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fraser Electorate: Footscray Community Arts</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For nearly 50 years, Footscray Community Arts has been a leader. The first community arts centre of its kind, it was established by unionists and activists who understood the importance of being able to tell their own stories. Its home, Henderson House, an 1870s bluestone landmark on the banks of the Maribyrnong River, used to be a piggery, among many uses, but was saved from demolition by activists after it was left to run down.</para>
<para>Footscray Community Arts continues to be a trailblazer—the only mainstream arts organisation signed up as a registered provider with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. People with a disability have long been excluded from society. Particularly insidious are the low expectations of the contribution that disabled people can make. Footscray Community Arts is dedicated to overturning this perception. Its ArtLife program, which has run for 30 years, supports 40 deaf and disabled artists to develop their practice in workshops that run from Monday to Friday. ArtLife also offers a residency program focused on helping artists reach an ambitious next level. Steven Tran, one of seven in this program, received a grant in 2021 from the Australia Council for the Arts to support his professional career. No doubt more artists will follow in his footsteps. At its most recent NDIS audit, the organisation passed all 97 measures, which sums up the professionalism of the staff. Congratulations to all.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moore Electorate: Edith Cowan University Tax Clinic</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOODENOUGH</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Staff and students from the School of Business and Law at Edith Cowan University in my electorate have been operating a pro bono tax clinic which provides independent tax services to assist those who are deemed vulnerable in our community. Over the past three years, with the aid of a $180,000 federal grant, 80 volunteer students have provided more than 3,000 hours of service and lodged more than a thousand tax returns on behalf of more than 400 community members in Joondalup and Carnarvon. Members of the public have been assisted in completing their taxation returns, including seniors and pensioners; new immigrants, international students and those with language barriers; community members suffering from medical conditions; victims of domestic violence; Indigenous people; and those under financial hardship, including single parents, the unemployed and prisoners recently released into the community.</para>
<para>I would like to commend the staff from the School of Business and Law—executive dean Professor Maryam Omari, associate dean Associate Professor Joshua Aston and tax clinic supervisor Associate Professor Prafula Pearce—for their exemplary work in establishing the ECU Tax Clinic to serve our community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This morning I attended the Parliamentary Friends of Women and Work. We often speak in this place about how the fastest-growing demographic of people experiencing homelessness is women over 55. Women turn up at the doors of the homelessness shelter as a result of a perfect storm of gender disadvantage over their lifetime. They earn less than their male counterparts right out of school or university, and the gender pay gap persists for their lifetime. Feminised industries are often the least paid, with insecure work conditions and limited opportunities for career progression. Parental leave and caring duties cut into earnings and superannuation. A relationship breakdown may leave a woman as a single parent, and, when violence or coercive control is involved, women may find that they have exchanged physical abuse for financial abuse by the child support system. Angela told us this morning of bringing up her beloved children in poverty and challenged us with the words, 'When do I have to give up my children?'</para>
<para>This government is making great strides: the Women's Budget Statement, cheaper child care, paid domestic violence leave, paid parental leave, pay rises for aged-care and childcare workers, and an increased minimum wage. But we in this place all need to keep going. Women are 52 per cent of the population. This is not a minority issue. This is not even a women's issue. It is a human rights issue. I'd like to thank my co-chairs: Senator Larissa Waters and the member for North Sydney.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Youth Crime</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Monday I will introduce my private member's bill to the parliament that seeks to explicitly expand the powers of the eSafety Commissioner to deal with the promotion of crimes committed repeatedly in Queensland's youth crime crisis. It's a bill born of our local community, and I want to thank two local groups for their contributions: Voice for Victims, especially Helen Bell for all she has done in raising the concerns of the community, and members of the Toowoomba crime alerts Facebook page, especially Jo Noble. Thank you, Jo. To them I say thank you. I'm listening and I'm very proud to be working with you on this.</para>
<para>We well understand the impact of the escalating youth crime crisis on our community. We see it every day on our streets, and few in Toowoomba will forget the violent death of Mr Robert Brown, which I hope one day will be a turning point in this very, very sad story. But we are only just beginning to understand the extent to which social media plays a role in recruiting people, particularly young vulnerable kids, into a life of anti-social and criminal behaviour. Think of how many kids are sitting innocently on their devices being exposed to this behaviour and having it normalised. These platforms lend an element of credibility to impressionable minds. What's worse is that they allow the recruitment process to start at seven, eight and nine years of age. My bill seeks to break this cycle.</para>
<para>Clearly, responsibility for Queensland's youth crime crisis rests solely with the Queensland state government and the changes that they made to the Youth Justice Act. However, Australians expect every level of government to do all they can to end this crisis. I look forward to the support of the House.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New South Wales State Election</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This weekend, 25 March is the New South Wales state election. After 12 years of Liberal-National government in New South Wales, voters can choose to change and choose a fresh start for the state. Labor is offering a suite of fresh policies targeting and addressing a range of issues that have been neglected under the Liberal-National government for far too long. Of note—to me, as an emergency doctor—is Labor's sensible plan to implement minimum safe staffing levels for nurses in our public hospitals, especially in EDs. I know too well the immense pressure and strain our healthcare workers are under every day.</para>
<para>We have been under a state government that has turned its back on frontline workers for too long. We need this change to ensure nurses can be providing the best level care that they can. Labor is also committed to delivering an additional 1,200 nurses and midwives and recruiting 500 new paramedics to rural and regional areas. This is important because you can build new hospitals and build new ambulance stations but you need the staff to appropriately staff them with safe levels of staff. Further, Labor will scrap the wages cap, and this will mean healthcare workers across the state will be remunerated fairly and acknowledged for the care they provided through the pandemic, ending the Liberals and Nationals real wage cuts.</para>
<para>This weekend, vote Labor for a fresh start for New South Wales: Liesl Tesch, Sam Boughton, David Mehan and David Harris.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Forestry Industry</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last year, after speaking at the Australian Forest Products Association dinner in Canberra, the Prime Minister tweeted: 'We want a thriving and a sustainable timber industry. One that provides jobs and drives down our emissions for years to come.' It's a noble sentiment, and I think the Prime Minister actually meant it. But it's a pity that no-one over there ever does anything to support our world-class and environmentally sustainable native hardwood timber industry. Whatever happened to Labor standing up for blue-collar workers? Your mates in Victoria are gutting the timber industry bit by bit, and those opposite say nothing.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">A government member interjecting</inline>—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He's found his voice now! Finally! Not a word of support for the workers in Maryvale mill who've already lost their jobs. Not a word of support for the timber industry families who have been stood down.</para>
<para>Labor in Victoria has a stated policy to destroy the native timber industry by 2030, and it's the only project that Premier Dan Andrews has running ahead of schedule. How's the irony? Every other project is running late and costing billions of dollars more, but the plan to destroy the timber communities and sack blue-collar workers is ahead of schedule. Well done, Victorian Labor MPs! Find your voices! Old Labor lions must be disgusted with the timid flock of lambs you've all become. Prime Minister, it's not good enough to tweet about timber jobs. You actually have to do something. Dan Andrews is killing country towns and your government couldn't care less. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Arts and Culture</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This afternoon every member of this parliament has the opportunity to see artworks and artefacts from our best national cultural institutions. Instead of you going to them, they're coming to you. Up in the Dame Enid Lyons Alcove, everyone can see works from Bundanon, the National Gallery of Australia, the National Museum of Australia, the National Library of Australia, the National Archives of Australia, the Australian National Maritime Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, the Museum of Australian Democracy and the National Film and Sound Archive of Australia. This is a unique opportunity. These institutions provide resources to our communities right around the country. Come and have a discussion with them. Find out what they do in your communities. This is all of them in one place.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>60</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Samoa: Parliamentary Delegation</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to advise the House that present in the gallery today is the Hon. Fiame Naomi Mata'afa, the Prime Minister of the Independent State of Samoa, and Her Excellency the High Commissioner to Samoa. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you both.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—It is indeed a great honour to welcome Prime Minister Fiame of Samoa to parliament today. Australia and Samoa are longstanding friends. There are 100,000 people of Samoan descent who call Australia home, including some of our best rugby league players, I've got to say! I congratulated the Prime Minister on making the World Cup final—quite an extraordinary achievement for a nation of that size—at the end of last year.</para>
<para>Today we signed the Australia-Samoa Bilateral Partnership Agreement. This elevates our partnership of equals, and I look forward to further enhancing our bilateral and regional cooperation. I want to recognise today and appreciate the influential role that Prime Minister Fiame has played in ensuring the unity of the Pacific Islands Forum. Finally, I commend the Prime Minister's leadership on climate action. You are a most welcome visitor to Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—I want to join with the Prime Minister in his fine words of welcome to Prime Minister Fiame. Thank you for being here with us. You're a trusted and dear friend. I had the great opportunity of meeting with Prime Minister Fiame this morning to talk about areas of mutual interest, in particular labour mobility and the way in which we can provide support to Samoa, making sure there's not a brain drain, that there is the ability for skills to come home, as well as remittances and financial support, for the country to continue to develop.</para>
<para>As the Prime Minister pointed out, there are many areas of endeavour in the work of Prime Minister Fiame over a long period of time. She was first elected in 1985, I think—I don't know that she wants me to mention that year, but it shows her depth of experience. She was Deputy Prime Minister in the former government and Prime Minister in the current government. It is a remarkable feat, and her leadership, particularly in the PIF, as the Prime Minister points out, is absolutely crucial. She is stepping up as a true leader in the Pacific at exactly the right time, and we welcome her here today.</para>
<para>As was pointed out before, at the time of the World Cup, as you were driving around in capital cities there were flags out the side of cars. You beat England, not Australia—I'm sorry to raise that last point! It is a very passionate, family-focused population of a 100,000 here in Australia, who contribute wonderfully to our country, and we've talked about the celebration of culture in our schools and elsewhere across communities. Prime Minister, I welcome you most warmly to our country, and I thank you so much for being a good friend of our country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. In his first speech to parliament following the election, the Prime Minister promised to 'fulfil our promises and prove worthy of the trust of the Australian people'. That was on 27 February 2022. Why won't the Prime Minister reaffirm his solemn election promise to cut power prices by $275 every year? If the war in Ukraine is his excuse, why did he continue to make his promise 28 times after Russia had gone into Ukraine? Why is this Prime Minister so out of touch, and why do Australian families always pay more under Labor?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Come on, Miss Daisy!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Wannon will withdraw that comment.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I say to the member for Wannon: he might need to explain that one to me. In terms of inflation—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Barker will cease clapping. Order! Members on my left.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm asked about small things, as they say. The fact is that those opposite like to talk about the cost of living and energy prices as if nothing happened on their watch. But the truth is that inflation, which is feeding into higher prices, had occurred before the change of government. Indeed, inflation had taken off before Labor took office. The CPI jumped 2.1 per cent in the March 2022 quarter. The highest increase, the largest quarterly rise, in this century occurred on their watch. What they also know is that energy prices were going up because the default market offer had already been handed to the government and they chose to keep it secret. They not only chose to keep it secret; they chose to introduce a special regulation to keep it secret before the election. They are the circumstances which we inherited when we came to office. Since then what we've been doing is taking action to lower prices. The action that we've taken, such as the Energy Price Relief Plan of $1.5 billion, those opposite voted against.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. What are the benefits for Australian business and the Australian economy from successfully managing the energy transition, and what are the impediments?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the wonderful member for Macquarie for her question. Successfully managing the energy transition is central to Australia's future prosperity, and that makes it absolutely central to our economic plan as well. As the Productivity Commission identified in its report last week, climate change is, and will be, an increasing cost felt by our communities, our economy and our country. But the shift to net zero should also be seen as an opportunity to create new jobs and new industries and new sources of growth, so that what has been a headwind in our economy can be a tailwind in our economy and for our future prosperity if we get it right.</para>
<para>The business community in this country understands this opportunity, even if the so-called party of business doesn't. Deloitte estimates that a smooth transition to net zero by 2050 could add an extra $890 billion to GDP over the next 50 years, increase productivity and create an extra 195,000 jobs. The BCA says that low-emissions technologies could deliver $30 billion a year of new export revenue from energy-intensive low-emissions products by 2040. A recent study from Climateworks estimated that the move towards net zero will require something like $225 billion of additional investment by 2050.</para>
<para>It's absolutely critical that our policy settings allow this investment to be delivered in the most efficient way. Australian businesses and investors see the potential of harnessing demand for renewable energy to broaden and deepen our industrial base while at the same time maximising our traditional economic strengths, but they need certainty in order to do that. That's why the business community and Australia's big employers and investors are pleading with this parliament to support the passage of the safeguards legislation, and it's why it's incumbent on everyone in this parliament to get behind it.</para>
<para>Australians and their economy can't afford another decade of this parliament stumbling and stuffing around when it comes to climate change and energy policy. On this side of the House we want to get on with the job of providing business with the certainty they need in the interests of our economy, our environment, our country, our people and their future, while this Coalition of Cookers continues to stand in the way.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost Of Living</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Beyond Blue have reported more people seeking help due to the cost-of-living crisis, with people lurching from one challenge to the next. When asked on Monday whether he could identify a single Australian paying less on their power bills, grocery bills or interest rate, the Prime Minister arrogantly asserted, 'It's been a pretty good 10 months.' Why is the Prime Minister so out of touch and why do Australian families always pay more under Labor?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When you remove the hyperbole from that question, it goes to people's mental health issues and it goes to the issues relating to people's standard of living and the pressure that can be placed on them. That is something that I take very seriously. Something that I'm on the record saying is that one of the things that the former government got right was the increased investment in mental health issues. That's something that I have said.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Seriously. It's a controversial issue. It was your decision that you put the time frame on it. But one of the things that my attention is drawn to is the impact on people who have given evidence before the robodebt royal commission, the impact on their mental health of issues which not just took away the money that they had but issued them with massive debts and the pressure that was placed on them. Here's what Felicity de Somerville said: 'I would rather live in my car and be broke and poor than ever use Centrelink again.' This is what Anne Julie said: 'When I got my robodebt I was pregnant and living in a refuge in Canberra after escaping domestic violence. I was working three jobs to stay afloat.'</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">M</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked about cost of living, power bills, grocery bills, interest rates and the implications of all of this on mental health. He's pivoted a completely different topic.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister was asked in the first part of the question regarding a specific charity and mental health. He is talking about those issues, and I'll bring him back to the question if he strays too far.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was asked about the cost of living and the impact on people's mental health. This is evidence that's been given this year about real people and the real impact of what occurred. 'When I got my robodebt I was pregnant and living in a refuge in Canberra escaping domestic violence. I was working three jobs to stay afloat. Because of this debt I was unable to afford medication and was hospitalised.' Axel said this: 'I was worried about how I would eat and whether I could stay in my home. The previous government kicked me in the guts. We need this royal commission so we know who did this to us.' Catherine: 'The previous government needs to be held accountable, because it's immoral for them to impose these debts and then not explain how these debts came to be.'</para>
<para>Not only did the robodebt scandal impose those sorts of conditions on vulnerable people in attacking not just the standard of living but whether they had any money at all to survive. We know that the former member for Aston had this to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We'll find you, we'll track you down and you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison.</para></quote>
<para>What impact do you think that had on people's mental health?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Paterson! The Minister for Early Childhood Education will cease interjecting immediately. There is far too much noise. I can barely hear an answer. If this continues, a general warning will be issued for the entire House.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Why are the government's safeguard mechanism reforms so critical? What will be the consequences if the changes do not pass?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for his question and thank him for his very substantial policy contribution in this House.</para>
<para>Our country is on the cusp of a transformation to be a sophisticated, industrial powerhouse built on renewable energy. That is the opportunity for our country. That is the opportunity for our nation, but only with the right policies. A very important policy part of that is the National Reconstruction Fund, which recently passed the House—and congratulations to the industry minister, and we look forward to it passing the Senate as well. This is very important for co-investment. The other part of the equation is the framework necessary to encourage that investment with industry and business. Today is exactly 100 days until 1 July. On 1 July this country, after a decade of denial and delay, can have a policy regime which encourages that investment in renewable energy, which encourages that investment in decarbonisation. That is the opportunity before the House.</para>
<para>I'm asked by the honourable member what the consequences would be of not passing it. We know the coalition is against it. They're against everything. The member for Bass has described her own party's position as going nowhere, and of course she is correct. But what can't go nowhere is climate policy in this country. That is the opportunity for this parliament over the next fortnight. The consequences of the safeguard reforms not passing are very real. They are very real for our region, very real for the Pacific. Our targets of 43 per cent, which were legislated by this parliament last year, will not be met without passing the safeguard mechanism. Our projections show that, in fact, the achievement by 2030 would be 35 per cent.</para>
<para>That is the choice facing this parliament. Targets can be set. It's easy to call for higher targets. It's easy to call for more action. The difficult part is implementing that action. This government is putting action forward before this parliament for endorsement and putting action forward to the business community and the country for cooperation, to work together to get this job done. It is not acceptable for this country, after 10 years, to say: 'Thirty-five per cent is good enough.' We have to aim higher, do more and work harder. That's exactly what this government is inviting the parliament to do with us.</para>
<para>The consequences of not passing this legislation, of not passing safeguard reforms—for business, who are crying out for this certainty, for people, who are crying out for more action—are very real indeed. This government will continue to implement the policies we took to the election. We'll continue to work with people of good faith and goodwill to see them implemented well, and we will ensure that this parliament makes progress, not a point. The choice is to squander this opportunity or seize it. It's time to seize it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New South Wales: Local Government Representatives, Murray Irrigation, Meals on Wheels</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to acknowledge guests in the gallery. I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is Ernie Camp, the Mayor of Burke Shire Council, and Troy Fraser, the CEO of Doomadgee Aboriginal Shire Council, whose regions have recently experienced catastrophic flooding. Also in the gallery are representatives from Murray Irrigation. Also, I see in the gallery today representatives and volunteers from Meals on Wheels Australia, including staff and volunteers. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you all.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Menindee Lakes: Fish Kill</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. The massive fish kill in Menindee in New South Wales is a disaster and horrific evidence of the drastic climate crisis. Given the New South Wales government's mismanagement of its water, will you take over management of the river system to reinstate water buybacks to save the river? And, Minister, would you drink the water from Menindee?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the honourable member for her question about the very important task that we have of implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, something that we on this side of the chamber are absolutely committed to. It is absolutely devastating to see the events in Menindee, the mass fish kills in the—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Honestly, the interjections from those opposite are so pointless. If you had done anything in nine years to deliver on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, we would be in a better place now.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Leader of The Nationals, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hasluck.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have recovered more water towards the additional environment water target in nine months than you did in nine years because you tied up the plan in brown tape. You deliberately sabotaged it.</para>
<para>I want to address this very important question that the member has asked about Menindee. Four years ago we saw mass fish kills. We're seeing them again for different causes. This time we're talking about deoxygenised blackwaters as a result of the flood and the very high temperatures we've seen, which is devastating for the town of Menindee and for the environment. I have personally contacted the New South Wales water minister to offer my support to him. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder are working very closely with New South Wales, which obviously has primary responsibility for addressing this catastrophic situation once again in Menindee.</para>
<para>But the more important underlying question that the member is asking is: how do we work cooperatively with the states and territories to deliver on this plan? It is a very important question because, for nine years, we saw so very little progress from those opposite. What we are doing is progressing with the infrastructure projects that actually stack up. We are working across the Murray-Darling Basin system to open purchasing of water towards the Bridging the Gap target, and we have to complete that Bridging the Gap target. We are working with fantastic organisations, like the one we've got visiting us today, Murray Irrigation, to deliver on the sorts of plans that they want to see to make sure that they have the water they need to meet the food and fibre requirements of our agricultural sector. For our towns, for our agricultural sector and, very importantly, for our environment we will deliver on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>AUKUS</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How does the AUKUS agreement, announced last week by the government, invest in our capability and in our relationships?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Dunkley for her question and for her commitment to making Australia a safer and more resilient country. We as a government are investing in our capability and we're also investing in our relationships. This represents the single biggest investment in Australia's defence capability in our history and the single biggest leap in terms of capacity and use of technology in our history as well. Importantly, this will be an Australian sovereign capability. Once the Australian flag appears on a plane, a piece of equipment, a ship, a submarine then it is controlled by Australia, and it operates at the direction of the government of Australia. In this case, what we'll be working towards is the building of nuclear powered submarines in Adelaide that will be built by Australian workers with Australian products, having Australian skills and producing, of course, 20,000 direct Australian jobs as well as having a massive multiplier effect on our capacity to have advanced manufacturing in this country.</para>
<para>There is a cost to any major project such as this. We have put out the estimated costings there for all to see in the interests of transparency. What that represents going forward is about 0.15 per cent of GDP. The defence budget will be at least two per cent of GDP. What I have said—I said it at the Lowy Institute before the last election—and I continue to say, I expect that our defence budget in the future will actually grow higher than two per cent, but it certainly won't be lower.</para>
<para>Therefore, this particular project will represent under 10 per cent of our defence budget. So when we sat around the NSC and other bodies and worked through the question, whether this is the right thing to do, you have to come to the assessment based upon asking 'Does this increase the capability of our defence by more than 10 per cent?' The answer to that is overwhelmingly yes. They will stay under water for longer; they're faster; they don't need to snort—come up—as often. This unlocks a set of transformative opportunities. It will shape and strengthen and grow Australia's economy for decades into the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Interest Rates</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Research shows that Victorians with a mortgage have seen, on average, monthly repayments rise by $1,083 every month. On Monday, when the Prime Minister was asked if he could identify a single Australian paying less on their interest rates, he said, 'It's been a pretty good 10 months.' Why is the Prime Minister so out of touch and why do Australian families always pay more under Labor?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Once again the Treasurer puts on a sad face because he again misses out on a question from the shadow Treasurer. The shadow Treasurer ignores the fact that inflation had taken off before Labor took office. Indeed, on their watch, the March 2022 quarter, inflation jumped by 2.1 per cent, the highest quarterly rise this century. No matter who was in government, the highest rise. After the election it certainly emerged that the former government ignored the Treasury warnings which were there and used its final budget to unleash a desperate vote-buying spending spree, which of course added fuel to the inflation fire. A former government source described it as ordering the entree, the main and the dessert.</para>
<para>They also ignore the fact, when it comes to interest rates, that the former Assistant Treasurer here presided over an interest rate increase that rose five times in a row from 5.5 per cent to 6.75 per cent. So the truth is that the shadow Treasurer opposite pretends that there wasn't inflation before the election, when in fact inflation was having its highest single quarterly increase in this century. He ignores the fact that interest rates began rising on their watch.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Procurement: Submarines</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How will Australia's nuclear powered submarines open opportunities in science and research and create a skilled workforce for generations to come?</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have been patient with this issue. When people are asking questions from both sides, they'll be heard in silence. Before ministers speak is not the time to interject. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition continually abuses that. I'm just reminding all members for one last time, you can't expect respect shown on one side and not shown to the other. It's got to be disciplined and it's got to be each time the question and answer begins.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge the member for his question and also acknowledge his advocacy on behalf of South Australia's defence industry. At the BAE facility at Barrow-in-Furness where BAE is building Britain's Astute class submarines, and will build the future SSN AUKUS submarines, there is a training academy on site which is hugely impactful to see. It was established in 2018 and since then it's seen the training of 1,500 apprentices. When you walk around the facility seeing young people starting out and older people who are retraining for a rewarding career in building submarines, you understand the power of that program in providing fantastic livelihoods for thousands of people, as well as building the skills base of an entire nation.</para>
<para>Last Wednesday I signed, with the Premier of South Australia, a cooperation agreement between the Commonwealth and South Australia which will see the establishment of a training academy at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia right next to where we will be building our future nuclear powered submarines. This academy is going to provide training and all the skills necessary to build a submarine, from specialist welding to pipe fitting through to the electrical trades—a seamless transition from the classroom to the workplace.</para>
<para>In addition to trade training, this program is going to see a massive lift in the teaching of science across our universities. Today we have significant schools in nuclear physics at ANU and the University of New South Wales. But in mathematics, in engineering, in computer science and in the new areas of quantum and AI, this program will see a massive boost in the teaching of science in this country, which is so important because as a nation we have to change our cultural relationship to science. We have to put science much more front and centre in the way in which we see the world.</para>
<para>Last week was a really big moment in the defence history of our country but, in truth, it was also a really big moment in the science history and in the skills history of our country. Students looking to pursue an education in technical trades or in science can now look to a really exciting career in building our future nuclear powered submarines with a much greater sense of optimism and certainty.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Growing Regions Program</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, and the member for Eden-Monaro. I refer to the minister for transport's admission yesterday that the Growing Regions Program funding guidelines haven't been finalised in the 10 months since the federal election. Does the minister for local government agree that Labor's failure to deliver this program in a timely manner means that local councils will be forced to build less with the funding when it's finally provided?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hogan</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The protection racket continues!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Page! Can I hear from the Leader of the House?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's just in terms of the minister it's directed to. By definition, in the way that question was framed, he went through the minister responsible and then directed the question somewhere else.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question was directed to the minister for local government, and she has portfolio responsibility. We ought to hear from her.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was directed to the minister for local government, so I call the minister for local government.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much for the question. There is no doubt that it is incredibly important for our local councils to have certainty. I think what happened over the last 10 years is that there was no certainty because those opposite needed a colour coded spreadsheet to actually deal with any applications from councils. We have 546 local councils across the country. What we saw was councils spending time and money applying for grants and they were never assessed on their merits because you guys needed a colour coded spreadsheet. You know that councils have limited budgets, and what you did to them was put them through a process where they expended money, they expended ratepayers money, expecting they'd have a fair and transparent process and you never delivered one.</para>
<para>Honourable members interj ecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister will resume her seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Barker, I'm trying to hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, on relevance. Firstly, thank you for allowing this minister to speak. It's a great insight.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What's the point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It refers to the minister's admission yesterday that the Growing Regions Program funding guidelines haven't been finalised for 10 months. Can she please go to that part of the question?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The question was directed to the minister for local government. She's answering the question. She's had a preamble. I'm going to ask her to—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, members on my left! I'm going to give her the call in continuation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's incredibly important that we engage local councils. What we've done, the first time ever, is we've actually invited local government associations, we've invited local councils to have input into the guidelines.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Barker.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We take collaboration with our local government sector seriously. This is a program that was announced in October, because those opposite rorted the Building Better Regions Fund so much that the whole program became tainted. We've announced $1 billion over three years in two specific programs. We've consulted with local government. We are working with them because they are a trusted delivery partner of our federal government.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Barker is now officially warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Homelessness</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Homelessness. What does today's census data reveal about homelessness in Australia? What is the Albanese Labor government doing to improve the situation? And why is the Housing Australia Future Fund an important part of the government's approach?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Cunningham for that important question. I'm sure that she, like many people in this place today, has seen the latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics showing that the number of people in Australia experiencing homelessness has sadly climbed again by 6,000 people. That statistic is from 2016 to 2021.</para>
<para>It is of great concern, I'm sure to everybody in this place, that almost 123,000 Australians were reported as experiencing homelessness on census night. I'm sure that many of you in this place, like me, receive contact from community members every single day about the challenges of finding and keeping a safe place to call home. I know that these challenges are reaching new people who've never been homeless or at risk of homelessness before. And in a country like Australia today, this is unacceptable. There is a lot to do to turn this around.</para>
<para>We're not acting alone, but we do have a commitment to deliver our ambitious housing reform agenda with immediate action alongside medium- and long-term goals. Today I announced that the government continues to invest into youth homelessness through the $91.7 million commitment to the Reconnect Program over the next three years. We know that family breakdown is the leading cause of youth homelessness in this country. In fact, on the 2021 census night 23 per cent of all people experiencing homelessness were aged between 12 and 24 years of age. I'm sure that we all think that is unacceptable.</para>
<para>Our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will be the largest boost to social and affordable housing in more than a decade. And I remind members that 4,000 of the 30,000 homes are for women and children fleeing family violence and for older women at risk of homelessness, which is the fastest-growing group of people when it comes to homelessness. We've acted immediately by broadening the National Housing Infrastructure Facility with up to $575 million, with announcements and construction underway on projects already. We're working with the states and territories on the National Housing Accord and the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, and we've started work on the National Housing and Homelessness Plan, which is a 10-year plan—five plus five, working together. What we need to do is line up the Housing and Homelessness Plan with the accord and the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, and have all tiers of government working together on this to turn it around.</para>
<para>I say seriously to members in this place that I know our housing reform agenda is ambitious. It's ambitious because it needs to be. We all need to do more. All of us in this place have a responsibility to make sure that more Australians have a safe, affordable place to call home. That's why I again reiterate my call for those in the Senate, particularly, to get the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill through the parliament and get more homes on the ground quickly.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Peter Spillane, an elderly gentleman on a fixed income in my electorate of Herbert has contacted me about the impact of the government's cost-of-living crisis. He told me that he's having to choose between cooking his dinner and turning on his air conditioning because of the spiralling power price increases. Can the Prime Minister inform Mr Spillane when he'll receive the promised $275 cut to his power bill? Why is the Prime Minister so out of touch? Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Herbert for his question, and I hope he informed his constituent that he voted against $1½ billion of energy price relief. I hope he also informed his constituent that, when the Queensland government took regulatory action to put a cap on coal prices in order to take pressure off the system, he was also against that, because he voted against cheaper gas prices here in Australia as well, with the cap on gas of $12 that we brought to this parliament. That received the support of the Liberal government in New South Wales and the Labor opposition in New South Wales—which is responsible—and the Queensland government. Indeed, it received the unanimous support of every state and territory government around Australia, both Labor and coalition, because they all understood what the circumstances were that we were dealing with.</para>
<para>We will continue to take action to take pressure off the cost of living. Tomorrow will be 100 days until cheaper child care comes in. On 1 January, cheaper medicines came in. Fee-free TAFE is in place already. We know what those opposite would do if they had the chance, if they had to deal with these issues, because we've seen what they've done before. The Leader of the Opposition's biggest idea was a tax on GP visits, which would see the cost of visiting a GP rise by $7. But it wasn't just that. Not only did he not reduce the cost of prescriptions but his big idea was to raise the cost of prescriptions by $5. No wonder he was seen as Australia's worst health minister.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SP</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister will pause. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to hear what he has to say.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! So do I.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting immediately. I want to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a point of order on relevance. It was a very specific question about the member for Herbert's constituent. The Prime Minister is now meandering into matters of history. If he doesn't have an answer on the difficulties the member's constituent is facing, he should cease—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. The question started with the impacts of the cost-of-living crisis and was about choices of where to spend and the constituent's bills. I give the call to the Prime Minister.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I'm going to hear from the Prime Minister, and I'll make sure he is in order. The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am talking about the cost of living, because not only was the GP tax going to be imposed but there was a rise in the cost of prescriptions that was a part of the budget process as well. There's another idea that's been forgotten a little bit that the member for Cook had as well: the government will remove the restrictions on state and territory governments that prevent hospital emergency departments charging a fee for presentation. That was this bloke's idea on cost of living. There are some people in this chamber who mightn't remember that, but I do, and that's exactly what he would do if ever he had the opportunity to have his hand on the budget again. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. What does today's census data reveal about the situation with veteran homelessness in Australia, and what is the federal Labor Albanese government's plan to combat veteran homelessness?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KE</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>OGH (—) (): I thank the member for Solomon for his question and his unwavering support for veterans not just in the Darwin-Palmerston area but across this country, and especially those who are experiencing homelessness.</para>
<para>One of the things that the 2021 Census revealed to us last year was that there are some 581,000 people in Australia who have served or are serving in our Australian Defence Force. The data that has been released today shows that, on census night, 1,555 veterans were homeless. But, in addition to those veterans who were homeless on census night, we also know there are many who are experiencing marginal housing—those who are at risk of homelessness; those who are couch surfing; and those who are staying with family and friends or in temporary accommodation in caravan parks or the like. That leaves these veterans in a very vulnerable position. Of course, for any veterans that are experiencing homelessness or feel that they're at risk of homelessness, I ask them to contact the Department of Veterans' Affairs on 1800838372 or Open Arms on 1800011046.</para>
<para>I've been asked what we are doing to support those veterans experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. The Labor government has an ambitious agenda when it comes to this issue. Of course, it is part of our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund plan, from which there will be $30 million that will go to supporting veterans experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, not just with housing itself but with the wraparound services to support them.</para>
<para>I was quite happy to see that on Monday Senator O'Sullivan, in the other place, was talking about the plans from the Royal Australian Air Force Association of WA to build an Andrew Russell Veteran Living centre, based on the one in South Australia, to support veterans in Western Australia. I met with RAAFA WA last year to talk about those plans. Earlier this year I met with Vasey RSL from Victoria to talk about their plans for homelessness services to support veterans with wraparound services. These are great plans that are coming forward from our ex-service organisations and housing sectors. Unfortunately, they can't act until we get access to the funding through the establishment of the Housing Australia Future Fund. So I say to Senator O'Sullivan, in the other place: instead of being part of a Liberal-National-Green 'no-alition' against the Housing Australia Future Fund, you all have an opportunity in the other place to support this legislation and to support veterans experiencing homelessness and at risk of homelessness.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order, I call the member for New England, and he'll need to state what the point of order is.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's one on the use of the word 'no-alition'. You've given express words that he's not supposed to use that.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, with regard to the reference that was just made by the minister, it's not that you've previously ruled that term is an unparliamentary term. It's that you ruled that it can't be used with reference to the formal coalition of the Liberal and National parties. The member just referred to a coalition of the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Greens in the Senate. If the member for New England thinks that's the official coalition then I guess it would have to be withdrawn under the previous ruling.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Resume your seat. I was trying to listen to the minister, but there was too much noise to hear what the minister was saying. I remind all members referring to the coalition is as the coalition.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Victoria: Mayors</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the member for Kooyong, I acknowledge some special guests in the gallery. We have the G21 Geelong Region Alliance and mayors of Greater Geelong, Golden Plains, Queenscliffe, Surf Coast and Colac Otway. A very warm welcome to you all.</para>
<para>Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change: Safeguard Mechanism</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Under your safeguard mechanism, big emitters can buy as many offsets as they want. There is no ceiling to the offsets polluters can buy. The cost of those offsets will be less than 0.1 per cent of their profits, giving polluters no reason to cut their emissions. Will you concede that there is a flaw in your lack of ceilings?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for her question and her engagement with her colleagues on this issue and further engagement to come this afternoon. But I do not accept the premise of the honourable member's question—I do not. It is case that the government is allowing access to offsets in the safeguard mechanism reforms—absolutely we are, as we should. This is an ambitious plan, and, when you're engaging in an ambitious plan, you need to give industry the flexibility to implement that plan. I would invite the honourable member—and I say with all due respect 'the honourable member'—if people are going to argue for a cap on the use of carbon credits, they need to explain how hard-to-abate sectors will achieve the targets. How will cement achieve its targets with the technology that is currently emerging and is not yet available without access to ACCUs and carbon credits?</para>
<para>When you are applying this reform to 215 of the country's biggest emitters, with varying degrees of technology available to them, it is absolutely vital to give them access to the carbon credits. What this framework does is it provides the incentive to firms to invest in abatement as it emerges. There are some sectors with good abatement technology available to them today. There are other sectors where it will be available in the next couple of years, and there are other sectors that will be hard to abate for some time to come. Our regime implements that. I say to the honourable member and all honourable members and all senators that amendments and suggestions and improvements are fine. The most important thing is that the package passes the parliament because then we will have the framework in place, not only for today but for years to come.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government's cheaper medicines policy continuing to improve the lives of Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Newcastle her question because I know just how hard she campaigned last year on her promise to the people of Newcastle to strengthen Medicare and deliver cheaper medicines. She knows that, in just the first two months of this year, her constituents have saved a quarter of a million dollars on 25,000 cheaper scripts because, on 1 January, the Albanese government delivered on our promise to implement the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, saving Australians in just two months $36 million already over 3.2 million cheaper scripts.</para>
<para>Even before that, last July, we reduced—we slashed—the maximum amount that pensioners and concession card holders would pay for their medicine needs by 25 per cent, ensuring that those people across a given year would pay no more than $5.05 per week for all of their medicine needs, no matter how many scripts they filled. In September we cut the price of 2,000 brands of medicines, delivering $130 million back into the pockets of hardworking Australians, and in November the Minister for Social Services delivered on our promise to give more self-funded retirees access to a seniors health card to give them cheaper medicines and access to bulk-billed GP visits. Already more than 10,000 self-funded retirees have that card in their hands who didn't have it before last November.</para>
<para>Last Thursday, I had the privilege of visiting Pharmacy@Knox in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. I met with pharmacists there, Dat and Mel, who run this terrific 24-hour pharmacy. Incidentally, can I say, they told me that their books were overflowing with their constituents coming in to get that additional dose of COVID vaccine. Across the parliament we know that community pharmacies are playing an increasingly central role in our vaccine program, including the new COVID booster dose.</para>
<para>On cheaper medicines, Mel told me as well that she had countless patients coming up to the counter shocked, genuinely shocked, that they're saving money on cheaper medicines. They asked her whether perhaps a mistake had been made. They asked, 'Really? Is that all I have to pay?' Australians right around the country are benefiting from the Albanese government's policy on cheaper medicines.</para>
<para>Pharmacists know that this isn't just good for their hip pocket—as good as it is for their hip pocket—it's also good for their health, because hundreds of thousands of Australians, up until now, have been going without scripts that their doctors have said are important for their medicines. Medicines cheaper are not only good for the cost of living, they're making Australians live healthier lives.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consumer Confidence</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Prime Minister. Last week's Westpac-Melbourne Institute Survey of Consumer Sentiment Index was below 80 for two months in a row. Chief Economist Bill Evans said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Runs of sub-80 reads have only been seen during the late 1980s/early 1990s recession and in the 'banana republic' period of concern in 1986 …</para></quote>
<para>Why does consumer confidence always collapse when Labor is in government, why is the Prime Minister so out of touch and why do Australian families always pay more under Labor?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Minister for Home Affairs is warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the shadow, shadow Treasurer for her question. There's been a range of figures come out, as happens, on our economy and—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And you don't know any of them!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. If you interject one more time you will be ejected from the chamber for the second day in a row.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In February, 64,600 jobs were created. What that means is that more than a quarter of a million jobs have been created since we came to office—more than a quarter of a million. Indeed, that's more jobs created in our first six months in office than were created in the first six months of any government since they started keeping these records.</para>
<para>Senator Cash had this to say on 16 February: 'We gave one challenge in relation to the jobs market, and that was to keep unemployment in Australia as low as possible.' Well, we've done that. That is a key to people's living standards. We acknowledge that many people are doing it tough because of the inflationary circumstances.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When are you going to apologise?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The idea that—happy Pete's off again, Mr Speaker. He tries so hard. His minders tell him that the research says he's got to be more cheerful, but he's just incapable. He's just incapable of doing it. What we're doing is a range of things that will assist Australians. That's what the National Reconstruction Fund is about: new industries and new jobs. Those opposite just say no to that.</para>
<para>We just heard from the housing minister about the measures that are there in the Housing Australia Future Fund and the specific measures that are there from the veterans' affairs minister to help our veterans. But they say no to that as well. They had the opportunity to vote with the government on energy price relief and they voted against that as well, last December. On every measure, those opposite just say no to any measure that is put forward that is going to make a positive difference. They come in here, they talk the economy down and they talk Australia down. Remember when our industrial relations legislation was being debated? They said that would be the end. We'd all have general strikes by now. Where are they? They just run a scare campaign, but nothing's so scary as their lack of ambition for Australia. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What has the royal commission into robodebt uncovered about what led to vulnerable people being targeted by the former coalition government's unlawful scheme?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There have been more than a hundred witnesses at the royal commission, and broadly you can categorise the tenor of their evidence into two groups: there are those witnesses who gave evidence of courage, integrity and strength, and then there was the evidence of those who were in charge of the scheme. Those in charge of the scheme tended to have memory loss. They tended to blame others. I want to talk about one witness who blamed a very special person in this House. Specifically, the House needs to hear how the member for Fadden blamed the member for Cook for specifically targeting vulnerable cohorts. I rely on the transcript from the royal commission—for the benefit of my friend the Manager of Opposition Business—from page 4235. The member for Fadden explained how the former Prime Minister the member for Cook wanted to include what was referred to as 'vulnerable cohorts' in the robodebt scheme. In this context, 'vulnerable cohorts' meant—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister will pause, and I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, you've issued numerous rulings on this.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Brian Mitchell</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What's your point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Lyons is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You have repeatedly directed this minister to stick strictly to the evidence and not to draw conclusions. He is, frankly, flouting and mocking your rulings in the language that he's just used, and you should, I submit, remind him that he needs to expressly stick to reporting the evidence and not go any further in offering a concluded view, as you have correctly, on a number of occasions, ruled.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business is correct. The minister is reading directly from the transcript and, if he were to conclude a view, you can be assured I will make the relevant decision. The minister in continuation, and he will be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTE</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bradfield. I'm not sure the member for Fadden will when I read the direct quotes.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will continue with his answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The former member for Stirling Michael Keenan actually paused some of the robodebt on vulnerable cohorts in 2018. There was an election in 2019. The new minister was under pressure—and this is clear from his evidence—to reinstate the vulnerable cohorts. The member for Fadden said, and I quote—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I want to remind the minister this is the last time. He's got to refer to the evidence, not give his opinion on the evidence. I hope that is clear. Otherwise he'll be seated. The minister needs to continue to refer to the evidence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Fadden's specific words about reinstating the robodebt on vulnerable people were that it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… wasn't conscionable. So the view was to kick it into the long grass until so much time as the question had been resolved.</para></quote>
<para>The member for Fadden said that, 'by deftly manoeuvring the Cabinet Secretary', he was able to delay a discussion on reincluding vulnerable people. But, when asked by counsel assisting why he didn't just do as Keenan had and say, 'Not happening,' he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… at the time I was getting a fair bit of pressure from the Cabinet Office that to meet the savings requirements, this was needed, and that I needed to bring forward a Cabinet Submission on this.</para></quote>
<para>When pressed about the Cabinet Secretary's authority to force this being brought forward and about whether ministerial responsibility is subject to the Cabinet Secretary's desires, the member for Fadden said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Cabinet Secretary speaks on behalf of the Prime Minister … So if the Cabinet Secretary is not happy, the next call is coming from the Prime Minister.</para></quote>
<para>Asked in a different way, the member for Fadden said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Prime Minister signs off on everything that he wants to come forward.</para></quote>
<para>The member for Fadden made very clear in the transcript—which I'm sure you haven't read—that the member for Cook made him do it, Your Honour!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting, as I'd like to hear from the member for Goldstein in silence.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. In your AUKUS speech you referred to Australia's proud leadership in nonproliferation, but constituents tell me they fear a nuclear arms race because of AUKUS. Does the government plan to merely meet safeguards or now join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in line with the motion you successfully proposed at the Labor national conference in 2018, seconded by the now defence minister and reaffirmed in 2021?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question and for her commitment on these issues, including to nuclear nonproliferation. The Labor Party has a proud history of championing practical, international nonproliferation and disarmament efforts, going back to the work that Gareth Evans and the Hawke government did, going through to the work that was undertaken under the Rudd and Gillard governments. That will continue to occur under a government that I am proud to lead.</para>
<para>We are steadfast in our support for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as the cornerstone of the global nonproliferation and disarmament regime. There is no question that Australia recognises the devastating consequences for humanity of any use of nuclear weapons. Tragically, we have seen that authoritarian tinpot dictator Vladimir Putin threaten the use of nuclear weapons against the people of Ukraine. So we know the consequences of proliferation. We are redoubling our efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons, including by helping others to meet that same high standard to which we hold ourselves.</para>
<para>On the issue of nuclear propulsion for submarines: it's important to draw the distinction. They have nuclear propulsion but they will not have nuclear weapons. We are not acquiring nuclear weapons.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will pause. I'll hear from the member for Goldstein on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Daniel</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance. The question was: does the government plan to sign the treaty?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question, for part of it, is asking about a decision of a national conference, which, under the standing orders, is not applicable to the Prime Minister. That part of the question, he can delete. I'll ask him to continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In the lead-up—it seems like a long time ago, I've got to say—to the San Diego announcement, we said publicly that myself and the defence minister and the foreign minister spoke to more than 60 world leaders and briefed them. We also had the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, secretary-general Grossi, in close liaison with us, the political leadership of this country, as well as our defence leadership to make sure that everything we were doing was completely in compliance with our commitments on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the NPT, but also that everything we had done was completely in accord with the Treaty of Rarotonga, which is very important for our Pacific island friends. We made sure that we got that right.</para>
<para>On the issue of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: Australia certainly has a view, very clearly, that a world without nuclear weapons would be a very good thing. We don't acquire them ourselves. We wish that they weren't there. What we will do, though, is work systematically and methodically through the issues in accordance with the commitments that were made in the national platform. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What has the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme revealed about the true human cost of the former coalition government's unlawful scheme?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Calwell for her question. The royal commission has revealed a terrible human cost to this monstrously illegal scheme. I know that when the Prime Minister announced the royal commission, with me and with my colleagues the Attorney-General and the Minister for Social Services, the current Leader of the Opposition called it 'just a witch-hunt'. I would perhaps ask the Leader of the Opposition to reconsider calling the royal commission a witch-hunt in light of the evidence of Jennifer Miller and Kath Madgwick.</para>
<para>Both women gave evidence to the royal commission—both women I have met, both women I respect. Both women lost sons. In the evidence to the royal commission, Kath talks about her son Jarrad, who was robodebted in May 2019. After receiving what turned out to be a false debt notice, he took his own life within hours. Kath describes Jarrad, and perhaps we can't bring him back, but we can listen to the mother's evidence:</para>
<quote><para class="block">He—he was a polite—had really good manners, but he—and he also—if he applied himself to something, he would do very well at it. He was very good at swimming and rugby. He was captain of the school when he was in primary school. … But the best thing about Jarrad, he was very unique in his way that he—our closeness. So we were very close … He just—he—he displayed his love for me quite openly.</para></quote>
<para>After Jarrad's death, Kath wrote to various politicians, including the then Prime Minister, the member for Cook; and the then Minister for Government Services, the member for Fadden. She says she's never heard back from them: 'Not even a, "Sorry for your loss."' Jennifer Miller, another robodebt bereaved mother, in her evidence to the royal commission, talked about her son Rhys. Rhys was creative and he was artistic. Jenny said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">And I … hope that this now sends—sets up a precedent that you are working in public office, you are there to work for the people. So do your job, and do it properly, you know.</para></quote>
<para>She also noted that throughout robodebt:</para>
<quote><para class="block">And it all became very sly and very—just everyone was lying and covering each other's backs, and it just really … was both heartbreaking but also vindicating seeing that we have been able to get the truth out there for Rhys.</para></quote>
<para>This royal commission is not a witch-hunt, Leader of the Opposition. It's tearing down the walls of legal professional privilege and the inner workings of the former government. There has been courage and leadership and ethics on display in this royal commission; it just hasn't been from the ministers and the senior public servants. This is an examination of the worst abuse of Australian citizens, committed deliberately. There has been no legal argument advanced to defend it and no moral argument. Thank goodness we're having this robodebt royal commission.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOODENOUGH</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The cost-of-living crisis under this government is leading to record demand for help and support across Australia as many families struggle to even afford the essentials. Lifeline has experienced their biggest January on record. Other charities are seeing increases in requests for support, among them Foodbank, Salvos and Vinnies. Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister has the call and will be heard in silence without constant interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will remain silent for the rest of question time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Moore for his question, and I acknowledge that so many people are doing it tough. Always, someone needing support from a food bank—or, in my local area, Addi Road—is one too many. That's why the government is doing what we can to make a difference on the cost of living. That's why we have fee-free TAFE, that's why we have cheaper medicines and that's why, from tomorrow, we will have cheaper child care. That's why we're pleased with the unemployment figures and the fact that so many jobs have been created in our first 10 months in office, something that seems to be denigrated by those opposite.</para>
<para>But we also know from the robodebt evidence that those opposite presided over a circumstance where the most vulnerable people, who were Centrelink recipients, not only were getting their income in a tough circumstance; they were actually getting these massive illegal debts. One of the people who gave evidence before the robodebt royal commission was Madison. She said this: 'I was so overwhelmed by the debt and feeling as though I was in trouble from Centrelink and the government that I attempted suicide. I'm very grateful to have survived, but I know that other victims of robodebt were not as lucky. I want the former government to understand that you need to get things right.' That is what Madison, a survivor, had to say.</para>
<para>Nathan Kearney had this to say: 'I'm still angry at the people involved who didn't speak up, the people who disregarded human decency to chase the next step in their career or to exact revenge on the computer assigned undeserving poor. The royal commission is necessary. A lot of us still need a resolution. We remember the incessant debt collector calls. We remember how the debt blew out all our other living expenses.'</para>
<para>That's what those opposite presided over as a conscious decision, even after they were advised that it was illegal, and the minister at the time said, 'Oh well, that's what cabinet ministers do.'</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Royal Commission Into The Robodebt Scheme</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Social Services. What steps is the Albanese Labor government taking to clean up the mess left by the former Liberal-National government with its illegal robodebt scheme?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank the member for Holt, who I know has been a strong advocate for those impacted by the robodebt scheme. Robodebt was a failure in public policy. It caused suffering to around 400,000 people, including some of the most marginalised people in our community. Many vulnerable Australians had unlawful debts mounted against them. Some of them were hunted down, chased by debt collectors, hounded for repayments of debts which didn't make sense and in many cases they didn't owe. Rather than being interested in the integrity of the system, the former government seemed to see recovering social security debts as a means to balance the budget at all costs. We know the consequences were terrible.</para>
<para>It is our commitment to ensure that this failure of public policy never happens again. That is why we established a robodebt royal commission as a priority in coming to government. Australians gave evidence to the robodebt royal commission describing their sheer terror after receiving often inaccurate debt notices for tens of thousands of dollars. One victim had to consider selling her home, so that she would lose everything, to manage the debt which she was inaccurately issued with. Another reported feeling that concerns about unlawful debt applied to her that fell on deaf ears. She reported how the robodebt methodology of income averaging causing a debt to be raised against her when it shouldn't have been, and she reported how debt collectors viciously attacked her in their attempts to recover money. She said no-one listened to her.</para>
<para>The robodebt royal commission has been the first step in ensuring that we can fully understand what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again. After establishing the robodebt royal commission, this government took action to provide some certainty to the 197,000 people who had a robodebt review commenced but not completed. It was still hanging over their heads. These reviews were closed by the Albanese government last year, ending the uncertainty and worry that many people endured as a result. Further action will be informed by the royal commission's recommendations, which will be handed down in June, to make sure that this never happens again. The Albanese government is committed to delivering a better Australia, and this means delivering a social security system that is there to support Australians in need, not to demonise them and stigmatise them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost Of Living</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Under this Labor government, business confidence is falling and consumer confidence is at near historic lows, not seen since the 1990s Keating recession. With mortgage costs going up and up, inflation at 30-year highs, energy bills rising again on 1 July and families increasingly unable to afford the basics, why did the Prime Minister break his promise of cheaper mortgages and a $275 cut to household power bills? Prime Minister, why do Australian families always pay more under Labor?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm asked about business confidence. I tell you what, there's a bit of legislation before the Senate that's precisely about business confidence. The safeguard mechanism is the most important thing that we could do to give certainty to our major companies in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition went along to the AFR business summit. He was asked about the strong business support for the government's safeguard mechanism, and he said this: 'Certainly from some sectors there's a very different story, and that's been the private conversations that we have had with some of those CEOs and some of the boards.'</para>
<para>I ask the Leader of the Opposition, who are these boards? Who are these CEOs who say they're against the safeguard mechanism? My friend Phil Coorey had an observation about that. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">After Opposition Leader Peter Dutton reaffirmed the Coalition would vote against the legislation, and claimed some companies were urging him privately to block it, business leaders urged a rethink.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Business Council of Australia president Tim Reed told The Australian Financial Review Business Summit "we are disappointed" with the opposition's position.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">He said the safeguard mechanism was the "best available option" for decarbonisation, and he questioned Mr Dutton's claim about businesses saying one thing in public and another in private.</para></quote>
<para>He went on to say this: 'I haven't had any come out and say they got this wrong.' Mr Reid said: 'Of the 44 BCA members who will be affected by the mechanism, there are 44 in favour, zero against the safeguard mechanism.'</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hume is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition was caught out trying to verbal the business community to the business community. They were sitting there at the conference, and he's telling them, 'No, you don't know what you think. I know better what you think.' It's just extraordinary—no ideas, no alternatives, no credibility.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Waste Management And Recycling</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. Why is Australia so far behind on our national recycling targets? How is the Albanese Labor government cleaning up the mess it inherited on the environment from those opposite?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Hasluck for her question about recycling. I know she is absolutely committed to strengthening recycling in this country, as we all are. It's very true that we inherited ambitious recycling targets from those opposite. We were very happy to sign up to those targets at the time. Sadly, those opposite, in the four years after setting those targets, did nothing to achieve them. In fact, they set a plastic packaging recycling target of 70 per cent by 2025—sounds great, doesn't it? Guess what they got to? Sixteen per cent. It was 16 per cent when they started and it was 16 per cent when they left office four years later. They were addicted to announcements and hopeless at delivery. They promised 100 dams; they delivered two. They promised 22 different energy policies; they didn't land a single one of those. They promised to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, then they spent nine years sabotaging it. They promised 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water. They delivered two. They promised an anticorruption commission; they spent 1,200 days without delivering it. And they promised a budget surplus and left us with a trillion dollars worth of debt. These promises were not worth the mug they were printed on.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! If the member for Casey interjects one more time, he'll leave the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In contrast, we are investing $250 million in recycling facilities, including $60 million in particular for soft plastics and other hard-to-recycle plastics. The members for Moreton, Bean, Bruce and Solomon have all been out and had a look at the great new facilities in their electorates. We promised 48 plastics recycling facilities; 11 are already delivered.</para>
<para>It's not just that Recycling Modernisation Fund. It's $100 million in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in new technologies like the enzyme technologies that can recycle plastics infinitely, and the $3 billion in the National Reconstruction Fund. That is $3 billion out of the $15 billion that the Minister for Industry and Science wants to invest in new industries for clean energy, green metals and remanufacturing—reducing waste in the first place and reducing pollution at the same time. We're reforming packaging laws. We've agreed with state environment ministers to reform our packaging laws by 2025. We're regulating in areas like solar panels, mattresses and electronic goods. They knew that these were a problem but did nothing to regulate to fix the problem. We're bringing together the big supermarkets to really deliver on soft plastics recycling—once again, to start the collections. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I give the call to the Prime Minister.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's almost half past three—they're just teasing him! I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER</title>
        <page.no>75</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Question Time</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, yesterday in question time, the Attorney-General made statements which contained insulting language and imputed false motives to the Leader of the Opposition and made a personal reflection on the Leader of the Opposition. <inline font-style="italic">House of Representatives </inline><inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline> tells us that there are instances where a Speaker has later drawn attention to remarks made by a member and called on a member to apologise and withdraw. In view of the seriousness of what has occurred here, I submit that this is an occasion, Mr Speaker, where it would be appropriate for you to take a similar course of conduct.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On the same issue, Mr Speaker, when you're taking that into account, I ask that you also reflect on the principle of something being raised at the time. I respect what the Manager of Opposition Business has just referenced in <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline>. But that, of course, is usually utilised when something is said where the member who might feel aggrieved was not in the room. We're talking about something where all 151 of us were here—except for whoever was sick, but basically every member of parliament was here. Secondly, I ask that you take into account where lines have previously been drawn. Tough things are said in this chamber.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The manager was heard in silence. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. It's a serious issue. Order, the member for Barker!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will give examples of things that have been said. For example, a claim that, when a woman is personally abused by a bikie, it is being sanctioned by the Prime Minister, is a claim that was made by the Leader of the Opposition on 27 July last year in the House. It was not true. It was not sought to be withdrawn. It was accepted within the realms of parliamentary debate. Similarly, it was claimed, when we were in opposition, that we were backing paedophiles over Australian kids.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You tried to stop the deportation laws.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And he's now defending it. He's now defending it.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right and my left, this is incredibly serious. That's why I want to hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point that I'm asking you to take into account is that there has been, for a long time, a gap between things being said that members will find unacceptable and things being said which have been allowed to be said within the parliament and have not been viewed as unparliamentary. If there is anyone who has examples of that, it is in fact the Leader of the Opposition himself.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a very simple test. We've just heard the words from the leader himself, saying that, if it goes to what members widely regard as unacceptable and unparliamentary—and those comments yesterday went beyond any reasonable standard—action is required.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I want silence in the House. Member for Bowman, what point of order are you rising on?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Young</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just on the fact that yesterday the Leader of the House actually said—his words—that, when it was directed to a group of people, we would all be back here. He just said that the claim about paedophiles accused everyone in the House—</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Longman can resume his seat. I've carefully reflected on the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> record of the response by the Attorney-General—in particular, those aspects which referenced the Leader of the Opposition. The Attorney-General's statements on this went largely to what was not said or done. While the statements might be regarded as critical of the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition, the language used was not unparliamentary. It did not contain offensive words or make personal reflections. I appreciate that the subject of the question itself—protests which involve public displays of Nazi symbolism—is highly sensitive and emotive in nature. In such circumstances, I understand that offence might be felt more readily than in relation to less sensitive subjects. I note that no request for withdrawal was made at the time that the answer was given, which is the expectation of the House where a withdrawal is sought. Nevertheless, it was for this reason that I granted indulgence to the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement in relation to the same question after the Attorney-General had completed his answer. I considered that this opportunity, together with the further personal explanation by the Leader of the Opposition after question time, afforded him sufficient opportunity to respond to the issues raised.</para>
<para>I will address the issue that the Manager of Opposition Business raised about, in particular, page 515 of the <inline font-style="italic">House of Representatives Practice</inline>, where it says that a Speaker has, at a later time, called on a member to apologise for remarks made earlier and to withdraw them. In relation to the two referenced occasions in 1955, the remarks were, in one case, not heard by the Speaker but recorded in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>, and, in the other case, made during a division. The circumstances involved, whereby the Speaker took action at a later time, were therefore quite different to the situation that arose yesterday.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>76</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Explanation</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Speaker, I'd like to make a personal explanation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you claim to have been misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Most egregiously.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You may proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>During question time, the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, in her answer, made some spurious allegations about the processes and integrity of the previous government with regard to allocating money to local government. I wish to point out that, under the government that I was a minister in, we had record funding for local roads and community infrastructure. There were extra rounds of Roads to Recovery and Roads of Strategic Importance. If the minister doesn't know the answer to a question, she should just sit down, rather than try and cast aspersions on previous governments.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBE</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>RT () (): I seek leave to make two personal explanations.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you claim to be misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Robert</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Once again, I do.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You may proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Robert</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Government Services said today that no-one responded to Mrs Madgwick's correspondence. As I told the House on 1 December 2020, Mrs Madgwick's son's debt was lawfully raised. It was not a robodebt; it was not part of the robodebt cohort. I also made the point at the time that at that point—and it's probably not dissimilar now—a million Australians owed a total of $5 billion. The department gets one escalation of serious harm every single day. Notwithstanding that, the department contacted Mrs Madgwick. I went and personally reviewed the correspondence in phone calls between my department and every call to her son. I reviewed the text to ensure my department was acting appropriately. A deputy secretary for my department went and visited Mrs Madgwick in her lounge room to talk her through the lawful basis on which the debt was raised.</para>
<para>On the second matter, the Prime Minister said that, once I'd been informed that robodebt was unlawful, we continued to raise debts. That is incorrect. I'd been sworn in as a minister, and within something like 39 days I'd asked for legal advice, noting none had been given. As soon as that legal advice was given to me, within two hours, I walked into the Prime Minister's office and closed it down. Of the apparently one million records that have been provided to the royal commission, you will not find a single document that shows that any legal advice to the contrary was provided to me.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Indi, proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The urgent need to respond to severe health workforce shortages across Australia.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before becoming an MP, I was a clinical nurse and midwife and an academic researcher in rural health. I've seen up close the problems in developing a strong health workforce and the ramifications when we fall short. Nowhere is this more critical or fatal than in rural, remote and regional Australia. Last week, I spoke at the 150th anniversary of Northeast Health Wangaratta, a health service with a catchment area of 90,000 people. I was proud to be part of this workforce for close to 30 of those 150 years, starting in 1986, when I walked in the door as a midwifery graduate. I walked in for an interview and was hired almost on sight, with only one question: what size uniform do you take? I reckon a similar nurse or midwife could walk in off the street today and be working an afternoon shift that evening—sure, with more regulatory oversight, but our health services need everyone they can get.</para>
<para>Regional Australians have fewer doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, psychologists and other health workers per capita than our city cousins. Our bulk-billing rates are among the lowest in the country. Long waiting lists mean less disease prevention, more chronic disease, longer times to diagnosis and more avoidable complications. It's expensive to see a specialist in Melbourne or Sydney—out of reach for many people who are struggling to pay their rent or their electricity bill.</para>
<para>Hospitals must rely on locums, meaning they're spending millions of dollars on commercial accommodation instead of clinical care. Workforce shortages lead to poor health outcomes. Taking the Albury Wodonga Health catchment area for an example, our life expectancy is one year lower than the average. We have higher rates of asthma, arthritis, obesity and cancer, and the mental health statistics are truly devastating. Our mental health rates are 38 per cent higher than the national average, and, tragically, we have a higher suicide prevalence, with 16.7 suicides per 100,000 people. Cardiac arrest rates in the Hume region are the second highest in the state.</para>
<para>When we don't have enough health workers, it's a local doctors, nurses and allied health professionals who suffer too, and we can't afford to lose any more of them to burnout simply because they're shouldering a load that should be shared, but there's no-one there. We need urgent change. We need a long-term and sustainable solution. We've got to focus on nurturing the talent we have locally. Our young people have enormous potential, but we often lose them to universities and hospitals in the cities because we don't have enough opportunities here in our region for their education and training in health careers.</para>
<para>My electorate is famous for its innovation, and we have some solutions to grow our own homegrown health workforce. The Murray-Darling Medical School is one success story, and it could accommodate double the students it's currently funded for. The Collaborative Centre for Contemporary Education and Research proposal evolved during consultations on the Albury-Wodonga Regional Deal, which is another one. This centre proposes a purpose-built facility which will co-locate multidisciplinary clinical practice education and training. It will provide health undergraduate and postgraduate student facilities for three major entities that train health workers on the border: the Australian Defence Force and the tertiary sector, which includes La Trobe University, Charles Sturt University, the University of New South Wales, Wodonga and Albury TAFEs and Albury-Wodonga Heath. The centre's research will drive data-driven informed service planning and provision, which is difficult to do in regional Australia, and it will coordinate placements, deepen the workforce pool through increased student exposure to our region and encourage education and training organisations to invest in our region</para>
<para>Before becoming an MP, I spent a decade researching the best ways to grow and retain a strong regional health workforce. I was deeply involved in the University of Melbourne School of Rural Health, which also pioneered this integrated form of becoming a centre of multidisciplinary education and research. I know that this proposal for the border will work, and this is where the Commonwealth government can step in. I've already taken this to the Treasurer. The Minister of Health and Aged Care and the Assistant Minister for Regional and Rural Health are on notice—glad to see you here—that I'll be coming to you too. This is what I'll be saying: 'We don't just need you to help us build a hospital. Help us build a rural health workforce by funding this centre. If you care about addressing the health workforce shortage and you believe the best way to grow our rural health workforce is to invest in locals then the only conclusion you can come to is to give us the tools to educate, train and retain our own at home.'</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBRIDE</name>
    <name.id>248353</name.id>
    <electorate>Dobell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to acknowledge the member for Indi for raising this critical issue of health workforce shortages. It's one of huge importance to Australians across the country, particularly those living in rural and remote Australia. I know from your experience not only as a nurse and midwife but as researcher that you've seen first-hand the importance of having the right healthcare teams in the right places and you've researched innovative solutions. I want to take this opportunity to recognise on behalf of the Prime Minister, the health minister and me, our healthcare workers around Australia for their tireless dedication, not just over the past three years but in particular then. I recognise the staff at Wyong Hospital and Long Jetty Community Health Centre in my electorate. I acknowledge the member for Robertson who continues to volunteer as an ED doctor in our community. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a huge impact on all of us. Our healthcare workers were there each and every day, keeping us safe.</para>
<para>Over the past few months, I've been fortunate, in my role, to travel to dozens of communities around Australia. While each of them face different and unique challenges when it comes to our healthcare system, they all have a singular voice on workforce. What I have heard loud and clear and what has reinforced my own personal experience as a regional healthcare worker is that there just aren't enough healthcare practitioners where we need them. And that's not just doctors, nurses, pharmacists and psychologists; that's all healthcare practitioners and those who work to support them. From Launceston in Tasmania to Cairns in Far North Queensland, there are not enough healthcare practitioners where people need them and when they need them—and affordably. This isn't a problem that only impacts rural and regional communities. This is an issue that starts in the outer suburbs and stretches all the way across Australia.</para>
<para>Since the formation of Medibank by the Whitlam government in the mid-1970s, equitable access to healthcare has been the cornerstone of our nation, grounded firmly in the belief that no matter who you are or where you come from you deserve the best health care Australia has to offer. That's not just for people who live in big cities; it's for all Australians, wherever you're born, wherever you live and whatever your age. The promise of universal health care is one that we on this side of the House take very seriously, but it's a promise that was broken.</para>
<para>There is no excuse, in a country like Australia, with its strong social and economic safety net backed by programs such as Medicare and the NDIS, to stand by while people miss out on care. Yet for the past 10 years the former government did just that. The coalition spruik their support for everyday Australians, but they turned their backs on them, leaving thousands of Australians with little or no access to care right across Australia. That drain on our healthcare system—not just by Mr Morrison, Mr Turnbull or Mr Abbott—has eroded universal health care in Australia, and it is the responsibility of our government and of this parliament to change that. It is a responsibility that we take seriously.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is committed to investing in general practice and strengthening Medicare with almost $1 billion of investment. Our Strengthening Medicare Taskforce, stood up by Minister Butler, has identified the best ways to boost affordability, improve access and deliver better support for Australians with ongoing, complex and chronic illnesses, backed by the $750 million Strengthening Medicare Fund. After our doctors worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic, we will better support them with the resources to invest in their general practices with our $220 million Strengthening Medicare GP Grants Program. We're also investing $146 million to attract and retain more healthcare workers to rural and regional Australia through improving training and incentive programs and supporting the development of innovative models of multidisciplinary care. After a lost decade which has impacted the health and wellbeing of tens of thousands of Australians, our government, the Albanese government, has made health and care and the workforce that underpins it our top priority.</para>
<para>We are finding new ways to better support Australians. We are investing in multidisciplinary team based care. Multidisciplinary team based care supports health professionals from a range of disciplines working in strong collaboration to deliver comprehensive and integrated care that addresses the patient's needs, supported by each member of the team working to their full or top scope of practice. It recognises that everyone's health needs are unique and the rise in complex and chronic illness needs to be supported by skills and expertise from a team of healthcare professionals from a range of disciplines working closely together. This might be delivered by a team of professionals working under one roof or by a group of professionals from a range of organisations, including private practice, brought together as a team. As a person's healthcare needs change over time, the composition of that team may change to meet their needs.</para>
<para>Earlier this year I was able to meet with the full inaugural class of year 1 to year 6 medical students at James Cook University at their Cairns campus. For the first time, students commencing their degree at the university and attending the campus in Cairns will be able to start and finish their studies in Cairns. We know that when kids from rural and remote communities study and do their placements in rural and remote communities they stay and practice in rural and remote communities. That strengthens that community. That builds capacity in those communities. Importantly, it provides better and more affordable care. It's about care for the regions by the regions.</para>
<para>When I visited James Cook University I had the pleasure of meeting Vice Chancellor Professor Simon Briggs. He could not be prouder of the work the university is doing to improve the educational outcomes of his students. Many of them are first in family. Many of them are from low-SES backgrounds. Most of them expressed to me a desire to continue to learn and study and work in regional and remote communities. They want to give back to the communities they're from, they have a strong desire to contribute to the health and wellbeing of their communities, and as a government we're providing the scaffolding to allow them to do that.</para>
<para>In Queensland, nine per cent of health professionals graduate from JCU. But in the outer regions, in remote Queensland, that number jumps to 41 per cent, with roughly one in five health graduates working in outer regional and remote locations graduating from JCU. This is just one of the universities that are part of our rural clinical schools.</para>
<para>In remote communities in Queensland, JCU graduates account for 62 per cent of the health workforce in remote areas. Work like this, working with medical students in rural and remote communities to build a rural and remote workforce, is what our government is supporting. That's why JCU graduates account for 62 per cent of the health workforce in regional and remote Australia, and we're seeing results like this mirrored by other rural clinical schools around Australia.</para>
<para>But more must be done. That's why the government has provided $13.2 million through the 2022-23 budget to JCU to fund 20 commencing medical students through their Commonwealth supported places. We're also funding a further 80 positions for commencing medical students and $81 million in funding through an open competitive grants process, formed as part of the government's strategy to bolster our medical force.</para>
<para>I see this when I visit communities across Australia, and I know the member for Indi knows this through her experience as a healthcare practitioner and researcher, and I know so many people in this House have had the same experience. But it has never been harder to see a doctor. It's never been more expensive. Bulk-billing rates have dropped across Australia. This is after a decade of neglect by the former government.</para>
<para>Private care is in the worst shape I have seen it, since I first registered as a pharmacist in the late 1990s. GPs in my community who have seen Medicare over time have also never seen it in worse shape. That includes my colleague and friend Dr Mike Freelander. Dr Mike said to me that he's in this House because he doesn't want to see health care end up where it was before he started, without Medicare.</para>
<para>That is what I am committed to do, with Minister Butler, as a healthcare worker, as a local MP and in my role assisting the health minister. We are determined to turn this around, to work with local communities to find local solutions, to build capacity, to strengthen their workforce, so every Australian, wherever they live, wherever they're born, wherever they age, can get access to quality care. That's what we're committed to. That's what universal care in a country like Australia should be.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Health care is one of the biggest employers in my electorate of Brisbane, with almost 12,500 people working as healthcare professionals. Many work in the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, which provides more than one-tenth of patient services in the entire state of Queensland. Since my election I have had the privilege of speaking to many of these workers firsthand. I have healthcare workers in my family, my sister being a nurse and midwife, and I have friends who work in the industry. I have spoken with unions, peak bodies, primary health networks and not-for-profit groups in the healthcare sector. In all these conversations there is one consistent theme: hospitals and health services are understaffed and healthcare workers are burned out.</para>
<para>The public health system was already struggling from the former Liberal-National government ripping billions from our public hospitals and which has never been returned. Then, during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we praised healthcare workers for their heroic efforts. They put their own safety on the line as they worked overtime, providing the most essential work our society needed. The praise eventually dried up. But the health workforce shortages and chronic public health underfunding has continued.</para>
<para>I regularly speak with nurses forced to work double shifts because there are not enough staff to adequately care for the patients. These working conditions result in exhaustion and limit their ability to provide the best standard of care. But they have no choice. There is nobody else to fill these gaps. With healthcare workers being forced to work in wards that they're not experienced enough to feel confident in for longer hours and with more patients than they can reasonably care for, they are left with little option but to move on from their jobs. This has a severe impact on the quality of health care which patients receive.</para>
<para>When we lose workers we lose years of irreplaceable on-the-job experience. Meanwhile our hospital wait lists are growing and people are waiting years for essential care. This is simply unsustainable. Without rapid investment in public hospitals we cannot address the workforce shortages to provide high-quality health care to everyone who needs it. We will continue to lose our essential healthcare workers to burnout. Our healthcare sector is in desperate need of government support.</para>
<para>Instead of investing in our public healthcare system, Labor's first budget since its election decreased public hospital funding to the states and territories by $2.4 billion over the next four years. The Greens have been listening to the needs of our healthcare sector. We took a comprehensive platform to last year's federal election, to fully fund the public healthcare system, including equal hospital funding from the Commonwealth and states that would undo years of underfunding by the coalition: invest in our workforce, clear hospital waitlists and get dental and mental health into Medicare so that healthcare workers can provide the best standard of care to their patients.</para>
<para>By contrast, the Labor government is gutting public hospital funding to pay for submarines and the stage 3 tax cuts. They are also propping up big private health insurance corporations with billions of dollars every year in rebates for cooperations, subsidising their corporate profits. We want to stop those handouts and reinvest $59.4 billion back into the public health sector. Instead of funnelling private health rebates into the pockets of shareholders and providing tax cuts for politicians and billionaires, we could hire the healthcare staff we need to address workforce shortages and deliver a public health system that works for people, not profits. We owe it to healthcare workers around the country to make sure that they aren't bearing the burden of government underfunding in their own working lives. It is time that we once again start treating our healthcare workers as the heroes they are. The health care of our friends and families depends on it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The other day I bumped into a medical colleague of mine. He disclosed that he had met a nurse. That in itself is not remarkable. However, this nurse was actually driving a tram. This nurse was no ordinary nurse—she was an ex-intensive care nurse. It speaks volumes that we now have a situation where the health system is haemorrhaging human capital, human capital that is not going to be able to be replaced overnight. This problem obviously has been going on for some time now, and it was made worse during the pandemic. The pressures of the pandemic undoubtedly exacerbated the problems for the workforce.</para>
<para>It's no coincidence that it has exacerbated the problems of a workforce that is feminised. The health workforce is feminised, as is the aged care workforce, as are teachers and child care. These workforces are haemorrhaging because they are also feminised workforces. Women are that sandwich generation. We're caught between the pressures of home duties as well as dealing with ageing parents. In addition to that we belong to these caring professions. There's no doubt that all of this has led to a situation of mental and physical exhaustion, to be honest. Here in this House we are well aware of that. I think it speaks volumes that in this parliament we have got probably the highest number of healthcare professionals, people with lived experience, like my colleague Emma McBride, and the member for Indi. I thank her excellent representation of her community. She is a former midwife and researcher who has lived experience and understands the pressures on the health system.</para>
<para>Coming from that position now, we have to craft policy. We have to craft policy to course-correct and invest in human capital. I have this list of amazing initiatives that the Albanese government is delivering, and I can't see a single hospital being built on this. I am actually kind of happy about that. There's no point building hospitals if you can't staff them. Actually, the bulk of our initiatives are focused on training and workforce. There was one particular initiative I spoke on not long ago, which I particularly like, which speaks to the maldistribution of the healthcare workforce currently, with oversupply in the cities and metropolitan areas and an absolute scarcity in our rural and regional areas.</para>
<para>There is an amendment to the Higher Education Support Act which will look to waive HELP fees for those rural doctors and nurse practitioners who choose to work in either regional or remote communities. Essentially, the further out you go, the more debt is waived and forgiven. That's not trivial because it can amount to something like $8,000 for a nurse practitioner and up to $10,000 for a doctor. That is not a trivial amount of money, particularly during the cost-of-living crunch that we have now. I sincerely hope that that encourages more of our trainees to go into the regions. As you know I worked at the Alfred, and, for the13 years I was there, I could count on one hand how many medical students planned on becoming general practitioners. There were probably two in 13 years.</para>
<para>The problem is that they enter the public hospital system, which is generally in big metropolitan cities—these are the doctor and nurse factories—and they get seduced. They are seduced ,and they decide that they want to become a trauma surgeon instead of working as a general practitioner in the regions. The irony of all that is, from my own lived experience, the most fulfilling rotations I had were actually in the regions, in places like Lismore, Orange, Bunbury, Rockingham and Gladstone. I've worked all over this country, and I've got to say working in the regions is just the most fulfilling experience because the communities are so grateful that you are there. So I would strongly urge our prospective trainees to consider the regions and to be deliberate about their choices. I urge them to understand that, as a government, we are doing everything we can on this side of the House to invest in our regions. In addition to training programs, mentorship programs are obviously just as important. We need those health practitioners with the grey hairs—I have quite a few, actually!—to mentor the next generation coming through.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It took us eight or nine years to get the Townsville medical school. It was the first medical school built in Australia in 44 years. We live 2½ thousand kilometres from Brisbane, so our young people went to Brisbane to become doctors, and they were never going to return the 2½ thousand kilometres to North Queensland. In spite of turning out 200 doctors a year, our crisis may be at its worst ever. Mission Beach, for two years in a row voted one of the four most beautiful places on earth, is without a doctor. I never wanted to be a state member of parliament at a time when we didn't have a doctor for Julia Creek, so I carried around the names of 12 doctors with me for years. They were the names of doctors in England, South Africa and America who I could ring up and get them to come to Julia Creek. But Julia Creek is now without a doctor. Now there are towns all over without a doctor. If you've got 1,000 people in a town with no doctor and if it's an hour or over to reach the nearest doctor, the official figure is that one person will die every year. We now have the situation in North Queensland where there are probably three or four people dying every year that don't have to die.</para>
<para>I'll tell you what is infinitely worse. When you walk into my office you will see a picture of Red Ted Theodore, the founder and creator of the Labor movement in Australia and the greatest man in Australian history. I didn't say that; Paul Keating said that. I didn't say that; Malcolm Fraser said that. Ted Theodore introduced the free hospital system in Queensland, and I could proudly say that, in the year of our Lord 1990, the only place on earth that you could walk in 24 hours a day every day of the year and get free treatment was in Queensland. Now the free hospital system has gone. Outpatient services have closed. You can see it graphically in my home town of Charters Towers, where the outpatient service has a big wooden sign across it: 'Closed'. Fifteen metres away is the entrance to the hospital, and it says 'inpatients'. So it can't be more graphically illustrated than that. We had the great Labor governments of Red Ted Theodore that created so much good for this nation, and now we have the pygmies that claim to be Labor but are about as much Labor as I am a communist or a Martian or something, and they have removed the free hospital system in Queensland.</para>
<para>There's no money. Why is there no money? Because the Premier has committed $62,000 million to her fairy floss fantasies of lowering CO2 emissions. Well, she's been there for nearly 10 years, and I haven't seen a single act that she's committed that has lowered any emissions anywhere. We got 4½ per cent ethanol through, and she refuses to enforce the 4½ per cent, so the one single thing she could have done to reduce CO2 emissions she has failed to do. But she's managed to find another $1,000 million for pleasure domes for herself and her government on the Brisbane River—another huge Taj Mahal going up beside the existing Taj Mahal. She's found $62,000 million for her fairy floss fantasies that she's going to save the planet with, and she's found hundreds of millions for her national parks that are being burned out everywhere and are nourishing every single invasive species known to man, because there's no-one left to man them. If you create hundreds of thousands of acres of national parks every year and don't include a single extra person to look after them, the cost of national parks, even without the increases, is colossal. If you want to spend money on all of your fantasies, well, I'm sorry: there's no money left to pay the doctors to man your hospitals. That is the reality in the state of Queensland. If you bear the name 'Labor' then you bear the imprimatur of the people who abolished the free hospital system in Queensland, and for that you will be eternally condemned.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank the member for Indi for this opportunity and acknowledge her sincere interest, her advocacy and her prior work in the health sector, particularly rural health. I certainly agree this is a matter of public importance. There are few things that so directly affect the quality of Australians' lives, no matter where they live, as the access to timely quality local health care, and Labor's always been the party of health care since Whitlam's introduction of Medibank and then the Hawke era, with Medicare. Labor built Medicare, and we will always protect it. Medicare is in Labor's DNA. The Albanese government is committed to strengthening Medicare for the future, and we know that to do this it will require considered and gradual reform. When we look around the world, it's clear that Australians are so lucky to have access to a world-class health system, despite its challenges. Key to provision of health services is sufficient quality staffing—doctors, nurses, allied health, paramedics and support staff—in primary care and in hospitals, and in metropolitan areas and regional, rural and remote areas.</para>
<para>My background is in the primary healthcare sector, non-clinical, and after nine years of cuts and neglect from the former government primary care is in the worst shape since Medicare began. Bulk-billing rates have plummeted. It's never been harder or more expensive for Australians to see a GP. Then, in the tertiary sector, we've all seen the ambulance ramping across the country, and of course what sits behind that is bed block in the emergency department and further bed block within the hospital. It doesn't matter where you are in Australia or what kind of medical assistance you need; getting the correct care when and where you need it has never been harder.</para>
<para>I'll say this isn't a new problem. It's a problem that's been a long time coming. We know that only 14 per cent of medical graduates now choose to work in general practice, dropping from the previous 50 per cent. General practice used to be a specialty of choice: being the primary care lead for your community, seeing a wide variety of issues and helping people literally from cradle to grave. Filling general practice and all manner of health positions in rural and remote areas has been a challenge for several decades, and there are a number of reasons for this. We haven't been training enough doctors, nurses and allied health practitioners in this country. The former government froze the Medicare rebate for six years, ripping billions of dollars out of primary care and causing gap fees to skyrocket. Why would you choose to work in an underfunded, understaffed sector?</para>
<para>Part of my 15 years in the health sector included a role recruiting doctors from overseas for rural and remote placements across Australia. In many of our regional and rural areas, general practice and hospitals are staffed by some excellent medical staff, trained from overseas, who've chosen to make Australia their home and bring their families to our wonderful country. But there are some real ethical concerns about this. While we in Australia are not putting enough money into training our own doctors, nurses and other medical staff, we should not be relying on overseas countries, often those in poor economic situations, to fund training for our medical staff in our country when they need them in their country. We need to be training Australians to take these jobs.</para>
<para>We've inherited a real mess: shortages of staff in all sectors of the health system, a Medicare system not fit for purpose and financial disincentives that drive students and graduates out of the areas where we most need them. What are we doing? We are funding an additional 20,000 university placements which includes nursing places. We have funded fee-free TAFE, and my local TAFE at Tonsley informs me that they've had an 140 per cent increase in enrolments, including students seeking to qualify as enrolled nurses. We've established the Higher Education Loan Program debt reduction program, which will eliminate HELP debt for doctors and nurses who choose to live and work in rural and remote areas. The minister for health has established the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce to look at how we can make Medicare fit for purpose in a country with our ageing population. It will identify the best ways to boost affordability, improve access and deliver better support for patients with ongoing chronic illness, backed by a $750 million Strengthening Medicare Fund. Labor will make it easier to see doctors by building 50 urgent care clinics across Australia, including one in Boothby to support the Flinders Medical Centre Emergency Department so that people in Boothby, Kingston and Mayo will have access to fast, bulk-billed care.</para>
<para>There's no doubt that health care in this country is critical to our quality of life. Once again, we've inherited a mess, but we have strategies to build back better.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Indi for bringing this significant matter to the attention of the House. The healthcare sector in Australia is in dire need of intensive care, and in south-west Sydney and in my electorate of Fowler, it needs resuscitation. Since last October, the primary health network in south-west Sydney has seen eight GP practices shut down in the Liverpool and Fairfield LGA. For a community like Fowler, this means many of our residents will miss out on accessing the optimum health care they deserve. A constituent, Tom Lieng, a local director of WorkRecover, which provides occupational health services in south-west Sydney, reached out to me recently regarding this very issue. He told me, 'Practising in south-west Sydney means that we are financially penalised because our patients are poorer.' He recently had to start charging a $20 gap fee, excluding aged pensioners, healthcare card holders and children. He said: 'We are surprised that 95 per cent of our patients fall in the excluded group. It reflects the low socioeconomic background of our local community.' Many GPs are struggling to stay alive and are introducing mixed billing because bulk-billing just can't pay the bills. The few GPs who are still bulk-billing can't keep up with demand, with their patients waiting for weeks for appointments.</para>
<para>This system is sick, and people's lives are at stake, particularly the lives of people with low incomes, who simply cannot afford to pay out of their own pockets to go to the doctor. The South Western Sydney Primary Healthcare Network, or SWSPHN, told me that Australia is producing more med graduates than ever before. That's supposed to be good news. But the fact is that less than 15 per cent of them are going down the GP route, compared to 40 per cent just 20 years ago. The drastic decline is due to the specialist and hospital sector, where jobs hold more prestige and have higher salaries. Another factor is the decline in the limited options for junior medical officers to do a GP rotation post university, meaning they're out of the GP network from the start. The SWSPHN has recommended that practical courses mandating that junior doctors do rotations at a GP clinic would inspire, and create pathways for, GP careers instead of specialised medicine. We need practical solutions to encourage medical graduates to come to the south-west as well, including professionals who can engage with a diverse community.</para>
<para>But we're not only having a GP crisis; we're also having a mental health one. When I first took office, I held consultations with GPs, pharmacists and allied health professionals of Assyrian and Vietnamese heritage in my electorate to get an insight into the plight of the local healthcare sector for their respective communities.</para>
<para>Local pharmacist Quinn On, from Cabramatta, told our office that while people from CALD backgrounds face mental health struggles, they do not speak up about it, meaning it could be hard giving appropriate care to these patients. However, he has seen a 30 per cent uptake in antidepressant prescriptions since the pandemic in 2020. And while it's good to see these communities are starting to take their mental health seriously, he said, the lack of psychologists, mental health specialists and counsellors in the area means their treatment options are compromised. There's only one Vietnamese-speaking psychologist in the Cabramatta area, but he had to stop taking patients because of the months-long waiting list. It's hard enough to find a psychologist at a moment, let alone one who can speak your language and understand your cultural needs.</para>
<para>The Assyrian Australian Medical Association shared similar insights with me and added that the shortages in south-west Sydney were due to psychologists being incentivised to work out of the area. They asked: why would they work in south-west Sydney when they can charge more per hour in Bondi?</para>
<para>My constituent Tom Ling said that Medicare indexation was not keeping up with inflation, flagging that this must be remedied in the Medicare reforms the government is planning. He raised that the state government recently announced that those working in group practices are now considered employees rather than contractors and are now subject to a five per cent payroll tax. This will be another unfair cost to our medical practitioners. I call on state and federal governments to collaborate for a fairer tax system as part of the Medicare reforms. This will alleviate the costs being passed on to patients, especially those from a low socioeconomic background. I do not blame the doctors, nurses and allied health professionals who need to charge more for their services. After all, we're all getting hit by the cost-of-living crisis. We need Medicare reform now. Overall, we need a healthcare sector that guarantees the health and wellbeing of all Australians, regardless of their socioeconomic background, cultural heritage, age or postcode. We all know that health is the real wealth of any country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Indi for raising this matter of public importance. The more we talk about health in this place and the more we talk about health in our communities, on the doors, on the phones and with our constituents, the more health care is kept in the national conversation, and that can only be a good thing. It can only be a good thing for the people that we here in this chamber serve. Many of us who are health professionals or who have worked in health administration or research know it's vital that we are there for our patients and there for our communities.</para>
<para>I want to thank the ministers and assistant ministers for their hard work with our recent policy announcements over the course of the election and also in the first 10 months of the Albanese Labor government, in particular Minister for Health and Aged Care Mark Butler and Assistant Ministers Emma McBride and Ged Kearney for the fantastic work they do in the health space and for their previous service in the nursing and pharmacy spaces as well. Also, to the health professionals that I still work alongside at the Wyong hospital emergency department and also those who work in the Gosford Hospital health setting, it's important that we recognise you for the work that you do, and I say thank you.</para>
<para>Primary care and healthcare access is absolutely vital not just in my home on the Central Coast but right across the country. It doesn't matter what political colour your seat is—blue, green, teal or otherwise—and it doesn't matter who you are, where you are or where you've been; access to health care is absolutely vital, in particular primary care. Primary care centres around preventative medicine. It's preventative care. I've given examples in the chamber before of where preventative health is important—seeing that GP or getting in to see that pharmacist, making sure you're nipping issues in the bud quite quickly. Take for example hypertension, which is high blood pressure: it's making sure that you have access to the appropriate medications and getting your blood pressure checked so that we can prevent hypertensive or blood-pressure-induced strokes. I look at high cholesterol, also known as hypercholesterolemia: it's making sure that's getting checked with your pathology, getting your blood tests done, and then making sure you're on an appropriate medication or controlling your diet to prevent an acute myocardial infarction, which is a heart attack.</para>
<para>If you find there is a patient that has something called insulin resistance, where they're not dealing with the sugar too well in their body, if you can intervene and intercept that in the short term you can potentially prevent someone from going on to develop type 2 diabetes, which we all know has a drastic and severe consequences for not just the patient but the health system and the broader health economy as well. That's why, over on this side of the House, we are investing quite heavily and significantly in that primary care space, with the Strengthening Medicare Fund. Three-quarters of a billion dollars is going into strengthening Medicare. We created Medicare and now we're here to strengthen it so that access can be improved for patients right across the country.</para>
<para>Moving onto urgent care as well. This is really exciting. Allow me to nerd out for a moment, as a doctor. We're creating a new model of care in Australia. Other countries have this. The UK, New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries have this middle tier, where if you're too sick for the GP but not sick enough for emergency you've got somewhere to go. We have sporadic examples of that in Australia, but for the first time we are creating a new model of care that patients can go to if they need it. If you have a cut in your hand from washing up the knife in the sink, if it doesn't need surgery but only needs sutures—urgent care. If you've got a wound that requires through-the-drip antibiotics—urgent care. If you've got a fracture that doesn't require it to be reset in the operating theatre, and you just need a plaster and an x-ray—urgent care. These are things that are coming into our emergency departments that don't necessarily need to be there. They're a triage category four or five, and now we're providing them with a new level of care. I am proud that in my electorate of Robertson and in Assistant Minister McBride's electorate there will be two urgent care clinics that will be established, which was recently announced by Minister Butler as well. That's fantastic. Not only that; it's also going to be a bulked billed service, and it is going to be for adults and children, which is really, really important in terms of healthcare access.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our healthcare workers are the key to the quality, accessibility, effectiveness and sustainability of our healthcare system. A major challenge to our health system is workforce shortages affecting every level of our health system: ambulance and hospital services, GP and community health care, and residential aged care. These shortages are affecting the quality of care provided by Australia's healthcare professionals, as well as their working lives.</para>
<para>Factors fuelling healthcare skill shortages in Australia include the effects of COVID-19, burnout of healthcare workers, an ageing health workforce and the complexity of healthcare training. These issues preceded but have been significantly exacerbated by the continuing COVID-19 pandemic.</para>
<para>Firstly, doctors. Our medical workforce has actually increased in recent years but it has significant sectoral challenges. There are more female doctors and more professionals seeking part-time work. There is a critical shortage of GPs, especially in rural areas. Last year the AMA predicted we would be 10,600 GPs short by 2031. We have geographic maldistribution, an imbalance between specialist disciplines, issues with junior doctors' workloads and wellbeing, a need to move away from international graduates and locums, and a need for more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander graduates.</para>
<para>Secondly, nurses. Health Workforce Australia has foreshadowed a shortage of more than 100,000 nurses in Australia by 2025. We're short of thousands of paramedics across the country, while in some areas emergency calls have almost doubled. In Victoria we have had many tragic incidents of ambulance delays resulting in deaths. We have seen the same with patients left on ramps in overcrowded emergency departments. We have a shortage of hospital and retail pharmacists. We have massive backlogs of patients waiting for delayed care, including elective surgery. It goes on. The healthcare skills shortage is even worse in rural and regional centres of Australia, which struggle to attract and retain staff and which rely more heavily on nurses than do metropolitan areas. We know these issues have been exacerbated by significant housing shortages in regional centres.</para>
<para>The pandemic has also affected the physical health of medical professionals. Healthcare workers were always more likely than the rest of the community to be infected with COVID in the workplace, even if they took appropriate precautions. They've had to cope with that risk. During the pandemic 22 per cent of healthcare workers increased their unpaid work hours, 20 per cent increased their paid work hours, while another 27 per cent had to change work roles. The pandemic has increased the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression in all forms of healthcare workers. In 2021 the RACP found that 87 per cent of doctors reported feeling burnt out. As many as 75 per cent of nurses in acute care are considering leaving the profession.</para>
<para>If nursing ratios are inadequate, patient care is at risk. When international borders closed during the pandemic, many healthcare staff working in Australia returned to their home countries. Many have not returned. The deficiencies in our training systems were exposed when we realised that reliance on overseas-trained health professionals. Locally, training of medical professionals has been negatively impacted by COVID. Clinical placements have had to be cancelled due to activity restrictions. We've had reallocation of roles. We've had persistent staffing and equipment shortages.</para>
<para>We need vision from the Albanese government. We have to address the state/federal divide of our healthcare system. It impedes coordination of all areas and sectors of our health care. We have to improve how we provide care, who provides it, how those individuals are trained and how they're supported. We need to critically rethink all of our medical services. We need investment in training of all parts of our workforce, and we need to ensure that we can continue to deliver world-class health care in all metropolitan and regional centres throughout this country.</para>
<para>I thank the member for Indi for moving this private member's motion today. I urge the government to commit to the once-in-a-generation reform of these issues that we all so urgently need.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, too, would like to thank the member for Indi for moving this matter of public importance. It's refreshing to get a matter of public importance that indeed lives up to the name. There are few things more important than the urgent need to respond to severe health workforce shortages across Australia, particularly regional and rural Australia. By my count, we've had six speakers on this motion who are former health professionals, serving health professionals or health administrators. In the parliament we've got at least eight to 10 former health professionals. I'd make the suggestion to all those people on this side, the other side, the crossbench and in the Senate: get yourselves together, form a little caucus and come up with some real solutions. From what we're hearing today, the issues have been really well articulated and we know what the issues are; it's about finding the solutions. We can all say, 'Let's just chuck money at it,' but we know that the bucket is finite, so let's find solutions that don't require billions and billions of extra dollars.</para>
<para>The Albanese government, since coming into office, recognises—in fact the health minister has said that the GP shortage is one of the single most pressing issues facing the health sector today. We've announced a range of issues which go, as the member for Higgins mentioned, directly to workforce. We're not focusing on capital infrastructure; we're focusing on human infrastructure to try and get people out into the regions, whether it's the Northern Territory, across the vast inland plains or elsewhere.</para>
<para>We've committed $15 million towards upgrading the Royal Flying Doctor Service headquarters at Launceston Airport in the north of my electorate. They do amazing work. They should look at rebranding themselves as the 'royal driving doctor service', because they are doing a lot more driving than flying at the moment in my electorate. They've got mobile vans—in fact they're fully equipped clinics—which go out to aged-care homes and to more remote areas of my electorate and deliver amazing health services. I think that's a model that we should be looking at.</para>
<para>We're looking at a number of models in my electorate. There are few things more pressing for me as the local member for Lyons than the workforce issue with primary health care. I don't want to just say there's a GP shortage. That minimises it. The member for Kooyong alluded to this quite well. It goes across the health spectrum—nurses, psychiatrists, all sorts of allied health professionals. We face a workforce shortage in health in the regions.</para>
<para>We're looking at a number of things. I've set up, in my electorate, a primary healthcare committee that draws on the expertise of people in the primary health network, consumers and other stakeholders, including local and state government representatives. We get together to develop a plan of action to tackle the shortage of primary health care across regional Tasmania. Little bushfires of crises pop up from time to time, and we try and deal with those. I must say, there's a lot of goodwill. I'd like to thank the Tasmanian Liberal government, on that note. We are a federal Labor government. We're working hand in hand with the Tasmanian Liberal government to find solutions, and there's been a lot of goodwill across the aisle.</para>
<para>We're dealing with a lot of issues, in my electorate, in terms of GPs leaving clinics. The member for Fowler has mentioned a similar situation in her electorate. I think every member, particularly every regional member, in this House would have similar stories about the difficulty of retaining GPs let alone recruiting them.</para>
<para>I come at this, maybe, from left field. To me, health care is about three things. It's about staying well and healthy. If you're not well or healthy, then you need to be treated. If you can't be treated, then you should be made comfortable. We've got away from those foundations. We've made it incredibly complex over generations. The bureaucracy has grown and we've put on bandaid after bandaid after bandaid. We need to rip it away and make some really deep structural reforms. But it's difficult to make structural reform when you're in a constant state of triage, just trying to keep the system going.</para>
<para>That's where we need to get to, and I applaud the efforts of the health minister and his supportive team in making sure that we get to this. Strengthening Medicare is part of it. We believe in Medicare. We want to protect Medicare. We want to make sure that it's there for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also thank the member for Indi for this matter of public importance and the opportunity to speak about it. As a former GP, just 18 months ago, I will be focusing on the GP crisis at the centre of primary health care.</para>
<para>Imagine your child is in acute pain with an earache and you need to have them checked by a GP. Your local GP, the one that you usually see, however, can't fit her in for a few days. This is a common scenario, which all too often ends up as an hour's long wait in the emergency department. Emergency and hospital staff are already stretched to the limit, often facing bed-block issues in their hospitals, caring for inpatients in corridors and ramping of ambulances. The shortage of GPs exacerbates this situation.</para>
<para>An effective health system depends on a well-functioning primary healthcare system. If the GP sector collapses, if the primary healthcare sector collapses, the entire system will go down with it. The role of a GP is to manage both acute and chronic medical conditions of their patients and to prevent disease, both through education and screening. We do it in every single consult, even if somebody comes in for a sneeze or a script. The role of a healthy primary care sector is what keeps people out of hospitals and prevents chronic disease. People who have continuity of care with a GP who knows them well are far less likely to be admitted to hospital. You can imagine the cost effectiveness of this is enormous.</para>
<para>I know, firsthand, the pressures and stress that GPs are under. I've spoken to practices that are on the brink of financial collapse. Very few GP practices in my electorate have been able to continue bulk-billing the vast majority of their patients, simply because after a several-year freeze on Medicare rebates it's financially unviable. Many have had job ads up for months and can't fill the GP positions.</para>
<para>But anecdote is not data. A survey conducted by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners last year showed that 48 per cent of GPs consider it financially unsustainable to continue working as a GP. According to a May 2022 report by Deloitte Access Economics, Australia can expect a widening shortfall in the availability of GPs. By 2032 the shortfall is expected to be over 11,000 full-time equivalent GPs, or 28 per cent of the workforce. If you think it's bad now, imagine what it's going to be like in just 10 years time.</para>
<para>The number of young doctors choosing to specialise in general practice continues to fall. One of the major reasons for this is that, quite simply, the critical work that general practitioners do day in and day out is not valued as it should be; the seven-year Medicare rebate freeze was emblematic of that. Why would you work in a profession where you are overworked and not valued? Burnout among GPs is a major problem, and the RACGP survey showed that unsustainable workload and burnout are contributing to GPs taking early retirement from the profession—including young GPs.</para>
<para>I fully support the government's concept of fully utilising allied health workers, so that there is a team based approach to looking after patients, with GPs as generalists providing oversight and that holistic care and direction. It makes good sense and is good practice for patients. It's also important that Medicare rebates for prolonged GP consultations are introduced so that GPs can be remunerated for the management of difficult and complex issues. It's this type of care which keeps people out of hospitals and will relieve that pressure on the hospital system.</para>
<para>However, I also have great issue with the concept that pharmacists will take on prescribing, as this will fracture care and, I feel, deliver lower-quality care. I can't tell you how many times a patient came to me saying, 'Doc, this'll just be a quick one; I just need a repeat prescription.' Thirty minutes later, you've diagnosed a couple of critical issues and you're worried what would've happened if they hadn't come and seen you that day. GPs must be valued rather than replaced by others who are not trained for this very specialist role.</para>
<para>I also acknowledge there are widespread workforce problems across the— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>87</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>87</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6964" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>87</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>87</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>87</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6957" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>87</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 is a critical bill. Let's be clear: if you vote for this bill, then you're in favour of acting on climate change and cutting emissions. If you vote for this bill, you're in favour of saving 205 million tonnes of emissions to 2030; that's the equivalent of taking two-thirds of the Australian car fleet off the roads. If you vote for this bill, you're in favour of investment certainty so business can get on and actually reduce emissions. But if you vote against this bill then you're against real action on climate change and cutting emissions, like the LNP over there. We're not allowed to call them the 'no-alition'. If you vote against this bill then you're the enemy of progress. You're more interested in protest than progress, like the Australian Greens political party that skulk over there. If you vote against this bill then you're prepared to sit by and let Australia's emissions rise by 20 per cent, rather than supporting a cut of 43 per cent by 2030 and a move towards net zero. <inline font-style="italic">(Quorum formed)</inline> Stunts and tantrums are us over there for the rest of the day, it looks like.</para>
<para>These reforms are the first chance for a decade to implement transformative climate action that actually gets us towards net zero, after a decade of delay, dysfunction, dithering and decay. The LNP have made themselves irrelevant in this debate—let's be very clear—by just saying no, no, no—no to action on climate change. That's despite calls from right across industry for bipartisan support for investment certainty and despite the fact that this is their mechanism that we're using. They've even found a way now to vote against themselves. They've voting no to themselves now. This is their mechanism that the government's putting forward. They are doing this despite the scientific advice and just days after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest report was released, which should be sobering. It underscores the need for action on climate change after a decade of dithering, talk and discussion. But they struggle to understand science, Deputy Speaker. They struggle to understand the economic imperative for business certainty. They even struggle to understand words. Sometimes, when we say that, they say, 'Well, they're just words.' What else would they like? Well, pictures, actually. We can illustrate the point with pictures. If the words and the arguments don't give the argument, look, there's a picture. Remember him? That's the old member for North Sydney, Trent Zimmerman. What happened to him? Oh, he lost his seat to a teal.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Bruce will put the prop down. It will assist the House if you use no props.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I seek leave to table a picture of the former member for North Sydney.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What about the former future Prime Minister Dave Sharma, anyone? What happened to him? I seek leave to table a picture of Dave Sharma.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Jason Falinski is not a former future Prime Minister. He lost his seat too on climate change. I seek leave to table a picture of Jason Falinski.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bruce will sit down. Member for Cowper?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Member be no longer heard.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bruce is not helping himself. Order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by the honourable member for Cowper be disagreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [16:49] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>79</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Murphy, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>52</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>Morrison, S. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank the House and particularly my colleagues for not calling for conscience vote. I think that's very decent of you. Without trying to repeat the infraction— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I say to the member for Bruce: I'm still in this place, and we're not supporting the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. It's a privilege today to stand here in this House and bring clarity to the Australian public about what lies beneath the surface of this bill and why the coalition will be voting against this new tax, which would be passed on to the Australian public.</para>
<para>I live in the electorate of Petrie, which is located in Brisbane's north and the Moreton Bay region. It's a beautiful electorate, filled with freshwater creeks, saltwater creeks, mangrove ecosystems and the life they support, and coral reefs growing in the waters of Moreton Bay. When it comes to looking after the environment, I'm a big supporter, and so is a coalition. We rolled out projects like the Green Army, which made a real difference to local communities on the ground in suburbs in my electorate, like Griffin, Mango Hill and Clontarf. It was a hands-on, practical environmental action program rolled out right across Australia.</para>
<para>When it comes to supporting and caring for the environment, I'm all for it. Take what the member for Sydney is doing to protect the waters surrounding Macquarie Island. That's a good policy, but the policy that we're seeing here is bad policy because it will hurt Australians and put up the cost of living. We might see emissions on our side of the equator drop, but the economic consequences for many businesses will only push further production off our shores, and the very solar panels and wind turbines that the Albanese government wants to replace coal and gas with, required to power renewable energy, will all be manufactured in China. Over 97 per cent of solar panels are manufactured in China. That's what we're replacing coal and gas with.</para>
<para>This is a big issue. We're putting these emissions into the hands of a country that is responsible for over 25 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. No-one is denying the fact that we have to take care of the environment, but the policies that we pass in this place should be responsible and considered decisions that will grow our economy, protect livelihoods and not make people poorer. The coalition government showed that this can be done, and I want to thank the people of Petrie for backing the coalition at the last election and the results that we delivered.</para>
<para>The truth is that it doesn't need to be a choice between the two. We can lower emissions, keep the environment clean and support the economy without taxing the people that we represent. The coalition delivered on climate change while still growing the economy and protecting everyday Australians from bearing the cost. The coalition created a plan to achieve net zero by 2050—27 years away. That would give ample time for industry to replace emissions in considered and achievable ways. We were also on track to meet and exceed our target at the last election by 2030. Emissions would reduce under the former coalition government's roughly 35 per cent. This plan better protected our industry. It better protected Australian jobs. It better protected small businesses and it better protected people's cost of living. It wasn't a new tax like this Labor government is doing now.</para>
<para>What the government is proposing abandons Australian industry and threatens jobs. It will cripple small and family business. It will send more manufacturing overseas, despite the rhetoric of this government prior to the last election about bringing more manufacturing back. It passes a tax on to everyday Australians. Because what the government is proposing is quite simply to implement a tax from now on. Let's be clear: this is not a tax just on big business; it's a tax that will affect everyday Australians, people on pensions, people on middle incomes, students, everyone. BlueScope Steel will be hit with this tax. We all use those products in our houses when we do extensions, putting a new carport out the front or building a new home with a steel frame.</para>
<para>Cement Australia will also be hit. So if you want to put in a new driveway in your home, or if you want to put a new cement slab for a shed out the back, or perhaps your son or daughter has got their learner's permit and is about to get their Ps and you need a new place for them to park and you're putting in more concrete, Cement Australia will be hit by this tax under Labor's bill.</para>
<para>The coalition believe in developing responsible and achievable targets by working with industry and industry groups to achieve real and sustainable change. Industry are on board and already making change. They don't need tax; they need partnership and innovation. They need support and time to achieve what has already been proved to work. Businesses and the Australian people are on board with a plan to reduce emissions. Under our government, the former coalition government, we acted and delivered.</para>
<para>Let me take a moment to outline exactly what we delivered when in government. We saw the results. Under the coalition electricity prices fell by eight per cent for households. Electricity prices fell 10 percent for small business and 12 per cent for industry. In the 10 months of this government we are already seeing massive increases in electricity and not just electricity, in mortgages and in the cost of living in general. Mortgage repayments, for example, have doubled. If anyone has got a home loan, you'll know that your mortgage repayment has doubled, and you'll know that electricity bills and gas prices are going up. For nine years of the coalition government electricity prices fell eight per cent; 10 per cent for the small businesses and 12 per cent for industry. We still managed to achieve a 22 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels.</para>
<para>We did all this by overseeing record installations of renewable energy over the past three years, which saw record numbers of households take up initiatives like solar panels, helping to lower their power prices. We put more renewable energy into the grid in one year than the Labor government did in the previous six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. Compared with the six years of the last Labor government, we did more in one year. We unlocked gas supply in Narrabri and the Beetaloo basin to support our manufacturers and firm renewables. What does that mean? It means that when people in my electorate turn on the barbecue on Saturday, they can a steak and still be able to buy gas at a reasonable price. What we are seeing in the 10 months since the Albanese Labor government was elected is gas prices increasing by 75 per cent.</para>
<para>We committed to net zero and put in place a technology investment roadmap to guide investment of $22 billion in new energy technologies, working with industry and small businesses to effect real and achievable change. We met and beat our targets without legislating them, without putting more red tape in. We all remember this government last time saying, 'Well, we'll legislate it.' That does nothing—doesn't do anything. We're actually beating our targets. We beat our 2020 target by 459 million tonnes, and we're on track to meet and beat our 2030 target and achieve an up to 35 per cent reduction in emissions. We did this when we were in government, the former Liberal-National government, seeing our emissions reduce by 22 per cent below 2005 levels whilst growing the economy by over 45 per cent in the same period. This means we reduced emissions faster than many of our peers, including Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States. The coalition stood for real initiatives that act to make a difference in both our economy and our environment. What the coalition doesn't stand for is policy that is half explained and riddled with hidden details, that blindly proposes to be an effective climate change policy that will not only botch our economy but hurt it at the expense of everyday Australians.</para>
<para>I've outlined our government's record on climate, and I have to be honest that I'll admit that this Albanese government is on track to be a legacy-making government, but with a legacy of the wrong things. It's a legacy of empty words, a legacy of big announcements and a legacy of mistruths. The Albanese Labor government went to the election full of promises, but the Australian people are starting to see what they are truly full of, and it can be summed up in two words, 'broken promises'. These are big words, broken promises, big promises, but the Albanese government has now been exposed as the 'empty words and broken promises' government. But don't just take my word for it. Let's take a moment to outline the delivery of some of their record-making promises in just the first 10 months of their government.</para>
<para>Remember the promise to cut our electricity bill by $275? Broken. Remember the promise of cheaper mortgages? Everyone in the gallery will know your mortgages have doubled, yet Mr Albanese said, 'I will lower mortgages.' That's what he said at the Labor campaign launch in May last year. But he comes into this place every day and says, 'Oh, they started under the previous government.' I think there was one interest rate rise under the previous government; this mob have had nine, and this guy promised to lower mortgages. Remember the promises of no changes to super? 'No changes to super—none,' said Prime Minister Albanese. But then broken, broken. 'We're going to double your tax on super for those people that have $3 million in super.' It's not indexed, so that means that when your kids in 30 or 40 years from now and the figure is still at $3 million, do you know what that will be worth? I won't guess, but I'd say a lot less than what it's worth today. They're increasing the tax on super in law from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. They're not putting it up by five per cent or 10 per cent; they're putting it up by 100 per cent. But Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister, said no changes to super before the last election.</para>
<para>Remember the promise to lower inflation? All these newbies over here probably put up on their Facebook page, 'Inflation's out of control under the member for Cook, Mr Morrison.' But what's happened since? Inflation is up around eight per cent. It's almost doubled as well since they came to office. Remember the promise, 'We're not touching franking credits'? That was broken as well. Remember the promise, 'Industrywide bargaining is not part of our policy'? That was broken as well. Remember the promise, 'We're not raising taxes'? That's broken in this bill, which is why we're not voting for it. Remember the promise to cut the costs of consultants and contractors? Broken.</para>
<para>Who can forget today's example? Yesterday in this House, the Attorney-General made an unhinged and unfounded attack on the Leader of the Opposition about the Nazi protest in Melbourne which, in my opinion, should have been stopped immediately. Yet today, when the Leader of the Opposition moved to amend standing orders to move a motion to outlaw Nazi symbols and the hatred they represent, every Labor member voted against it—every single one of them. That's the absolute hypocrisy of this Labor government, the sheer hypocrisy of the Leader of the House to call this serious motion a stunt, yet when the Leader of the House was the Manager of Opposition Business, as everyone will know, he used to come in here and pull stunts every day of the week. And within half an hour of doing so they would all have tiles up, probably including the member for Cooper and others opposite. Those opposite would all put their tiles up. Well, the Greens should put up tiles on the member for Macnamara, who today voted against having a motion to outlaw the Nazi symbol. If the Greens were smart, they would get their candidate with that up real quick. The Labor government talk of integrity and transparency but have again showed they are hypocrites, and this bill is the very definition of it.</para>
<para>At a time when everyday Aussies are trying to balance their own budgets and when Aussie business owners are working every day to make ends meet, Labor refuse to give clarity about the details of this bill and what it will mean for the people that we represent by releasing modelling requested by the Senate. Well, today, I'm very happy to help Australia out with some clarity on what this bill will mean for everyday Australians, because, quite simply, they deserve to know where their hard-earned money is going. They deserve to know what they are paying for and what this bill really is—in summary, a carbon tax 2.0 that will be passed on to Australians by the businesses that Labor are taxing. Always, always, people will pay more under Labor. Always, when Labor run out of money, they will increase taxes and come after yours. The truth is that this bill will see hardworking Australians once again hit by Labor.</para>
<para>In stark opposition, the coalition government, when we were in power, set out a clear plan to achieve net zero by 2050 without any new taxes, supporting a carbon trading system that rewarded businesses which voluntarily reduced their emissions. But this empty-word broken-promise government will be hiding behind dodgy and bad environmental policy to implement a tax that will pack a punch at a time when taxpayers are already hurting. The problem is, though, that the Australian people don't see this one coming. In fact, I'll call this the king hit of taxes. We won't be supporting this bad policy.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not shocked, but I'm incredibly sad, that members in the coalition are unable to see their way to supporting a reduction of emissions in Australia, taking an important first step towards real climate action in this nation. It's as though nothing was learned from the last 10 years of climate wars and inaction or indeed from the last election.</para>
<para>Well, whether those opposite like it or not, Australia now has legislated its emissions reduction targets, and the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 which we are debating today is central to the policy of delivering on those targets. That was announced back in December 2021 as part of our Powering Australia plan, and it was endorsed by the Australian people at the last election, in May last year. The safeguard reforms are expected to save 205 million tonnes of emissions in the period up to 2030. That's equivalent to taking two-thirds of all Australian cars off the road over that same period.</para>
<para>I cannot how understand anybody in this chamber could not support this if they read—even if they took a cursory glance at—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that has just been handed down. If ever there was a warning to the Australian parliament about need to act swiftly on reducing our emissions, it is that.</para>
<para>Reforms to the safeguard mechanism were not only endorsed by the Australian people last May, which is the best endorsement you can get; they have now been consistently recommended and supported by business and industry alike. We've got organisations that often come to these places with different opinions to some of us on government benches and some of us on the crossbench, but they are united. That's organisations like the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and ACCI.</para>
<para>Those people opposite had grand plans previously for safeguard credits, which they announced back in May 2020; that was in response to the King review, if I'm not mistaken. Then they had an opportunity in the May 2021 budget to have another crack at implementing the safeguard credit system. Then, in their crediting consultation paper of August 2021 and their long-term plan in October— <inline font-style="italic">(Quorum formed)</inline> Seriously, I probably would have called a quorum too if I had the track record of those opposite and their efforts!</para>
<para>Not only did those opposite miss every opportunity during the last nine years to actually do something about real action on climate change; they proposed a series of reforms, including some of which that are counted now in this safeguard mechanism bill before the Australian parliament, but they failed to deliver them in government and now they want to oppose this bill because someone else has actually improved it and wants to bring it back to the Australian parliament and do something about it.</para>
<para>We've had a decade now of delay, denial and dysfunction, which we see on display again each and every day. They've had all this opportunity and failed on every occasion to do anything other than offering up some half-baked scare campaigns. We saw a little bit of that with the member for Petrie just moments ago. It's the same campaign they want to trot out again. It's the same old talking points. Well, wakey-wakey. In May 2022 the Australian people showed, 'We're not buying that.' They are not buying it.</para>
<para>It is incumbent on each and every one of us in this place to actually start taking seriously the challenges before this nation. Reducing emissions is part of a considered plan to decarbonise our economy as the world is looking to decarbonise its economy. It's making sure Australia is not being left behind. These mechanisms are not just good for our environmental measures; they're great for our economic measures and they're essential for the future wellbeing of generations to come. So it is unfathomable to me that those opposite, and maybe even some on the crossbench who are still trying to figure out their positions, would put at risk an opportunity to take an important first step in being able to attain those legislated targets.</para>
<para>Australia needs to fulfil our obligation internationally, and we need to fulfil the commitment we've made to the Australian people. I would just remind the House and members opposite: your own constituent groups, your own stakeholder meetings, would be telling you the same things that we're being told. I suspect that the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who I referred to earlier in this speech, could not be more convincing in their criticism of the approach now being taken by opposition members.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Member be no longer heard.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by the honourable member for Moncrieff be disagreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:26]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>86</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Clare J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Murphy, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>51</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member's time has expired. A point of order from the Leader of the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just seeking your advice, and I'll briefly check with the clerks—given that the clock runs down during the course of the division, does that mean it is still open to the House to receive a motion that the member's time be extended?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the member for Newcastle be granted an extension of time.</para></quote>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells having been rung—</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There's a lot of people who are out of the chamber. You shouldn't call a one-minute division if there are going to be people outside who otherwise would be here.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I did seek advice, and the advice was for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, there's going to be a lot of people not here.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, that was the advice that I was given. Is the request for the division to be recommitted? If it suits the convenience of the House, I will state the question and ring the bells for four minutes. The question is the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:40]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>86</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Clare J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Murphy, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>51</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>CLAYDON (—) (): I can certainly say that the delay, denial and dysfunction we saw over the last 10 years has just been writ large for the Australian people to see in the last 10 minutes. More of the same from those members opposite. I can also say that, having listened for hours and hours to members opposite speaking on the safeguard mechanism—indeed, having sat in that chair and presided over many hours of debate, listening to them speak on this—it is astonishing that they should try to gag me, or anybody, on this side of the chamber. I've got to tell you, the people of Newcastle won't take kindly to you gagging voices that differ to yours. That's what you've done. Now that you've got through your speaking list, and others on this side have got a few things to say about reducing emissions in this country and driving some real action on climate change, you want to gag that voice. You want to gag it. It is despicable behaviour from members opposite.</para>
<para>I have got no doubt that the truth hurts when your own constituency base, like the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, say to you that it is very clear that support for these reforms is necessary in order to drive good planning, good investment and good innovation in this country. They know the requirement to decarbonise our economy. They understand. But they don't want to be sacrificing everything in that process. They want an orderly, planned process for what needs to happen. We have been consulting for months and months now to provide the plan. We talked to the Australian people; we got the mandate for it. Now it's on the table for debate, and members opposite want to gag this debate. They want to gag this debate. Well, we know that it will add to what those industry groups have already said to those opposite, both in private and in public—that is, their past failure to deal with the realities before us has crimped certainty for industry and investors. It's left our energy sector in Australia in disarray. That's not Labor saying that. That is the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Australian businesses and households are paying the price for the dithering, delay and incompetence of those in the former government and administration.</para>
<para>Why is this bill so necessary? We've heard from those industry groups about the economic necessity for these reforms. And the people of Australia understand about the need to start acting swiftly. We've all read the intergovernmental climate change report that came out last week. There's no time to waste. There are no more opportunities for dithering or for a decade of inaction. I'd say to all members in this House: this is your opportunity. Whether you are sitting on benches opposite or on benches on the crossbench, this is your opportunity to get behind the single-most important reform, to be responsible, to be part of the solution, to think about the need to deliver some progress, not simply protest, whether it is in opposition or because you want to see something more. This is not the time to hold the Australian people to ransom with more inaction. Surely we have learnt something from the more than a decade now of unrelenting climate wars, of unrelenting inaction? Surely we have learnt something.</para>
<para>We cannot go back to that deep, dark place. We can't afford to go back in any sense of the word 'afford'. This is a time now for real action. This is a time to support the best plan that is before the Australian parliament to reduce a massive amount of carbon emissions in our environment. As I said earlier on, it is like ripping two-thirds of cars from Australian roads today; that's the kind of impact we are talking about.</para>
<para>Seriously, if you are to vote against this today you vote against progress. No-one wants to see no action. I think we can learn many things from the results of the last election. There is nobody out there saying, 'Please do not do anything on climate change in this country.' There is no-one. It doesn't matter if you are in remote, regional or metropolitan Australia. The Australian people are far more advanced than many people sitting in this chamber in terms of their understanding of the need to act and to act now.</para>
<para>There is a choice for those opposite and a choice for those on the crossbench. You can join with us to make progress, to deliver on a commitment to the Australian people to reduce our carbon emissions by 43 per cent by 2030. You can join us now and be part of that. Or you can just sit and protest or make a point, but there is a profound difference between progress and protest in this regard. I am here to make progress. Everybody on this side of the House is saying: 'We want to make progress. We are here. We are deeply committed to reducing emissions, to decarbonising our economy, to ensuring we progress without leaving anybody behind in our society. We are committed to that progress.' People who want to make a point can do that, but making a point is not progress. There are lessons in our history, our recent history, that would be good for everyone to consider. I urge you all to support this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. You would think that one of the first things you would make sure of when designing a climate policy is that pollution from coal and gas would come down. That's because coal and gas are the causes of the climate crisis. Labor wants more coal and gas. More coal and gas means more pollution going into our atmosphere and the climate crisis being turbocharged.</para>
<para>There has been much talk about progress and action and what this policy actually does. It may have escaped some of the members of the government that this policy actually can allow pollution from coal and gas to go up. Why is it that it not only allows it but the government's own forecasts say coal and gas pollution is going to go up under this? Why is that the case? Two reasons: because new coal and gas mines can come into the system without any restriction and because the coal and gas mines that are here already can keep on polluting as long as they buy a few tree-planting permits and count that as a pollution cut. Government members on the backbench may not have sat down and actually read the policy, but actually pollution from coal and gas can go up and is forecast to go up. They're the three words that this government dare not say, 'coal and gas'.</para>
<para>We have been given a very clear final warning this week by world scientists and the UN Secretary-General. He singled out countries like Australia, and he said something very, very clearly. He said we are on the verge of going over the climate cliff. Why that's critical is the decisions that we make now will determine whether we can keep climate change under control or it becomes a runaway chain reaction that our kids and our grandkids cannot wind back. That is a world of pain, a world of devastation, a world of worse droughts, floods and fires, and they will not be able to put the genie back in the bottle. He said to countries like Australia, 'I've got one thing that I want you to do that's critical: stop opening up new coal and gas projects.'</para>
<para>I ask all those Labor interjectors: are you now prepared to say you'll stop opening coal and gas? No, they're not prepared to say they won't open new coal and gas, and so, at the same time as the UN Secretary-General is saying very, very clearly that countries like Australia have got to stop opening up coal and gas, the government and the opposition say: 'We don't care. We're going to act as if we haven't heard a thing you've said.' You can't put the fire out while you're pouring petrol on it. If this is a genuine attempt to fix a problem, surely the first step is to stop making the problem worse. That is what confronts us here and now, a simple question because climate change and global warming are caused by the burning of coal and gas.</para>
<para>There's a simple question people in this House need to answer: do you want more coal and gas or not? Do you want to open up new coal and gas mines or not? At the moment everyone except the Greens and people on the crossbench are saying they want more coal and gas in the middle of a climate crisis. That is something they will have to answer for to their constituents and their kids and grandkids because opening new coal and gas now, after we have heard this very clear warning, is not only negligent, but it's a criminal. It's absolutely criminal to say we need more coal and gas in the face of the warnings from world scientists and the UN Secretary-General that we've heard this year—absolutely criminal. There are no other words for it.</para>
<para>I want to hear those people interjecting on both sides explain why they want more coal and gas. Go to those flood-hit areas and see people still trying to recover from the flood and the fires and the drought, walk into those communities and tell them that opening up more coal and gas mines in the middle of a climate crisis is a good idea. They won't do it—they're not prepared to justify that because it is unjustifiable—it is simply unjustifiable. There has also been talk about what pollution might be cut from this scheme—assuming it's not all through offsets because it could all be through offsets. What they don't tell you is that even one big one of the 13 new coal gas projects that this government is forecasting will be opened before 2030—before 2030, 13 new coal and gas projects—just one of those, one big one of those, wipes out all the climate gains that will be made from the safeguard. They don't tell you that, but that's what will happen. Scarborough project, if that goes ahead, over 230 million tonnes—bang, there goes everything that supposedly has been saved by this mechanism. What the Australian people voted for was legislation that will see pollution go down, not up.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rae</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This delivers that.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There's an interjection that this delivers that.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To assist the honourable member for Melbourne, I'll make an observation for the benefit of the member for Hawke. The honourable member, whilst in the chamber, sat in silence and listened to alternative positions. I notice you're on the speaking list, and I hope the same courtesy is applied to you, my friend.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We got a very clear message at the last election from the Australian people. They want climate action. What did we see at the last election? We saw the vote for Labor go backwards and the vote for the coalition go backwards. What do they have in common? They both wanted more coal and gas. Whose vote went up? The Greens and Independents who said, 'It's time to stop opening coal and gas mines.' That should send this parliament a very clear message that taking action on climate means dealing with the question of coal and gas, not just saying it can all be offset but actually ensuring that pollution in this country does not go up.</para>
<para>As I've said, pollution from coal and gas is forecast to go up under this. There's no guarantee that the entities covered by the safeguard will actually cut their pollution at all. It could all be offset. We've invited any evidence to be put forward to show it'll be different, and there's none. It's why this scheme has been called by some 'a cap-and-trade scheme without a cap'—because pollution can go up, and is forecast to go up, from coal and gas.</para>
<para>The Australian people were very, very clear, though. They said, 'Take action on climate.' The opposition have said no. The opposition have said they're going to continue with their approach. That's not the approach the Greens are taking. The Greens are saying, 'We are prepared to work with the government but to develop a scheme that actually sees pollution go down and that tackles the question of coal and gas.' We can't keep infinitely opening up new coal and gas mines and think we'll meet our climate targets, because we won't.</para>
<para>We have been very clear that we will work with the government and continue to work with the government to see if we can find a way to pass climate laws in this country that will actually start cutting pollution and that will deal with this question of coal and gas. We have put on the table a very, very clear offer that, when you poll pretty much any electorate in this country—on the government side or the crossbench side—people back. We've said very simply to the government: 'Stop making the problem worse. Stop opening new coal and gas mines, and we'll pass this in full.' What could be the objection to that, unless you wanted to open new coal and gas mines? We've said we'll pass it in full. Just stop opening new coal and gas mines, because you can't put the fire out while you're pouring petrol on it. The first step to fixing a problem is to stop making the problem worse.</para>
<para>The message has been received from the government, loud and clear, that they want to keep opening coal and gas mines, and that is distressing. That is distressing for everyone who wants climate action, especially in a week where we've heard the IPCC say so clearly to countries like Australia that we can't keep opening up coal and gas mines. To hear Labor keep saying, 'Even if we get our scheme passed in full, we want to keep opening coal and gas mines,' is incredibly distressing to people right around the country who want climate action. But, all right, Labor wants to keep opening coal and gas mines. We will continue to have good faith discussions with the government to see if we can arrive at a position where we can pass laws where pollution actually starts to come down, not just through offsets for tree-planting permits or getting paid because you say that, because trees grew on your property, somehow you had something to do with it and so you should get some money for it. We know there are lots of dodgy schemes out there. We know that because of the review—the review told us that there have been a lot of dodgy schemes out there. Actually starting to bring down pollution in this country is something that I think the Australian people want to see. But at the moment this addiction to new coal and gas from the government, with the full-throated backing of the opposition, is getting in the way of real climate progress.</para>
<para>We've been put here with a record number of people voting for the Greens for the first time. There are a record number of members in this parliament that come from neither the opposition nor the government. We now have a situation in this country where less than a third of the country votes for the government—about a third votes for the opposition; about a third votes for someone else. And in this parliament, where the Australian people have said, 'We want climate action and we don't want anyone to have a whole majority'—no-one has got a majority in both houses of parliament—and where there are a record number of third voices, everyone is going to have to shift a bit if we are to pass laws that will see climate pollution cut.</para>
<para>The opposition have dealt themselves out. They've said they're not interested in any moves. We in the Greens will continue to have those discussions with the government, but as we do that we are going to be informed by the International Energy Agency, who have said that, to meet even the government's weak 'net zero by mid-century' goals, there can't be any new coal, oil or gas projects developed; by the world's scientists and the UN Secretary-General, who have just told us again in the loudest possible terms, in a final warning, this week that there can be no new coal and gas; and by our Pacific island neighbours, who come regularly and say, 'Please stop opening coal and gas mines, Australia, because it is an existential threat to our homes'. Even the Pope is on board with this.</para>
<para>We have got the science on our side and the people on our side. A majority of people know, because you learn it in primary school—every primary school student knows—that it's coal and gas that are causing global warming. If you wanted to tackle global warming, you would put less coal and gas pollution into the atmosphere. You wouldn't put more in there and then say you hope a few trees planted on the other side of the country cancel it out. You'd put less in. The message is being delivered to us in the clearest possible terms: stop opening new coal and gas mines if we want to have a decent chance of giving our kids a safer climate.</para>
<para>We are now on track to hit 1.5 degrees potentially as soon as 2030 or 2035, we've been told this week. That means game over for living in many parts of the world, because those areas will become uninhabitable. If we hit two degrees, we say goodbye to the Great Barrier Reef, and large parts of this country are going to be very difficult places to live in. That is what is facing us, and that's why serious action means tackling the causes of the climate crisis, which means tackling coal and gas. This government should just stop opening new coal and gas projects.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I give the call to the honourable member for Hawke. You give it everything you want now.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Sometimes, you turn the telly on, and New Zealand is playing a one-day game against Bangladesh. The lights are on, and it might be on the other side of the world, and you can't tell whether it's happening now or at some distant point in the past. I think viewers at home, Australians who are watching this debate in this chamber, when they're watching the Liberal and National parties stand up and prosecute the ridiculous points that they were running 10 years ago under Tony Abbott as their key arguments against addressing climate change, are rightly going to wonder which decade they are living through. <inline font-style="italic">(Quorum formed)</inline>For the benefit of the members opposite, I can absolutely assure you that, when it comes to this piece of legislation, Parliament House is full of government members—Labor members—who will come in as many times as you need them to come in who are willing to keep this House alive, despite all of the interjections and the disruptions of this parliament that you are seeking to provide, in order to ensure that we get this important legislation through, so you can carry on like petulant pork chops as long as you like.</para>
<para>We'll keep showing up. We know how important this piece of legislation is to the Australian economy and Australian jobs, and to dealing with the challenge you have left our country after a decade of inaction and incompetence. We'll keep coming in, so you can call as many quorum counts as you like, you can move that the speaker no longer be heard and you can continue to disrupt the parliament in your petty, petulant way as much as you like.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask the member for Hawke to resume his seat. Is there a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On that perfect note, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Member be no longer heard.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is the motion moved by the member for Page be disagreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [18:13]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>78</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Murphy, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>51</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>Morrison, S. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I move that the member's time be extended, I just want to draw your attention to page 529 of <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline> where there is discretion for the chair, with respect to motions for the closure of a member's speech, to decide whether or not the resolution is being moved for the purposes of obstructing the House.</para>
<para>I specifically raise it because we're about to get to the point—6.30 pm—where, if closure is moved, a division cannot take place if it's moved by someone other than a minister. For that reason, it would be an abuse because the House would be incapable of considering the question during the course of the opportunity for a member to speak. I raise that now. I appreciate that issue is not in front of us, but if the current conduct continues it'll be in front of us in about 10 or 15 minutes and so I just wanted to draw that to the attention of the chair.</para>
<para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That Mr Rae be granted an extension of time.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [18:23]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>79</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Murphy, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>52</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>Morrison, S. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Representing the people and the communities of Hawke is the greatest honour of my life. It is a privilege that I appreciate every day, and it is a role and a responsibility that I take very seriously. It is a great shame on the member for Page and the Liberals opposite to come into this chamber to seek to disrupt the business of this elected parliament and this elected government and to silence the people and communities of Hawke. They are regularly afforded the opportunity to spout whatever rubbish they seek to carry on about. In this instance they have trotted out the same tired—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pitt</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order on relevance: this is a bill about the safeguard mechanism, and the member should be relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Madeleine King</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're irrelevant!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Resources is out of her seat. If she continues to interject, she will be removed from the chamber. The member for Hawke will return to the bill before the House.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Those opposite will do anything they can to stop the safeguard mechanism bill being voted on. They will continue to disrupt this parliament and its work on a constant basis. As we know, they haven't moved on for the last decade, and they tried to hold Australia back with them. We're back to the same tired old lines that we heard constantly under Tony Abbott. It's the same regressive ways—their obsession with ignoring and trying to discredit the science of climate change and, of course, teaming up with whatever other reprobate group is around at any one moment in order to undermine real progress when it comes to addressing climate change.</para>
<para>As I said at the beginning of this speech, sometimes you turn on the cricket. It's a random channel. It's daytime where you are and night-time where they are, and you need to know whether that live button is there. For those sitting at home, they need the live button, because they turn it on and they see this mob opposite, these Liberals, still arguing against the science of climate change, still fighting against real policy that helps our economy, supports and creates jobs and transitions our economy to a clean climate future. This mob, these Liberals, are still arguing against it. They're arguing against the science of climate change. They're arguing against the policies that we need in order to transition, to keep our economy strong and to create jobs for Australian workers.</para>
<para>The safeguard mechanism is a critical component in reaching our legislated abatement targets. Let's remember that this government—our government, the Albanese Labor government—has a mandate for pursuing these legislated targets. The mandate is from the Australian people, and I know those opposite care little for the views of the Australian people. I know this government in exile over there, with all the arrogance of the born-to-rule mentality, care not for the election—where the Albanese government was thoroughly elected in majority, and they were absolutely smashed at the ballot box.</para>
<para>They not only lost their majority in this House but had a significant number of their seats transferred to the crossbench, to non-coalition members, because their own constituency was so fed up with their regressive approach to policy in this country, including in relation to climate change. And there's no lesson to be learnt, as far as they are concerned. The Australian people are just wrong. As far as they're concerned, when it comes to the views of the people of Hawke, they'll use whatever little trick they can manage to cobble together, in order to suppress and undermine the people of Hawke having their say in this place through me.</para>
<para>The safeguard mechanism is a critical component in carbon abatement and reaching our carbon abatement targets in this country, and they are legislated targets. We voted on it. This House voted on it. This parliament voted on it. You didn't have the numbers then and you don't have the numbers now. There's a reason for it: no-one's with you. The community are not with you. The business sector are not with you. Your constituents are not with you. You have been left behind. You are the dinosaurs of the climate change debate. You are the people who have nothing constructive to add.</para>
<para>Our government, the Albanese Labor government, continues to move forward. We continue to seek compromises and options for working across this parliament, in order to get real action on climate change, in order to protect our economy and in order to create the jobs of the future. This safeguard mechanism is how we do that. You guys came up with the idea! That's the amazing part. This is your policy. You wanted a safeguard mechanism. We are now implementing it, because like everything else that you threw up the flagpole with no intention of following through on, in your time in government, you were incapable of delivering a piece of policy like this.</para>
<para>This government, the Albanese Labor government, is getting on with delivering the safeguard mechanism, because it is a critical component of carbon abatement in this country, of lowering emissions, of transitioning our economy and of creating the jobs of the future. These reforms are expected to save 205 million tonnes of emissions in the period to 2030. That is equivalent to taking two-thirds of Australian cars off the road over the same period—two-thirds of Australian cars gone. That's the level of abatement this mechanism delivers.</para>
<para>It's supported by business. You know business. You guys used to talk to them. You used to work with them. You used to represent them. They won't have anything to do with you these days. But the business sector is on board. The business sector is demanding that this parliament act—as it should have done for the last decade, but you hindered it from doing so—that this parliament deliver certainty so that we can start to invest in an economy of the future, in a clean energy economy, and invest in the jobs that will come with it, rather than maintaining the inertia that you have created, that the previous Liberal government created.</para>
<para>The previous Liberal government did this by failing to move, failing to heed the science and obstructing any progress when it came to transitioning the Australian economy to a clean carbon future. They had grand plans, apparently, for the safeguard mechanism, announcing it in May 2020. That's two years before the election. They had two years—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Hawke.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hawke comes in here and tells us—lectures us—about business. It's good to see the Labor Party machine still works: working in a Labor Party office, secretary of the Labor Party, gets in here on the back of the Labor Party machine. On this side: business owner, business owner, business owner, business owner, business owner. He comes in here and—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBain</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm a business owner!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A business owner—thank you!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ryan</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order: I'd ask the member to refer to the legislation before us.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the member for Cowper is in order. He has a preamble. I will keep listening to the member. If he strays I'll let him know, but at the moment he's in order.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy Speaker. In considering the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill we consider business owners, and we also keep the most vulnerable populations in mind to represent an effective transition. For any policy change or innovation that we consider, including this one, we have to carefully consider our country's sovereignty and keep our economic prosperity in clear focus for our businesses. Without these, we are impotent to effect tangible and positive change.</para>
<para>Put simply, this bill will hurt businesses and vulnerable people. It does not inspire an effective transition, and that is what we on this side of the House have been saying. To suggest that we're dinosaurs, that we don't accept the science and that we're against effective action on climate change is just intellectual dishonesty. Not one of us who have spoken in the past two days has stood up and denied the science. What we are doing is saying that this bill will make zero difference. This bill is not effective. It is ill-conceived and ill-considered.</para>
<para>I should note that, like so many of Labor's policies, this bill disproportionally disadvantages regional Australia. That's who it hurts—our people, not the big cities. As a member of the National Party, I will always vote for the best interests of regional Australians. I can tell you that, when I walk around my electorate and speak to my businesspeople, my farmers, my mums and dads, my teachers and my doctors, they're not talking to me about emissions. Yes, they're concerned about the climate, but they're not talking to me about this bill. They're talking to me about the cost of living and how it's hurting out there. They're talking to me about interest rate rises. They're talking to me about the cost of groceries. The farmers are telling me that the cattle industry has fallen 30 per cent in the last 12 months, but their output costs have gone up 30 per cent. It's no surprise that, in the big supermarkets, meat prices have never been higher. Mums and dads are choosing not to buy steak, because it's $75 a kilo in Coles and Woolies. I don't need to be told that by my constituents, because I do the shopping. They're out there hurting—they're not considering this.</para>
<para>Again, as with other Labor-proposed policies, this is simply another punitive tax by stealth, rather than a true incentive. I'll use the example of my two teenage boys. If I want them to go out and study and achieve, I'll say to them, 'You achieve X in your exam and then I will give you Y.' I don't say to them: 'If you don't get X, you will be punished. This is what's going to happen to you.' That won't incentivise them, and neither will telling Australian businesses that they will be taxed. We need to incentivise businesses. We need to get them working together, working with government, rather than taxing them because all that will do is flow down the line, flow down the chain to—guess who? Our people, our poorest people, because it will simply be passed on. You can't create something by taxing it. It's an oxymoron in its truest form.</para>
<para>In the last sittings I spoke about the National Reconstruction Fund. That's a bill that this government insisted would drive and support the manufacturing industry in this country while wilfully ignoring some of the most important economic drivers of manufacturing success. What they wanted to do is get equity in your business. I couldn't think of anything worse than having government in my business. Businesspeople say: 'Stay away. Yes, we'll pay our tax, but I want nothing to do with government. Get your nose out of my business.' This bill continues that trend and simply puts another dampener and input cost on our potential to harness our considerable potential to grow, source and manufacture products, not just for our own population but also for international markets.</para>
<para>The suggestion by the member for Hawke and the member for McMahon that this is a continuation of an existing coalition policy is ludicrous. It is a bastardisation of what the coalition had put in. The mechanism proposed in this bill, as with the NRF, is set to increase the flow-on cost to the consumer and remove all the competitiveness of Australian products domestically and internationally. You are putting a barrier in front of business. As many of my colleagues have already outlined, including those on the crossbench—and I don't often refer to the crossbench—I don't believe the proposed changes and penalties will have the desired effect on this country's emissions. I'm going to quote the member for Warringah, which I never thought I would do. She very eloquently put it as 'an unfettered use of offsets to achieve reduction and a disincentive to invest in on-site abatement and real decarbonisation'. I will admit, we come to our conclusions in different ways, but on this we can agree. This mechanism is not fit for purpose.</para>
<para>For my own electorate and regional Australia as a whole I have to ask: where are these potentially massive or, as the member for Warringah put it, 'unfettered offsets' coming from? As my colleague the member for Hinkler stated last night, to achieve a 43 per cent reduction of CO2 by 2030, based on current projections, that's over 200 million tonnes of CO2. Given the fact that Australia as a whole is close to 768 million hectares, with more than 426 million hectares being agricultural land—land that Labor has recognised feeds not just the country but the whole world, and I believe I'm quoting the Prime Minister there—worth $90 billion, I ask: is the land that will be locked up in order to achieve these targets that agricultural land? Will it dismantle our ability to produce some of the world's finest agricultural products? The answers are yes and yes. This bill not only disincentivises investment into newer, cleaner technologies—and I do include nuclear—but also disincentivises our nation's $90 billion agricultural industry. Not only is it proposing that we facilitate the purchase of our important agricultural footprint, but we are actually incentivising farmers to sell their land to corporations with very, very deep pockets. Lock it up. No need for ongoing maintenance, no need for blood, sweat and tears—and the inability to feed the nation—just land bank it and get paid for it. Imagine all those jobs gone for the sake of an ill-conceived, ill-advised piece of legislation.</para>
<para>How on earth is this fruitful for our nation—a nation that produces just over one per cent of emissions around the world? I'm not saying we don't have our social responsibility, but we are effectively a pimple on a pumpkin in terms of our emissions.</para>
<para>If I can move to current technologies and potential future technologies that would meaningfully move the dial without punitive tax, why not pursue our existing capabilities for carbon capture in the first instance? The recent CSIRO report from just last November, <inline font-style="italic">Australia</inline><inline font-style="italic">'s</inline><inline font-style="italic"> carbon sequestration potential</inline><inline font-style="italic">: a stocktake and analysis of </inline><inline font-style="italic">sequestration</inline><inline font-style="italic"> technologies</inline>, specifically points to these current capabilities and acknowledges their immediate potential. The report states that current technical potential by 2050 is 227 gigatonnes of CO2, which would allow us time to meaningfully and effectively invest in cleaner technology right now and into the future as we advance.</para>
<para>In one breath, we happily spruik the benefits and superiority of nuclear submarines but ignore the same technology's capability within our own market. Why are we not incentivising industries to adopt existing advancements? Historically, I can understand the hesitation over nuclear, with large reactors, clunky technologies, issues with waste and by-product control, and management of aging facilities. But that's decades ago. Talking about these situations is like comparing a modern-day car to one built in the 1950s. There's no comparison. It's a ridiculous comparison. Technology has advanced significantly since then, and so have the potential benefits. So I ask the question: why are we only recognising submarines in this? It's bizarre. We should be looking at nuclear. The rest of the world is already embracing small modular reactors and in fact investing in the creation of microreactor technology. This is from nations who have not signed up to net zero and are the world's largest producers of emissions. Of all these countries around the world, we're the only ones saying: 'They're wrong. We're right. We're not going to look at it.'</para>
<para>In conclusion, I don't believe that this punitive model will produce the results we need as a nation, not in the true reduction of emissions nor in the safeguarding of our existing industries and future-proofing of our economy. It's certainly not good for Australian households. You can't create or build by taxing, you can't incentivise industry through punishment, and you can't put ideology first and disproportionately impact regional Australia. As such, I cannot support this bill.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill. Ten months ago to the day, the Albanese government was given a mandate by the Australian people. We were given a mandate to end the climate wars, to help end the suffering felt by disaster-stricken communities across Australia and to end the uncertainty felt by businesses and investors who had long ago abandoned their search for responsible climate leadership from the Australian government. That was 10 months ago, and we haven't wasted a single day in delivering on that mandate.</para>
<para>This mess we find ourselves cleaning up was 10 years in the making— a decade of a climate-sceptic coalition government that left Australia more isolated as the world moved forward to address climate change. That left the government more isolated from the businesses that the coalition purports to represent. It was a decade that left Australians from Parramatta to Lismore underprepared for the impacts of man-made climate change—something they were told time and time again wasn't a threat to their lives or livelihoods. It was a time when people spoke about climate change as a challenge for future generations. Its impacts were predicted to be long into the future. It was something that could be put on the backburner while the government of the day focused on whatever priorities they had.</para>
<para>Climate change has moved from a theory to an evidence based prediction to a current reality. In my election of Parramatta, we're already experiencing the effects of climate change every day. People experience searing hot summers. Their daily activities are affected by urban heat. Each year, Parramatta experiences 15 days above 35 degrees. Across Western Sydney, heatwaves are up to 10 degrees hotter than in other parts of the city. Our city is also under annual threat from devastating floods that break the banks of the Parramatta River and paralyse our public transport systems. Today, no Australian is immune from the impact of climate change. It doesn't discriminate based on whether you live in the cities or the regions.</para>
<para>We need real leadership on climate, and that is what our government is delivering. I want to thank the minister for disaster response for his leadership when Parramatta was hit by a once-in-30-years flood last year. Photos of flood-damaged homes and local businesses poured into my office. Residents like Maryanne, a local from Rydalmere, rang the office pleading for government assistance. Thanks to the responsive leadership from the minister for disaster response, Parramatta was added to the list of disaster affected areas within weeks of my office making contact. Disaster-stricken locals like Maryanne could finally recover and rebuild.</para>
<para>The ongoing and worsening impacts of climate change don't stop there. It's likely that hundreds more Australians like Maryanne will feel the effects of our climate crisis, and the pressure of the climate crisis will only keep growing. That's why it's incumbent upon us, as a responsible government, to respond with real, effective policies that reflect the urgency of this crisis. We started this process by legislating an ambitious but achievable emissions reduction target: 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. We intend to deliver on these targets and deliver on our mandate to address the ongoing climate crisis. We'll do that through the safeguard mechanism, which we announced in December 2021 as part of our Powering Australia plan and which was given a ringing endorsement at the last election by the Australian people. This will enable tradable credits to be issued to facilities who achieve emissions below their baseline, providing incentives for all covered facilities to reduce their emissions and access the lowest-cost abatement.</para>
<para>These reforms will make our targets not only ambitious but achievable. They're expected to save 205 million tonnes of emissions in the period to 2030. That's the equivalent of taking two out of every three Australian cars off the road over that same period. As part of our Powering Australia plan, our government will build on the existing safeguard mechanism to reduce industrial sector emissions. By doing this, we can build on a well-established legislative framework that places emission limits or baselines on large industrial facilities. It's a far-reaching mechanism covering around 215 large industrial businesses, accounting for around 28 per cent of Australia's emissions. The sectors that are covered are among the fastest growing across the economy and are projected to overtake emissions from the electricity sector if we don't have an effective policy response. With these reforms, safeguard facilities will, on average, reduce their emissions at the same rate as the rest of the economy by 2030.</para>
<para>These reforms are about empowering businesses to be part of the solution. It's about recognising the role the private sector can play in driving positive change, and providing the tools and incentives necessary for them to do so. By supporting this bill, we send a clear message to our industries that we believe in their ability to innovate and adapt for the greater good. Importantly, we're going to get this done by working with business—not by alienating them, not by berating them. In fact, these reforms back in the climate commitments companies have already made. They help meet our legislative targets to reduce emissions.</para>
<para>Adding to that, our reforms to the safeguard mechanism have been consistently recommended and supported by business groups. The Business Council of Australia not only put out a paper saying they support sensible climate policy; they said, 'The government's proposed reforms are workable.' Another member of the business community—the alleged core consistency of the coalition—Andrew McKellar, from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the safeguard mechanism:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… is the best option that's on the table. And business believes that it's necessary, that we have to take that step, and we have to take it now.</para></quote>
<para>If that's not a damning enough reflection on the performance of those opposite on climate, the ACCC outright urged those opposite to do the right thing for Australia's future and pass the bill.</para>
<para>I quote ACCI:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Past failure to deal with this reality has crimped certainty for industry and investors, and left our energy sector in disarray. Australian businesses and households are now paying the price.</para></quote>
<para>Businesses and households are paying the price not for action on climate change but for the coalition's inaction on climate change—inaction that cost Australia a decade of progress to become what we could've been, a world leader in climate action and renewable technology; inaction that cost Australians security in their energy supply; inaction that cost businesses the opportunity to invest in new industries, new technologies and good jobs in renewables.</para>
<para>Australians have had enough of this. They've had enough of the half-baked scare campaign and enough of the $100 legs of lamb that the coalition has been talking about for decades. They know that is all false. They know they've had 22 half-hearted, failed attempts to do less than the bare minimum. And they know that their succession of undelivered plans has left Australia languishing.</para>
<para>Those opposite took the credit for announcing a plan on safeguard crediting but never delivered that plan, and now they're opposing our plan that builds on the same mechanism. What better evidence of the coalition turning action on climate change into a political football. They're always there to cut a ribbon, they're always there when the photo is being taken, but they're never there to act on climate. Frankly, these tired old coalition talking points are a sorry substitute for action and a sorry substitute for an apology to the Australian public for a decade of denial and delay.</para>
<para>What really stings are the lost gains we could have made by acting on climate change a decade ago. We could have had investment. We could have had an economy in transition towards good jobs and cheaper and cleaner electricity. Australians know climate policy can be good economic policy. Even the BCA supported then Prime Minister Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. But, instead, for the last 10 years we got nothing.</para>
<para>In the first 10 months of this government we've delivered the first real Climate Change Bill in a decade. We've passed the electric car tax discount through the House to make EVs more affordable. We've delivered a $67 million package of reforms to modernise energy market regulation with states and territories. We've hosted the Sydney Energy Forum with energy ministers from key countries around the world. And we've signed the Australia-US Net-Zero Technology Acceleration Partnership, showing the world that Australia is open for business when it comes to climate action and renewables.</para>
<para>The era of climate inaction must come to an end. I worked in the Rudd government when we had a mandate to put through an emissions trading scheme, a mandate given to us by the Australian people. We had all the evidence from the Garnaut review about the best and cheapest way to deliver that solution. We had all the evidence from the Garnaut review about the cost of inaction—the price we would pay if we didn't put that scheme in place. We worked hard to explain that scheme to the Australian people and to build support, and we lost it because we didn't get the support of the Greens. The Greens then, in 2008 and 2009, made their perfect the enemy of Australia's good. We lost an opportunity then, 14 years ago, to put in place a scheme that would have served Australia well, that would have enabled businesses to have the certainty over the last 14 years to invest. It would have had the energy sector on a path towards transition and had businesses able to make plans and put in place abatement technologies and processes so that they could move forward into a cleaner energy future. We lost that opportunity then.</para>
<para>The Gillard government did put in place an emissions trading scheme, again based on the science, based on the economics and based on the recognition that a broad scheme would be the least-cost way to reduce emissions. That scheme was the law of the land, introduced by the Gillard government. It was an innovation in global climate policy, one of the first and broadest schemes in the world. That scheme was repealed by the Abbott government, taking away certainty for business and throwing away five years of work—work that was supported by the business community, by industry and by conservation groups, work that was supported broadly across Australia.</para>
<para>Everybody wanted to move forward, but we didn't. Instead, we had nine years of coalition government—nine years in which that policy wasn't replaced by something better. It wasn't replaced by anything. The statistics kept moving. The IPCC reports kept coming out. The world kept getting hotter. Natural disasters kept coming. Year after year, everything that had been predicted came true, but we still didn't have the courage to act.</para>
<para>Finally, we have a government that has the courage to act. Finally, we have a government who is going to take on this challenge. Finally, we have a government who is going to provide certainty to business. Finally, we have a government who is going to set Australia up for a transition towards a clean economy. All we get from the opposition is harping on about $275 every day in question time, ignorant to the reality of climate change, ignorant to the impact this will have on the world, ignorant to the impact this will have on our children and future generations. They are playing the same political games they've played for the last 10 years with one of the most serious issues that humanity has ever faced.</para>
<para>I'm so proud to be part of a government that is no longer playing political games with climate change. I'm so proud to be part of a government that has a real and workable solution, a government that has brought business and unions and community groups and conservation groups to the table around a real solution. That is the solution that we are legislating through this bill as an important step towards a clean energy future. When it's done, Australians will look back at this piece of legislation and this parliament as the time that we got serious, took a step into our economic future, created certainty and started to tackle one of the biggest challenges we've ever faced as a civilisation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Colleagues, friends, this is a debate about whether you choose a tax based solution or a technology based solution. Those opposite; their coalition partners, the Greens; and their enablers in the fourth estate would have it suggested that the Liberal Party had no plan when it came to carbon emission reduction. So I thought I might start by dispelling that myth. We of course had a plan. We had a commitment to net zero by 2050. But, when we got to the choice between technology and taxes, we took the technology approach.</para>
<para>I've become fond of the member for Maribyrnong now that I'm sitting a little closer to him during question time. As I see him sitting there in question time, I think to myself, 'At least the member for Maribyrnong was honest when he went to the Australian people in 2019.' Arguably he wasn't rewarded for that honesty, but he can hold his head high because he came into this place day after day and said exactly what he would do if he were given the great privilege by the Australian people of leading this country as Prime Minister.</para>
<para>I'm close enough, too, to the Prime Minister to observe him during question time, and I think to myself: 'He didn't take that approach before the last election. No. He took a much more small-target and tricky approach to this.' On the one hand, you had a coalition government that had a plan for net zero, to get there with technology, not taxes. In government, we committed $22 billion to bring down the cost of low-emission technologies—hydrogen, ultra-low-cost solar, green steel and aluminium—leveraging up to $132 billion in private sector investment and supporting some 160,000 jobs. On the other hand, we now have a government that has instead decided to implement a new carbon tax, at a time when businesses and Australian households can least afford it.</para>
<para>'Carbon tax'—that triggers some muscle memory of mine. That's right—former prime minister Gillard introduced her carbon tax. She priced it at $23 a tonne. The now Prime Minister is having a go at doing the same, but, instead of starting at a carbon price of $23, it's been ratcheted up. It's $75 a tonne, rising to $100 a tonne. That's what this is. Under our mechanism, businesses could voluntarily move to achieve these emission reductions by adopting technology which over time would become more reasonably priced. Instead, those opposite say: 'No. You must achieve these outcomes.' They're delivering their emission reductions not through technology but through taxes.</para>
<para>As I said, this is at a time when we're seeing business confidence in Australia plummeting. We're seeing households who have experienced—I respectfully suggest to you—the worst and most difficult 10 months in more than a quarter of a century. We had enjoyed, up until the change of government, unbridled economic growth, strong prospects, strong business confidence. With the change of government, we now have Australians paying more for their energy, paying more for their grocery bills and, of course, having to find a significant additional sum every month to pay their mortgages. The concern I have is: there's no relief in sight. They know that. They know there's no relief in sight. Whilst there might be a pause on the official cash rate from the Reserve Bank, it won't be for long. It will continue to increase, and things are looking difficult.</para>
<para>I mentioned the current Prime Minister. I've had an opportunity to observe him in question time, and I haven't heard him utter the figure of $270—not once. I'm listening. I'm waiting. Many of us are just saying, 'Look, apologise to the Australian people and we'll get on with it.' They haven't heard an apology—97 or more times before the election and some 28 times after the illegal and immoral war being waged on the people of Ukraine began, and yet not once since the election have we heard that figure mentioned. He was very happy to make that announcement so many times before the election but not once since the election. This is a government that ran a very small target. Those opposite are now looking to slink around behind weasel words as they avoid responsibility for what they said.</para>
<para>I've also been enjoying observing the behaviour of those opposite in question time when it relates to the AUKUS deal. You might ask why this is in any way relevant. I began my contribution by saying that this is a debate about whether we solve this problem using taxes, or a tax mechanism, or technology. One of the most significant technologies in this space in other jurisdictions is nuclear technology. Don't take my word for it. The Canadian Prime Minister—a man who is a long way left of me—is pursuing small modular reactors, so it's certainly not something that is the exclusive purview of centre-right governments around the world.</para>
<para>We're about to run into a bizarre dichotomy in this country. We are going to have conventionally armed but nuclear powered submarines in our ports. I congratulate those opposite for having taken up the good work of the member for Cook in establishing that deal.</para>
<para>A government member: You're an idiot.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Reid on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Sitou</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask the member to return to the legislation at hand.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's what I said—it's a debate between technology and taxes, and nuclear energy is a big part of this. My point is that we'll have submarines sitting in the port with a nuclear reactor sitting inside that capability, lawfully, but if you wanted to plug that generator into the grid it would be illegal. That is a bizarre situation. That's when you let ideology in the energy space rule over sense. It's like talking—with respect—poetry to the taxman. The reality is: if the technology is safe in a submarine capability, then of course it's safe in this country. 'Why is it relevant?' the member opposite asks. It's relevant because it's a form of energy generation that delivers energy on a net zero basis.</para>
<para>I sometimes have people who might not share my view about how we get to net zero speak to me about this topic, at field days, shows and other places. I always say to them, 'I'm pleased we can agree on one thing,' and they say, 'What's that?' 'Well, we can agree that nuclear energy needs to be part of the mix.' They then seem offended by that suggestion, but the reality is that they'd just been talking to me about how important carbon emissions reduction is. If that is, as former Prime Minister Rudd said, the greatest moral challenge of our time, then the greatest solution of our time is not found in the ledgers of accountants and taxes; it's found in scientific laboratories. It's found in nuclear energy technology, and its advancement is a big part of that puzzle.</para>
<para>I want to spend the last few moments I have on this bill, the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill, talking about another element of energy policy, which is part of a suite of measures that this government is seeking to deal with, and that's the one that has my constituency most concerned. We have talked a lot about carbon emission reduction, but the debate has moved to methane and the requirement to reduce methane emissions. Now, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy was asked about this yesterday in question time. I've got to tell you, farmers in my electorate weren't comforted by his answer. What my electorate's farmers—tough men and women who subject themselves to the elements and to international commodity prices and ever-increasing input prices—wanted to hear was a federal minister for climate change and energy categorically ruling out an approach that would see them needing to limit the number of animals they are entitled to stock on their farms. They didn't hear that. What we heard was a minister who is certainly offering an open door to those that would prosecute that case, just as he's enthusiastic about this approach to carbon emission reduction.</para>
<para>I'm sometimes accused of talking the 'giga babble' when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin because everything's measured in gigalitres. It's very confusing. And this debate, with respect to Australians who just want to make ends meet, is a very difficult debate to follow. But no-one has ever been able to answer this question for me: how is it a good thing for the global environment to place a regulatory regime on Australian businesses? Let's say an aluminium smelter, for example, is forced to close, is forced to move its operations to another jurisdiction overseas where the regulatory requirements are far less strict. How is that a good outcome? The ore will still be mined in Australia, but it will now be transported overseas, creating a bigger footprint. We would send those smelter workers into unemployment. We would see greater levels of emissions as a result of the aluminium that continues to be produced, because I don't think anyone would reasonably suggest that there would be a commensurate decrease in demand for aluminium. And of course as that aluminium, in its refined stage, is returned to Australia there would be an even bigger footprint created.</para>
<para>No-one has been able to answer that question for me because the answer is clear: this approach might make domestic Centre Left members of parliament in Australia feel really good about what they've achieved, but it does nothing for the global environment. All you've done is create a greater footprint. You've displaced it overseas. You've taken people from employment to unemployment. But congratulations; those opposite get to feel particularly good about what they've supposedly done. That's what this is about.</para>
<para>The difference, of course, is that if you take a technology based approach you bed those outcomes in forever, irrespective of where you are. If you take a tax based approach then human beings being human beings will effectively do everything they are required to do to avoid that tax regime in this jurisdiction and go to another one.</para>
<para>Now, my friend who entered the chamber and left I think called me an idiot. Well, let's see. I'm pretty clear I'll be here after the next election; I'm not sure he will be. But he'll make a contribution because he's scared about the Greens on his left flank. It shouldn't be about that; it should be about the Australian people. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was great to be in the chamber to listen to that contribution from the member for Barker on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. I want to pick it apart. There were some buzzwords that he threw around. You'll hear words like 'business', 'technology' and 'nuclear'. Let's break down what this all means. When they talk about a technology driven approach, it's actually code for, 'Let's not do anything,' or, 'Let's use a lot of government money and send it out to business but have no expectations that they'll do anything to drive down emissions.' That's what they mean when they talk about technology.</para>
<para>Their one solution to climate change—and we have to take them at their word that they do think climate change is real, although I think there are some in their ranks still questioning whether or not climate change is real. But let's take them at their word that they do think climate change is happening and that we ought to act. If we were to do that, what is their plan to act? Those opposite have now been sitting on those benches over there for almost a year, and the one plan that they have come up with is nuclear. Let's break down this plan—this one golden plan that they have. Will it actually be possible? Will it be affordable? The answer to that is no.</para>
<para>If we were to look at best estimates, the cost of nuclear power in Australia would be approximately $16,000 per kilowatt hour. The cost of solar and wind would be about $2,000 per kilowatt hour. So you see that nuclear is much more expensive—eight times as expensive—than renewable energy. But let's think about whether or not it's feasible. We are still decades away from being able to have these golden geese that they all talk about, the small modular reactors. We are decades away. We need to get a workforce and an entire industry up. They love talking about AUKUS. We are already starting work on getting an industry up to be able to support AUKUS, but that is decades away. We know that we need to act on climate change now. It's urgent. We can't wait decades. We've already waited for those opposite. They've spent nine years and delivered nothing in terms of emissions reduction.</para>
<para>The other two buzzwords that they like to use are 'business' and 'regions'. Let's break that down. If we talk about the regions, which they all love to claim they are the party of, where in Australia is being hit hardest by climate change? It's the regions. It's our farmers who have to deal with drought and fire, and if not drought and fire then floods. They're the ones who are having to suffer the consequences of a warming globe and climate change. They're the ones who understand that we need to act now, yet they are being let down by those opposite, who refuse to stick up for farmers and refuse to give business certainty about the economic imperative of acting on climate change. They can't call themselves the party of the regions if they refuse to act on climate change, one of the biggest threats that our farmers are facing.</para>
<para>Let's go to their other buzzword, 'business'. All the major business groups are backing this safeguard mechanism—the AIG and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They are all getting behind this safeguard mechanism, because business have already moved. The train has already left the station for them. They are all acting to move to net zero, so they are far ahead of where those opposite are. They've already got plans in place. What they want from government is certainty and predictability, and that's what we're providing with the safeguard mechanism. So, again, those opposite cannot call themselves the party of business.</para>
<para>Let me run through the three buzzwords that they like to talk about. 'Business'—they've proven that they're no longer the party of business. 'Regions'—they've proven that they don't really care about our farmers and those living in regional towns. The only thing they can lay claim to is nuclear, so they are the party of nuclear. I will give you that. You can be the party of nuclear. I think they have all spent too much time watching <inline font-style="italic">The </inline><inline font-style="italic">Simpsons</inline> and they all imagine themselves as Homer Simpson, being able to sit behind the nuclear reactor hitting that button. Well, go for it! You can be the party of nuclear.</para>
<para>When people asked me during the federal election why I decided to stand, I said there was one big driver, and that was my six-year-old son, and there were two main policies that I really cared about. Those were education and acting on climate change, because I wanted to be able to say to him and his generation that I had done everything I could to make sure that the world I was giving them was going to be better and that they were going to be able to live in a world where they didn't have to fear the extreme weather events that they have lived through. In the six short years that my son has been alive, he has lived through the 2019-20 drought and bushfire season, a once-in-a-generation event. Then he lived through a record rain and flooding event, a once-in-a-generation event. The fact that he has had to live both drought and bushfire and then a sudden shift to rain and flooding demonstrates how much we have impacted this planet and how much we need to do to make sure that we're acting on climate change.</para>
<para>I think those opposite need to take a good, long, hard look at the generations to come. Every time they go to a school, they should ask those schoolkids what they are concerned about and what things they would like their parliamentarians to do when they come into this place. I can guarantee those schoolkids will say to you that they want you to be protecting our environment and making sure that we act on climate change. Think about them when you are in this place and voting. Think about them when you are here talking about nuclear as your one solution to climate change.</para>
<para>What does this bill aim to do? It aims to get businesses to think about the innovation and technology that they need to work on to bring down emissions. If you're a business and you're doing well and you're making these breakthrough technological gains, then you get a credit, so you are actually incentivised to bring down emissions. We are now on the cusp of one of the greatest reforms in our economy since the Industrial Revolution. I shudder to think what those opposite would have done during the Industrial Revolution. They would have said: 'No, don't give us new technology. Don't give us electricity. We're okay with the candlelight and the horse and carriage. Don't give us anything new to make our lives better.' We are standing on that reform now, and I say to you: you should be getting behind this, because this is what business wants. They want the certainty of knowing that, if they make those changes, they won't be isolated and they won't be spending money on new technology on their own.</para>
<para>There is a whole-of-economy change that is happening, because that's what this is about. We are transforming the economy, and that's what needs to happen if we are to act on climate change. Instead, those opposite are failing to back this policy, which—let us remind them—was their policy, so they must have thought it was not very good to begin with. It is your policy. It is what business wants and— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>108</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lifeline Australia</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Since the first minute of operation on 16 March 1963, Lifeline has been by the side of Australians in some of their darkest hours. In the 60 years since, more than 23 million calls have been answered, which has made Lifeline the leading suicide prevention service in Australia. lifeline answers between 2,800 and 3,200 calls every day from Australians needing crisis support and suicide prevention services. Anyone in Australia experiencing a personal crisis or thinking about suicide can contact Lifeline. Regardless of your age, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, Lifeline's trained volunteers are ready to listen and provide support and referrals. Across Australia, Lifeline's 13 11 14 support line is dialled every 30 seconds and is operated by more than 10,000 volunteers and staff at over 60 locations Australiawide.</para>
<para>In our area there are Lifeline offices in Bathurst and Orange with about 120 volunteers. There's been no shortage of support from Lifeline across our region recently. When the townships of Eugowra, Cudal, Molong and Canowindra were devastated by flood and storm events last November, the teams from Lifeline Central West were quick to spring into action. Lifeline Central West CEO Stephanie Robinson reached out to me not even 24 hours after the devastation, immediately offering her assistance to these communities, and Lifeline has been there with them ever since. The cameras have now gone, the Army has packed up and the residents are left picking up the pieces. However, the support of Lifeline has never faded or wavered.</para>
<para>There is a long road to recovery in Eugowra. Residents are still living out of caravans. Some have had to leave the town entirely, but the new normal that the people of Eugowra and surrounds are forced to endure is not being faced alone. Lifeline still visits Eugowra twice a week, setting up at the famed Fat Parcel food van and having a chat with local residents. For those needing some more structured support, individual sessions are available and Lifeline is about to start workshops supporting residents through the recovery stage of this disaster. Whether it be the residents that stepped up during the crisis or the elderly who've lost everything they once knew, Lifeline is making sure that nobody gets left behind.</para>
<para>One resident that Lifeline has supported in a unique way is 86-year-old Jeanette Morris who has lived in Eugowra her entire life. When the flood and storm event hit her hometown, she lost almost everything she owned. During the clean-up efforts, Jeanette met Stephanie, the Lifeline Central West CEO, who also happens to operate Fox Hollow Cavoodles. Learning that Jeanette was living on her own, following the passing of her beloved dog Percy some 12 months prior, all the while dealing with storm and flood devastation, Stephanie knew there was one more way that she could help. Enter Truffles, one of Stephanie's cavoodle puppies that was gifted to Jeanette. In Jeanette's words, Truffles has given her a reason to go on.</para>
<para>I've been fortunate enough to get to know many of the wonderful volunteers and staff at Lifeline Centra West, including support dogs Honey Crumpet, Evelyn Crumpet and Bailey, who are more affectionately known as the 'Crumpet Crew' and know what an impact they're having not just in Eugowra but across the Central West. The work of Lifeline Central West in Eugowra wouldn't be possible without the people who work and volunteer to support the town, people like Steph Robinson, Brad Kane, Jodie Williams, Greg Jeffree, Helen and Glyn Daunt, Rosie Hassall, Karla McDiarmond, Alex Ferguson, Bill Miller, Casey Naden, Lewis Bird, Carla Browne, Justin Thrift, Raewyn Small, Kim Dunn, Justin Moore, Marianne Olk, Jenny Hazelton, Chris Blowes, Jane Poole, Kim Watson, Leslie Smith, Janice Harris, Wendy Barrett, Jess Richards, Lyhn Nguyen, Bev Parkes, Emma Watson, Brett Mackin, Jamie Steadman, Amanda Lee, Rosie Lee, Kelly McDonald, Libby Williams, Louise Magill and Michael Doherty.</para>
<para>Lifeline has been there for the community through drought, fire, floods, a mouse plague, a gas emergency and COVID, not to mention the cost-of-living crisis and the general uncertainty our global landscape is facing. For that we are so very thankful. If you would like to volunteer for Lifeline or learn more, you can visit the Lifeline website and find 'Volunteering' under the 'Get involved' tab. If you or somebody you know needs support, Lifeline can be reached on 131114, 24 hours a day seven days a week.</para>
<para>We wish Lifeline a very happy 60th and thank the hardworking staff and volunteers for all that they do for our communities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gender and Sexual Orientation: Protests</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This past weekend, we saw confronting sights on the streets of the city I love. Melbourne and Spring Street were filled with anti-trans activists who were supported by a squad of hooded Neo-Nazis giving Nazi salutes. Both of these groups turned up to spread hate and vilify minorities through their dark ideologies. But, from these ugly scenes, we are presented with an opportunity to come together, to send a different message and to take action. We've seen incredible responses from governments and communities across the country. The leadership from the Premier of Victoria has been exemplary. I acknowledge today and over the last couple of days the strong statements by our Prime Minister, and I acknowledge the statements of condemnation by the Leader of the Opposition.</para>
<para>I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the leadership of John Pesutto, the Victorian Leader of the Opposition. He understands that all major political parties should be united against the dark ideologies that we saw on display out the front of the Victorian Parliament House. Mr Pesutto has made the decisive, bold decision to remove a member of his own team. Let me quote for the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> from the motion that the Victorian Liberal leader put to his party room: 'On 19 March 2023 and on days prior, organising, promoting and attending a rally where the principal speaker'—I'm not going to mention her name—'was known to be publicly associated with far right-wing extremist groups, including Neo-Nazi activists.' Let me rephrase that. The Victorian Liberal leader is moving to expel one of his own because of the direct links with far-right extremist groups, including Neo-Nazi activists.</para>
<para>The question remains. There are rumours that this very same activist is coming to Canberra tomorrow. Apparently they will be speaking on the lawns of parliament, and apparently they will be joined by members of the opposition. I say this sincerely: I really hope that the Leader of the Opposition upholds the same standard for his team that the Victorian Liberal leader does for the Victorian Liberal team. At the moment, we've had public statements from Senators Canavan, Chandler, Antic and Price for this particular individual who the Victorian Liberal leader has said to his own party has direct links with extremists and with Neo-Nazis. We even have a member of the shadow cabinet intervening in this process. It is not me saying this; it is the Victorian Liberal leader.</para>
<para>I say to the members of this House and the members of the Senate: think about what happened in Melbourne on the weekend. Think about the scenes. Think about the week that we have just had. Think about the message that you send by standing alongside this particular activist. The Victorian Liberal leader has thought about that. He has thought about those consequences, and he has moved to remove one of his own members. So I say to the Leader of the Opposition and to all those opposite that I believe that the intent to show unity from this weekend's activities is real. But I hope that the federal Liberal Party can do what the Victorian Liberal Party is doing and stand up to these activists who have marched alongside and have known links to far-right neo-Nazi activists. This place should be united. I hope we see the best of this place, and I hope we all stand together to say that all Australians deserve acceptance, deserve a sense of community and deserve to be free from discrimination and bigotry.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wannon Electorate: Telecommunications</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to talk on the last mobile black spot round that the Albanese government oversaw. That round saw no funding for extra mobile phone towers go to any coalition seat in Victoria—not to Wannon, not to Mallee, not to Gippsland, not one. All those electorates in regional and rural Victoria have seen the devastating impacts of bushfires over time. Yet this round, which was meant to focus on supporting those areas impacted by bushfires in Victoria, saw not one tower go to any coalition electorate.</para>
<para>When the relevant minister was asked about this on radio and how it came about, she said that she had hand-picked every single location. She didn't go to the department. She didn't seek external advice. They were hand-picked by the relevant minister. I would like to point out that in the electorate of Wannon we have communities such as Aireys Inlet, Anglesea, Lorne and Lakaput that are still facing the high risk of fire—yet there's no funding for them. Towns including Bessiebelle, Cudgee, Framlingham, Grassmere, Hawkesdale, Nullawarre, Willatook, and Woorndoo also need mobile phone towers—yet not one mobile phone tower was given to a coalition seat in Victoria.</para>
<para>I was doing my regular Thursday morning radio slot in Colac last Thursday when I mentioned this. The radio host, Lippy, who has a bit of a sense of humour, said to me, 'But how could this be? Surely the Labor Party and Labor Party members must understand that there are areas in the electorate of Wannon that need mobile phone towers? As a matter of fact, I've got a really good idea.' I said, 'I'm all ears.' He said, 'Maybe what you could do is give all members of the Labor Party a mobile phone, take them to the Otways and we could play a game: "I'm a Labor Party member—get me out of here". Then they would realise that the Otways have absolutely no mobile phone coverage.'</para>
<para>I said to him, 'I'd be happy to raise that in the House on your behalf,' because we have to be doing everything we can to make sure that subsequent rounds of mobile black spot funding are fair and that all electorates across Australia get their fair share of funding, especially those electorates in regional and rural Australia and especially in the electorate of Wannon.</para>
<para>We have a very good track record of attracting mobile black spot funding, but we need to do more. I'm hoping that the next round will not be hand-picked by the minister. And I say to the Prime Minister—I say to all members of the Labor Party—you're more than welcome to visit Wannon with your mobile phones. We're more than happy to take you to the Otways. It's beautiful!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBride</name>
    <name.id>248353</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is that where the panther is—the Otways?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is. It's a beautiful spot, the Otways, and we can play 'I'm a Labor Party MP—get me out of here'. Even though you'll probably have a lot of trouble, I think that you'll definitely enjoy the wonderful destination which is the Otways.</para>
<para>I would like to end on a very serious note, and that is that I really do hope that the next round of mobile blackspot funding is allocated on a fair basis to those communities in need and that, especially if it's done with the key priority of helping those communities who face a severe bushfire threat, we do not see locations handpicked on a political basis.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>AUKUS</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My electorate of Paterson is home to Australia's premier jet fighter base, RAAF Base Williamtown. I've never made any secret of my pride and passion in representing the fantastic women and men who put on the uniform to protect our way of life. Last Friday, when I joined defence minister Richard Marles in Sydney with industry stakeholders to hear him outline the future of the ADF and the critical role that AUKUS will play in strengthening Australia's national security, it was completely evident that the people in the room were genuinely excited and looking forward to a future with AUKUS.</para>
<para>Under the agreement, expected to cost upwards of $386 billion, Australia will build a new fleet of eight nuclear powered submarines by 2055. I am proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is making the most significant investment in our defence capability in our history and will deliver a transformational moment for our nation, our Defence Force and our economy.</para>
<para>For the last term, I worked with Labor's defence team as the shadow assistant minister for defence, and I took great pride in that role, but I did sense the frustrations of some in our ADF, in the decade preceding that, because of the neglect by some opposite. In that last term of parliament, we saw diplomatic debacles by the former Prime Minister, which was damaging. It was in lock step with his government's complete disregard for many diplomatic relationships, which was tragic to say the least. Our government, the Defence Force and our foreign ministry team are working hard to restore those relationships, and that's pivotal.</para>
<para>We're making record investment not only in our national security but in all of the wraparounds that are going to be needed to make not only AUKUS but Australia a success, because AUKUS's success will be Australia's success and vice versa. This is a fully integrated platform. It's where we need all of our people in Australia to be proud of what we're doing, and it's also where we need people to participate in what we're doing. Only with this investment in AUKUS will we meet our obligation to ensure regional stability in response to unprecedented strategic challenges. With 99 per cent of Australia's trade passing by sea, we must ensure the protection of international shipping routes. As an island nation, we are highly dependent on this global trade, and that goes without saying. The AUKUS nuclear powered submarine pathway will build a better future with this record investment in defence, creating the careers that will deliver superior capability after a decade of inaction and mismanagement by the former government.</para>
<para>I know Australians have the skills to fill these important roles, and I know that industry has the appetite to deliver, because I've worked with them for the last seven years in this job. I've met with so many people who are so keen to get on with the job. We have the skills and the wherewithal to deliver AUKUS in Australia with our strategic partners. Not only will AUKUS be a trilateral security partnership; it will deliver long-term strategic benefits for Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. In delivering this, it's going to enhance cooperation on a range of security and defence capabilities by ensuring deeper integration of our defence related science, technology, industrial bases and supply chains. That is how we're going make this a success.</para>
<para>One of the things that is a real stand-out to me is that some of the submariners who will work on these boats haven't even been born yet. So as you read your children a story before you put them to bed, think about the jobs and the prosperity and the contribution that they might make—not only to our nation's security, but to the enhancement of our nation overall. Thank you in advance for what you're doing and thank you for the faith you have put in our government to deliver. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Forde Electorate: Health Services</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As many in this place know, the Logan region in my electorate is growing rapidly; however, the population is also ageing, which is putting pressure on our local health services. So, it's only right that the people of Logan receive the same access to timely, high-quality health care that is already available in other capital cities like Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Canberra and Perth.</para>
<para>I grew up in the Logan region and this is my backyard, so I know all too well why health services are so important to every single person who lives, works and comes to play in our region. It is a vital service to many, many people. That is why I am so pleased that on this side of the House, under former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, we committed to a $33 million investment to build a new Logan Urgent and Specialist Care Centre. That was a $33 million investment by the former coalition government.</para>
<para>The idea of this $33 million investment was to establish a state-of-the-art facility that would house over 31 specialist consulting rooms together with five ultrasound imaging rooms. And thanks to the former coalition government's commitment, this project is now underway. We had the sod turning last Friday, and I will acknowledge that the member for Rankin, the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, was at that event, as was the Logan mayor, Darren Power.</para>
<para>The Logan Urgent and Specialist Care Centre, which is expected to bulk-bill, will provide a minor injury and illness clinic along with a women's health outpatient centre, which will provide gynaecological and antenatal services. I believe these are vital services in our young and growing community. I think most in this place would agree that this project is an absolute win for the people of Logan. I'm sure, as I stand here with my coalition colleagues in this place today, we acknowledge the fabulous work that was done in delivering this project as a legacy project of the former coalition government led by Scott Morrison.</para>
<para>As I look at this project, I see the wonderful services that it will provide to Logan in the Meadowbrook area as part of Logan City Council's health precinct that includes the Logan Hospital. I'll give credit to the state government who are doing a significant upgrade to the Logan Hospital, but the whole purpose of this centre is that it will take the pressure off Logan Hospital for many of these services and free up the emergency centre for other more urgent needs.</para>
<para>This tremendous project is one that I am very proud of, having worked to bring it to fruition. This legacy investment will add to the investments to come in the Logan health and wellbeing precinct at Meadowbrook, which will include two further private hospitals that are on the drawing board. And it shows that coalition governments over the years have sought to invest in our local communities in the health space for what are critically important needs.</para>
<para>As we look at the Logan community, which currently stands at about 350,000 people, we only see further major growth in the Logan community over the years to come. I know there will be more health services required, particularly in the south-west of Logan, down towards Park Ridge and Jimboomba, which is in the member for Wright's electorate. As we see the development of town centres and populations such as Park Ridge, Flagstone and Yarrabilba we have a goal to see Logan with a population of somewhere near 500,000 by 2040.</para>
<para>This Logan Urgent and Specialist Care Centre is greatly needed to take the pressure off Logan Hospital and to ensure that the quality of health services provided to the people of Logan are equal to anywhere else in the country. The establishment of this centre will ease the pressure on the emergency department in Logan Hospital. It will bring an extra 60 health staff to live and work right here in our region, which I think is tremendous news. I look forward to the centre officially opening in 2024, and I again acknowledge the legacy investment this brings to our community for all to benefit from.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Macarthur Electorate: Schools</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My family has always believed in the power of education. When I track my family history through generations, from Eastern Europe through to Great Britain to the colonies of Australia, America, New Zealand and Southern Africa, my family's prosperity is dependent on the portability and importance of education. I stand here today as a strong advocate for the expansion of education infrastructure across the country and in particular in my electorate of Macarthur and other outer metropolitan areas.</para>
<para>The statistics from the high school certificate last year in New South Wales are unequivocal: if you live in a wealthy postcode with affluent suburbs around you or if you go to a private school or a selective school, your chances of doing very well in the HSC are much higher than if you attend a comprehensive school in the local area. That is a tragedy. It's an inequity that needs to be addressed.</para>
<para>Macarthur's population continues to grow at a massive rate—the fastest in the country. We have farms being turned into suburbs, it seems, every week. We are now the largest electorate in the nation because of our population. This has massive implications for our local school infrastructure and other infrastructure as well. With the New South Wales state election this week, the issue of the lack of schools and education placements in our region is rightfully coming under the spotlight.</para>
<para>Almost on a daily basis, my electorate office receives calls, emails and walk-ins from constituents frustrated over the lack of schools and placements in their area. This is particularly concerning for those families whose children require special needs placements—children who have special needs such as autism or intellectual disability or even physical needs such as cerebral palsy. There are far fewer placements for the population, so children often have to travel large distances to get special needs placements or be placed in inappropriate schools that don't have the resources to deal with their special needs. It is really concerning to me as a father but also as a paediatrician.</para>
<para>I've seen the power of education for children with disability as transformational over the decades I've worked in paediatrics. One school in particular, Passfield Park School, located in Minto, was literally falling down. There'd been arguments from families for years about the need to rebuild the school. Myself and the local member for Macquarie Fields, Anoulack Chanthivong, worked extremely hard to finally get the education minister, Sarah Mitchell, to agree that the school needed to be bulldozed and replaced. This was after years of inadequate facilities for kids with severe disability. Kids in wheelchairs couldn't access classrooms. There were no lifts. There was mould throughout the leaking roof. And there were no appropriate audio-visual resources. We fought for many years for this to happen, but finally the education minister came to the table and we have now rebuilt Passfield Park School. The difference it has made to those children and families is incredible.</para>
<para>Whilst I'm thankful to Minister Mitchell for her work on this matter, her government has simply not done enough for the remaining thousands of children, both current and future, that require classrooms, teachers and school supplies. Oran Park School has three times the children in it that it was designed for, with over 40 demountable classrooms—incredible! There is no parking, even for the parents who want to drop kids off at school in the morning. Parents are directed to send their children to schools far away in areas that, we must remember, have very poor public transport. I hear all the time from families that these children are really distressed about the many hours they spend travelling just to get to school.</para>
<para>There's currently a community run campaign in my electorate of parents wanting a new public high school within the Gledswood Hills and Gregory Hills areas. They should not have to campaign for this. This is a need and something that people in other areas have, yet the children in these areas don't have a high school and have to travel large distances. Sally Quinnell, the Labor candidate for Camden, has been campaigning for this for several years, yet nothing has happened. Gledswood Hills Public School, which opened in 2020, has parents staggering pickup times because of a lack of transport opportunities and a lack of parking to pick their kids up from school.</para>
<para>Education, I think, is a silver bullet for the future of our children. In the last 12 years under the New South Wales Liberals, there's been a complete failure in the electorates of Macarthur and beyond. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>112</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 22 March 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ms Payne</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:30.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>114</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The thing I enjoy most about being an MP is talking to people in my community. When I ask what is important to them, they don't talk about policy; they talk about their families, their friends and their futures. They're worried, especially those with children. They worry about the world their children will inhabit. They worry about the cost of housing, whether their children will be able to find good jobs or afford to buy a home and raise a family. They worry about climate change and the impact it will have on future generations. They worry about our economy, about our country's debt, where we are heading, and about what slow growth means for the next generation. They worry about what the future will look like for their kids. They worry about the fairness of our generation benefitting at the expense of the next.</para>
<para>Many of these problems have their roots in our tax policies. Our tax settings fail to encourage investment and innovation, so we experience slow economic and wage growth. Our tax settings don't balance the budget, don't provide a growth dividend, don't help us decarbonise our economy or pay down our debt. We don't think critically about the effectiveness of our spending, so we have fewer opportunities, a smaller economy and lower living standards. These are the challenges we're failing to grapple with. The longer we put off action, the harder the challenges become because our economy and our country are changing. The population is ageing, the workforce is shrinking, and technology is reshaping entire industries. Our tax system needs to change too. It's already unable to deliver the revenue we need. The problem will worsen over time as more of our population ages out of the workforce and their contribution to public finances declines. The burden of covering the cost of government will fall on a smaller and smaller share of workers, so our children will need to pay significantly more tax than we do today but will get less for it. It is not fair to the next generation to bear the burden of our retirements, or for us to keep putting off the problem and leaving the hard work of structural reform to them. We have created this problem; we need to fix it.</para>
<para>I had hoped this parliament would pursue significant economic reform, but the political will has been lacking. The major parties are so worried about being wedged, about scoring points off each other, they can't deliver the reforms we need. So next week I'll be holding tax roundtables with experts, stakeholders, business groups, parliamentarians and members of our community. As the member for Indi and Warringah have shown, on public integrity and climate action, real change can come from the crossbench. We can raise awareness of the challenges facing our society. We can find opportunities for consensus based reform, and I can drive reform in this place, because I don't care or worry about point scoring and political wedging. Wentworth sent me to parliament to make a difference. Tax reform has been in the too-hard basket for too long. It's my job to get it out of the basket and onto the agenda. It's time for us to do what our voters elected us to do: work to make our country a better place tomorrow than it is today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Reid Electorate: Harmony Week</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's Harmony Week, and my electorate is the perfect example of multiculturalism, where our strength is found in a rich tapestry of cultures, religions and languages. I'm lucky to meet so many amazing people from different backgrounds who are committed to making our area a better place, people like Patricia Abrahams, CEO of Eurella, and Paula Nicolas from St Merkorious Charity. Of Lebanese background, they have chosen to serve the most vulnerable. Strathfield resident Abla Kadous was awarded New South Wales Senior Australian of the Year for her work for the Islamic Women's Welfare Association. Penny Kioussis and Christina Efthymiades are of Greek heritage and provide community assistance through their work with St Nectarios parish. Anna Wang and Dr David Tang have two things in common: their families fled Vietnam and they own thriving small businesses. Anna is Australia's most renowned wedding planner, and Dr Tang is the local GP in Homebush West. Alice Kang came to Australia as a nursing student and has dedicated her life to supporting our veterans. Dinesh and Usha Garg from the Strathfield Australians of Indian Sub-Continental Heritage, the many representatives of the Hindu Council of Australia, Aruna Chandrala and Sris Ponniahpillai, are all extraordinary advocates for the subcontinent communities. Shan Gao and Michelle Zhang set up the Rhodes Multicultural Community Association. The team at Asian Women at Work have spent 30 years providing help to migrant women in low-paid employment. Under the leadership of Gabriel Kang and James Choi, the Australian Korean Association of Sydney has played a pivotal role in supporting Korean-Australians. Jo Di Giacomo and Marie Piccin are of Italian heritage and have turned their success in business into service for the community: Joe by establishing Ferragosto, Sydney's biggest Italian festival, and Marie through her work with A Bloody Great Cause, a cancer charity.</para>
<para>After the events in Victoria last week, where we saw people displaying Nazi salutes and symbols of hate, it's important to remember we all have a role to play to make everyone feel welcomed here. I'm grateful to the big-hearted locals who work so hard to embrace inclusion and to make our culture the lovely place it is—people like Lance Brooks, who set up Communities for Communities; Justine Perkins, founder of Touched by Olivia; and Vicki Liubinskas, founder of Let's Get Going. They all believe that everyone, regardless of ability, should have fun and adventure in their lives. These are just some of the wonderful people in my electorate who I have had the opportunity to meet. They come from different backgrounds and cultures and may have different religious beliefs, but they are all Australian and bound by the desire to give back to our community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Menzies Electorate: Schools</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My electorate has 44 schools, and one of the first things I did as a member was to launch an award called the Menzies Shield, which is an award for citizenship, leadership or another category that the school picks. The other benefit of visiting those schools in the assemblies is that I have often been invited to speak to children, particularly in primary schools but also in some secondary schools. Recently I've spoken to children at St Anne's in Park Orchards, Carey Baptist Grammar School students here in parliament, Donvale Christian College students, Templestowe Valley Primary School students, Whitefriars Catholic College students and St Kevin's Catholic Primary School—and many others last year as well.</para>
<para>There's no greater privilege than standing in front of a whole assembly of students. When they get asked to put their hands up, it's what I imagine the full press gallery would be like if they were all together, except I think the students' questions are better. They're unfiltered and they're straight from their hearts about what they think is important. Some of them are like this: 'What made you want to become a member of parliament?' The answer I give is that it's a great honour to serve. I wasn't born here, and I always look for opportunities to give back. I think serving in this place is one of the greatest honours we all can have. They also ask questions like, 'How much do you get paid?' The answer is: enough. We get paid more than most Australians, to the point where we don't worry as much as others do.</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The gallery is complaining! They ask, 'How often do you speak to the Prime Minister?' I said I have spoken to him three times in the most unusual circumstances, in the parliament; I've asked him three questions, although yesterday I did bump into him in the corridor and got a nod. Maybe I will speak to him in person one day.</para>
<para>Some ask what I did before politics. They ask questions like, 'What was war like?' I tell them truthfully there were some awful days, but there were many more that I remember fondly, especially the people I got to serve with and the chance to lead young, brave Australians. That was one of the greatest honours of my life. They ask about my time at McDonald's. They say: 'Did you get to make what you like? Is soft serve really made of ice cream?' I won't give away those secrets, but I think it's an important question.</para>
<para>They ask if I have kids and whether I miss them. Yes, I do, and I do miss them. But they know that my coming here is a great honour for our family and for our country. They say, 'What do you enjoy most about being a member of parliament?' It's the chance to serve and to make a difference. It's also the citizenship ceremonies where you see people come to this country, so excited about the opportunities that are before them. Finally I say that I love being here. I love being here and speaking to you and answering your questions. Thank you.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cowan Electorate: Westnam United Soccer Club</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to acknowledge the great work of Ted Nguyen and the Westnam United Soccer Club in Cowan, who are doing some great work in empowering young women among the Cowan community.</para>
<para>We know that sport isn't just about physical activity—certainly not for me—or competition. It can be a means of personal growth and, of course, confidence building and team building. This is particularly true for young women, who can often face societal barriers to inclusion. Sports can be a very effective mechanism for empowering them. Beyond personal development, sport also provides young women with a sense of community and a sense of belonging. When they join sporting teams, they become part of a supportive network of peers and mentors, who can help them to navigate some of the challenges that they face both on the field and off the field. And through sports young women can learn to work collaboratively and they can develop leadership skills, both of which are critical for success in any professional field that they may choose to pursue.</para>
<para>I think all of us in this place recognise the economic and social impact that sports participation can have on young people and—in the case of Cowan—on young women in the electorate that I represent. That's why I was so pleased that Westnam United have created a young women's team, which they launched late last year. I congratulate Bweh Say, who has been elected as the captain of the team. She's done some really tremendous work in helping the club and the Cowan community to set up a platform for girls to participate in football—or soccer, as we know it in Australia.</para>
<para>Like the electorate of Cowan, the women's team is diverse. The players in the women's team were born in places throughout Asia, throughout Africa and, really, all over the world. Late last year, the women's team had a fantastic debut in the 2022 Perth African Nations Cup, which we know as the PAN Cup, where they represented Guinea. They finished up in second place in the women's division. I had the absolute privilege of attending the finals, because it is literally just across the road from my house, and I'm extremely proud of that team and the results. This year the team represented Vietnam in the 2023 Perth World Cup. I wish them the very best in the upcoming Perth Women's World Cup later this year, something I'm sure they're very hard at work training for.</para>
<para>It's an honour and privilege to have worked with Westnam over the years, and, as the member for Cowan, I'll continue to support them in all their endeavours and thank them for what they do for the Cowan community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dawson Electorate: Road Safety</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILLCOX</name>
    <name.id>286535</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to express the shock I'm in that the Queensland Minister for Transport and Main Roads last week re-announced the $12 million federal contribution and $3 million state contribution to the Bruce Highway Goorganga Plains Upgrade project. Back in 2018, while I was mayor of the Whitsunday Regional Council, I successfully secured $12 million—the same $12 million—from the coalition government for flood mitigation at Goorganga Plains.</para>
<para>In the north we have wet seasons and it's not uncommon for flooding to occur. Goorganga Plains, on the Bruce Highway, is renowned for flooding almost every year. When Goorganga Plains floods, the Bruce Highway is cut, and people are cut off from their loved ones and cut off from emergency services, produce can't get to market and food supplies cannot be brought up from the cities. The need to address people being cut off from emergency services and family is extremely urgent, yet the Queensland Labor government has sat on $12 million worth of federal funding for five years. Meanwhile, the residents of Dawson continue to suffer through unsafe flooding conditions.</para>
<para>This isn't the only funding the Queensland Labor government is sitting on for projects in my electorate. Back in 2019, the federal coalition government committed $29.6 million for Hamilton Plains. When it floods at Hamilton Plains, people in Cannonvale and Airlie Beach are cut off from the hospital and cut off from the airport and, of course, schools and businesses are affected. That's why the previous coalition government created the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative to support regional communities. I'm very proud to say that our side understands the importance of keeping people safe on our roads. Unfortunately, our side's hard work at lobbying has been gridlocked by the Palaszczuk Labor government's inability to manage money, inability to plan and inability to prioritise the regions over the south-east corner.</para>
<para>Last week's re-announcement was a very poor attempt at winning over locals who are frustrated at the Palaszczuk Labor government's inaction. The Premier and her ministers need to realise the people in my electorate are not silly and this does not go unnoticed. I am, once again, calling on the Palaszczuk Labor government to stop playing politics, look after our roads and use the money that you've been given by the coalition government to make sure that our road safety is a priority.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higgins Electorate: Carnegie Cricket Club, Early Childhood Education</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I had the pleasure of attending Carnegie Cricket Club's Past Players Dinner. The club is a 116-year-old establishment steeped in cricket history surrounded by quiet streets. I was warmly welcomed by club President Pat amidst an atmosphere teeming with camaraderie, inclusion and diversity. It's a place many proudly call their second family. Past players shared their connection, as evidenced by black-and-white photographs that trace the club's origins to 1907—but, perhaps, even further back to the late 1800s, thanks to digging in Trove. Dr Ben, a retired GP of 79-years strong, proudly pointed to his smiling teenage self on those walls.</para>
<para>A real treat was hearing from AFL retiree and local legend Lynden Dunn. I nodded as Lynden described his career pathway, starting in community sport, which imbued a sense of empowerment and resilience that helped mitigate some of the hurdles in his life. For Lynden, it was never about winning or losing but being grateful that he could participate. No price tag can be placed on the importance of belonging found in these places, an honest reflection of the profound social and physical advantages of immersion in community sport. A first for me was discovering that the club is currently at membership capacity, which is a testament to its reputation and culture.</para>
<para>I want to also use this opportunity to pay homage to early childhood educators in my electorate. As you know, they are an asset to our community and nation. This was reflected in our largest on-budget spend of $5 billion in the October budget. In my electorate, I have around 70 childcare centres, and they are all different. Some have playgrounds inside, others outside. Some have water features. One even has a dry river bed and some reptiles kept in a glass cage. But, what is universal to all of these childcare centres is the care and professionalism of the early childhood educators who look after these children. The work that they do cannot be underestimated or understated.</para>
<para>The early years, as you know, are critical years, and they start from before conception in what are called the preconception-years period all the way through the first five years. That is a period of maximal brain growth, a time when one million neural connections are forming every second in children's brains, so a massive amount of learning is going on at that time. What is toxic to those brands is chronic stress. So what these centres provide children is stimulation and experiences and positivity, enabling them to form those relationships that will create the foundation for a healthy and productive life later on.</para>
<para>I also had the privilege of hosting an early-years round table in my electorate. This will, in turn, feed into our national strategy, which elevates the importance of our early educators in my community and nationally.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As has been spoken about a number of times in this place over recent weeks, we are well aware the sad fact is that 21 per cent of households across Australia are experiencing some form of food insecurity. I've seen firsthand families in the Logan community struggling with the rising cost of living, and, as we've seen in recent days, that's only going to get worse. Sadly, for the families to try and make ends meet and pay the bills, people have had to skip meals, to go without food for days.</para>
<para>I'm sure everyone would agree that this is simply unacceptable and something needs to change and change fast. Across our electorates, we have many terrific and wonderful community organisations that seek to help people in need out. One amongst many of those great community organisations in my electorate is the Loganlea Community Centre, and I had the pleasure of catching up with them last week. Usually the community pantry is full to the brim with non-perishable goods that those in the community who are doing it tough can access, but, sadly, those pantry shelves look rather bare at the moment because of the needs of the community. I was pleased to be able to present them with a few boxes of goods to restock their shelves in a little way. President Karen Hook and her team, just like many other charity groups in Logan, are struggling simply to keep up.</para>
<para>In addition to the need for non-perishable items, there's also a growing need for fresh fruit and vegetables. Just like many families, these community groups are struggling to keep up with the increasing cost of getting those goods into their pantries in the first place. But there is some good news for our community, in that Loganlea State High School has been working quietly over the last couple of years with the Mini Farm Project to set up a mini farm at the school. The beauty of this mini farm project is that the food the students are growing will be donated directly back to local charities, such as the Loganlea Community Centre, to provide fresh food to those who are vulnerable and need to continue to access good quality food at affordable prices. The mini farm project is currently producing fresh beetroot, lettuce, carrots and turnips, and during the cooler months the students plan to grow broccoli, cauliflower—and maybe even some kale for those who are so inclined.</para>
<para>To principal Brenton Farleigh and the whole team at Loganlea State High School, I say thank you for your efforts with the mini farm. We look forward to your continued success. Also, thank you to the Loganlea Community Centre for your great work.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over recent times there has been much discussion about soaring gas prices, rising energy costs and, now, Australia heading for a looming gas shortage. The situation defies logic. Australia has plenty of gas and is the world's largest exporter of LNG. In 2020-21, Australia produced 5,730 petajoules of gas. Of that, 1136 petajoules were consumed locally, with 390 petajoules, or just seven per cent of total production, used for domestic electricity generation.</para>
<para>Cost of living is the critical issue facing most Australian people right now. High energy prices directly cause cost-of-living increases and push up inflation. Inflated gas prices have been a key factor in rising energy costs. Right now throughout the world, gas producers are profiteering from a lucrative gas market. According to one report, here in Australia in 2021-22, LNG producers made up to $40 billion of windfall profits while paying next to nothing in tax. Not surprisingly, gas producers are keen to get hold of more gas, which they can then sell very profitably on the world market.</para>
<para>Claims that Australia is facing a gas shortage and that we need more gas supplied into the market if we want prices to come down are nothing more than part of a manipulative campaign by the gas industry, which is trying to force governments into approving more gas fields. It is a claim often perpetuated by some of those members opposite.</para>
<para>Australian gas in an Australian resource. No other country would allow its people to be exploited by the gas producers in the way that is happening here in Australia. Western Australia got it right when they introduced a gas reservation policy which included price controls. We are seeing the effects of that right now, where their gas pricing is very different to that on the eastern side of Australia. Members opposite, instead of protecting the interests of a handful of very profitable gas companies, should stand up for the tens of thousands of other businesses that they claim to represent and the Australian people who are being gouged by Australia's gas cartel. They should stop giving credibility to the dishonest claims of the gas sector.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>StGiles Society</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In 1937, as the polio pandemic took hold across the world, our isolated state of Tasmania was not immune, with the disease affecting over 2,000 adults and children across the state, resulting in 81 deaths. One bright light during this bleak time was the establishment of St Giles, a service provider for Tasmanians living with disability and one of only a handful of disability organisations across the country that still exists 85 years later.</para>
<para>At the height of another global health crisis, COVID-19, St Giles began to collect interviews from our Tasmanian community who are closely connected with the organisation, culminating in a wonderful exhibition at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery titled <inline font-style="italic">Face</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time</inline><inline font-style="italic">:</inline><inline font-style="italic"> 27 </inline><inline font-style="italic">S</inline><inline font-style="italic">tories of St</inline><inline font-style="italic">Giles</inline> with stunning photography from Scott Gelston. Face time has also been published as a book, with the interviews compiled by local writer Bridget Arkless. It is a wonderful read, telling the stories of current and former participants, staff and board members of this beloved organisation. There are many moving interviews, but I was especially struck by the interview with Arthur Dobson, Life Governor Emeritus, who first came to St Giles as a child recovering from poliomyelitis in the 1950s and went on to become a board member from 1978 to 2007. Arthur tells of his time of living at St Giles as a child for around two years as his family lived on a farm in Hagley, which 70 years ago was a long way from Launceston. 'I have nothing but good memories of my time at St Giles,' Arthur said, reflecting on the strong sense of community at the time. And reflecting on the organisation today: 'St Giles still does the best that it can and in a very different climate. It still puts kids first as much as it possibly can. I have utmost respect for the organisation.'</para>
<para>Though all the faces of St Giles featured in the book deserved to be highlighted individually the time constraints here make it somewhat difficult, but I'd like to give a shout-out to the wonderfully exuberant George Van Dijk, who was a participant for almost 20 years and is a wonderful addition to my office as he recently joined me as a volunteer; and to Andrew Billing, who recently stepped down as CEO. Andrew, thank you for your leadership of St Giles, particularly through the pandemic. Our community is so appreciative.</para>
<para>It would be remiss of me to talk about St Giles without touching on the challenges that they're currently facing as a provider, largely due to the NDIS funding structure. This has put immense financial pressure on them. While actively working on plans to strengthen and diversify their funding streams, they are in need of more immediate assistance. I've been working closely with interim CEO Honni Pitt to advocate for their needs. And I appreciate the time that Minister Bill Shorten has already given me as I advocate on behalf of the organisation to find a pathway forward.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to talk about an issue that I think every member of this place and every member of the parliament is grappling which is how we help Australians with housing affordability. In my electorate people are really being pushed, not only with the rising interest rates, but also with the rising rents. Clearly with the rising interest rates there is an increase in the amount of repayments that people are making. I believe that that's having a flow-on effect with the rental market. It's hard to measure exactly what's happening, but some of the economics that I see playing out are that while the price of housing might be coming down slightly, the price of repayments is remaining steady and high, and for many people they are going up. The flow-on effect is that a lot of people are being pushed into the rental market. Post COVID we have brought back a lot of people into our labour markets, which is making the rental vacancy rates extremely low. In my electorate what that means is that we have people in St Kilda whose rents have gone up by 20 to 40 per cent. In Southbank, one of the iconic parts of my electorate, rents are going up dramatically. In many parts and in many places we are hearing of rent prices going up by 40 per cent. It is not only a huge pressure on people and on workers to be able to pay their rent, as the first point, but also a huge pressure for people that will mean that getting into the housing market is going to become less and less attainable.</para>
<para>There are no easy fixes, but one of the things that we have to do is work with our states and territories to ensure that protections for renters are as strong as they can be, but also work with states and territories to build as many homes as we possibly can. We need to be working together across all layers of government to ensure the maximum amount of housing supply. We have an opportunity to get the federal government back to the table on the affordability of housing with the Housing Future Fund that will literally put half a billion dollars of federal government money to complement the states and territories into the construction of social housing, into the construction of affordable housing, domestic violence shelters, housing for veterans. It's so important that we build as many homes as we can, or we face Australians facing even more pain in an already pressurised housing environment.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has now concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>119</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6964" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>119</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government is committed to ensuring strong and appropriate oversight of our nation's intelligence agencies. These agencies play a critical role in keeping Australians safe and in protecting Australia's national interest. Effective oversight of these agencies is critical to building and maintaining trust among Australians, something I'm very cognisant of as the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Our committee—the PJCIS, as it's known—plays an important role in the oversight of agencies comprising our intelligence community including ASIO, ASIS, AGO, DIO, ASD and ONI. The role we play in the oversight of these agencies as parliamentarians is critical to ensuring their activity and their powers meet community expectations.</para>
<para>In this place we often talk about the declining trust in democratic institutions and government in an abstract way, as if it's effect is only realised in key moments of cumulative disruption. But it is critical to the everyday work of these agencies that we in the government and the dedicated public servants who dedicate their careers and lives to our national interest. Without the faith and cooperation of the broader public, their work and, as a result, our national security are by necessity weakened. This is the importance of oversight. It's not about denigrating the hardworking Australians of our national security agencies. It's not about casting them all with stereotypes from what we may see in the movies and being misinformed by that type of misinformation. It is really about empowering them to go about their work with the faith of the Australian public, who largely not only support their important work but are also immensely grateful for the contribution they make to our safety. In leading the work of the parliament's intelligence oversight committee, articulating and advancing that principle is key to its success. There is a significant amount of good faith and cooperation that goes on behind the scenes to ensure the proper oversight and trust in our agencies. And a lot of that cooperation comes from those agencies, who know this is important for the integrity of the work they do</para>
<para>I reflected on the bipartisan nature of the committee in the past and I would reiterate again the importance of that bipartisanship on the intelligence committee. I think it's probably true to say—this is not a comment on other committees but with the PJCIS—there has been a tradition of leaving partisan politics at the door, because all the members recognise the critical importance of the work that they do in that committee to the national interest and to our national security. That doesn't mean there's not disagreement, certainly not. In fact, there is very robust debate and very often clear differences in views on the substance of the issues, on the execution, on the outcomes and so on. But, at least in my experience on the committee, there has been a good-faith effort made by all members, regardless of their political persuasion, to work as much as possible to reach a consensus on the very important issues that we put to government because, at its heart, we recognise that the work we do is of critical importance to our national security and to our national interest. No matter what side we sit on in this place, I believe that we all share a fundamental commitment to the peace and prosperity of our nation. That's, at its core, something that we all agree upon.</para>
<para>That cooperation extends to our agencies themselves and the people who engage with our committee as we go about our work. I want to highlight and thank the agencies for their professionalism in engaging with our committee and other oversight bodies. The workload is already significant for the agencies. as is the workload for our committee, the PJCIS. In that light, the cooperation and assistance with the functions of the committee demonstrate the high degree of professionalism and pride that guides their work.</para>
<para>So I wanted to contextualise my remarks on this bill today in this way, because, having worked in the national security and foreign policy space for over two decades, I know the critical work that goes on each and every day in our security and intelligence agencies. I also know that it's often a thankless job, done behind the scenes without much fanfare and certainly with no media attention on it, or at least no big pats on the back, if you like, in a public sense. And success is often measured in prevention. It's often measured around what doesn't happen, which is always very difficult to quantify, in a sense. So, it can be and has been an easy target for criticism, sometimes misdirected, in disagreements over policy rather than matters of operational substance.</para>
<para>Unequivocally, I want to recognise and thank the members of all of our intelligence, security and national security agencies today. No-one really needs to tell us how important their work is. I know how important their work is. They go about their job every day, intentionally forgoing recognition or public praise to get the job done. That's really important to recognise. I also want the agencies and the some 8,000 public servants—and that's what they are: 'servants' of the nation—to know that in legislating oversight arrangements your contribution is highly regarded and appreciated in this place. Supporting the work that those intelligence agencies do—all of those 8,000 public servants—and the Australian public's faith in it are key objectives of the federal government.</para>
<para>The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the IGIS, plays a critical role in overseeing the activities of Australian intelligence agencies through looking at the legality, the propriety and the consistency of human rights as well. This bill that we are debating amends the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, the IGIS Act, and makes consequential amendments to related Commonwealth legislation to clarify and strengthen the IGIS's powers. The vast majority of the measures in this bill have been previously reviewed and unanimously supported by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS—our committee. This bill will ensure that the IGIS's current legislative framework is adapted to contemporary circumstances and continues to facilitate effective oversight. As I said upon presentation of the PJCIS report on our inquiry into this bill in the House, the committee expressed its support for the measures in the bill that will enhance the oversight of Australia's intelligence agencies by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.</para>
<para>This bill will provide IGIS officials with powers to access information that is required as part of their oversight role. It includes the power to enter and remain on any premises, to have full and free access to any information and to make copies or take extracts from documents held by those agencies. It also improves information-sharing mechanisms, ensuring that the IGIS is able to share information, subject to appropriate safeguards, with other Commonwealth integrity bodies, including the Commonwealth Ombudsman.</para>
<para>These amendments will support integrity bodies to obtain information that is required for their oversight purposes and strengthen the IGIS's ability to coordinate with other integrity bodies. They will also make clear 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, which has been the previous practice. It required the Human Rights Commission to refer any particular case to the IGIS. As someone who has spoken out numerous times in parliament and in public about the promotion and protection of human rights, I will note how much I support this reform which makes clear our commitment to advancing the cause of human rights not only abroad but also here at home</para>
<para>This bill also provides important protections for whistleblowers to fully disclose information to the IGIS without fear of breaching strict secrecy provisions or committing an offence. This will facilitate continued effective oversight by ensuring IGIS officials can receive and have full access to the information they require to perform their oversight role.</para>
<para>I commend the Attorney-General for his role in advancing these critical reforms and I extend my thanks to those who participated in the PJCIS inquiry into this bill, many of whom also play an important role in defending our national security. I commend the Albanese government for its strong commitment to Australia's national security and to strengthening faith in our institutions with these appropriate oversight mechanisms. Again, I thank the 8,000 people who work in the intelligence and security community for their commitment, their dedication and their work, which often is not praised publicly, as I said earlier, and not even noticed or talked about publicly but which plays such an important role in advancing Australia's national interests and keeping Australians safe.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I congratulate the member for Wills not only on his role as the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security but also for his lifelong commitment to serving our nation in many ways. He is right to point out and recognise the 8,000 people who serve in our agencies. They don't get to march on Anzac Day. They don't have memorials. Often their friends and family don't know exactly what they do every day. There are many times that they have protected us and kept us safe, and only they know. We thank them for that. Not all of their work is nine to five. A lot of it is dangerous work outside of hours and it is difficult, so it is important that we acknowledge them.</para>
<para>I also congratulate the member for Wills, particularly, on your role as the chair of the PJCIS. It's an important parliamentary committee, and it's an important recognition that the parliament, as a separate branch, has a role in the oversight of the executive branch. The way that committee conducts itself is the gold standard. I, and the member for McNamara, opposite, on one of the newer committees, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the PJCNAC, can learn a lot from your committee on bipartisanship and on our commitment to making sure another key institution serves this nation as well as it can. We'll certainly take that with us going forward.</para>
<para>The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022 amends the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 to modernise the legislation that provides for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Before I go through the background, I will note that with a lot of bills there are discussions about the human rights implications. The member for Wills singled out some of the human rights implications. There is an important point to be made. Often the Australian Human Rights Commission, when it makes a submission, notes that we don't have a charter of rights. There is an implication there that the only way to protect rights is through a charter of rights and through the courts and through lawyers. I think that misses a key point, which is that the obligation to protect human rights is an obligation on everyone, including the parliamentary wing of government and the executive branch. Human rights don't disappear just because they're not able to be litigated in a court. So when we speak of a charter of rights or that submission is made, it's really talking about who decides how rights are protected. That often means balancing competing rights. How do you balance competing rights? It's not an easy thing. There is a role for the courts and there is a role for judges, but when it comes to balancing all of the other considerations that we have, I think the parliament, which is accountable to the people in elections and through the media between elections, has a very important role. We should never forget that in the debate about a charter of rights.</para>
<para>The IGIS is an independent statutory office, and it oversees the following agencies: ASIO, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation and its predecessor. I remember that we would often go to them to produce maps, and they would constantly remind us: 'We do so much more than maps.' One day we walked into the operations room and there was this 3D model of a whole area we were looking at in Afghanistan. That was 10 years ago, so I wonder what they would produce now. There's also the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Office of National Intelligence and the Defence Intelligence Organisation.</para>
<para>The IGIS will have oversight jurisdiction over the use of the network activity and warrants by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and the Australian Federal Police. The act will empower the IGIS to conduct inquiries into alleged misconduct. It's an important check on power, and its purpose is to protect human rights. This allows the IGIS to ensure propriety and compliance with laws, ministerial directions and guidelines and consistency with human rights. When we go back to acknowledging and thanking the 8,000 members of the agencies, all of them are human too. Humans make mistakes and errors, so this oversight function is extremely important.</para>
<para>You cannot have an oversight function without strong investigative powers. They are similar to those of a royal commission. They include powers to summon witnesses, to question under oath, to enter the premises of intelligence agencies and to access all relevant information and documents. When you think of the agencies that the IGIS will have oversight over they are quite extraordinary powers, and they are warranted. The IGIS will have significant resources to direct investigations and to identify issues before the need for major remedial action. That's an important point. It's not just about addressing problems after they've happened; it's about trying to pre-empt them before they do.</para>
<para>This bill updates the IGIS Act to bring it in line with modern drafting standards. Importantly, it also implements two recommendations of the Richardson review, which I'll briefly summarise. Recommendation 172 deals with the IGIS's independence and eligibility to be appointed. The IGIS is appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, who must first consult with the opposition leader. That is a very important part of this process. I look to the member for Macnamara and say that perhaps that's something that should be occurring for the NACC commissioner, but that's not what has happened. The IGIS Act guarantees the tenure of the IGIS for a fixed term of appointment, with limited grounds for termination. From the judicial branch of government we know that tenure is a key part of independence, and that is important here too. The act confers broad powers on the IGIS to obtain information as discussed and also allows the IGIS to investigate matters and conduct inquiries on their own-motion powers. That is important. It can't just be that you rely upon a whistleblower or on something coming to your attention.</para>
<para>These provisions ensure that the IGIS is able to act independently. In reality we know that much of the actual and perceived independence of an officeholder depends not upon the act and not upon the institution but on the individual's character. Are they a good person? The people we put in these positions are human, with all of the biases and flaws that humans have. We must acknowledge that. The person who occupies this position is just as important as the institution. It is appropriate for there to be some distance between the head of the oversight body and the agencies within that person's remit. It would not be appropriate to appoint a person as the IGIS if their immediate prior role was as a head or deputy head of an agency within their jurisdiction. That's just common sense. That would be an obvious bias, or at least a perception of bias. That was the position taken in the Richardson review, and it is the coalition's position.</para>
<para>I'll conclude with the other Richardson review recommendation, which is recommendation 174. This recommendation relates to inquiring into employment related grievances for staff of the ONI, the Office of National Intelligence. Employment related grievances mean things like complaints about promotion, termination, discipline, remuneration and other similar matters that affect work. It might be that Joey has left his lunch in the fridge for too long and everyone is getting a little bit upset with that. You never know what a grievance matter constitutes. For most employees in the Public Service there is a process, and that's under the Public Service Act. But staff at the ONI are not necessarily employed under that act; they are employed under the Office of National Intelligence Act, so there's no path of redress for them. This recommendation bridges that gap.</para>
<para>Finally, there are a number of duplications that are addressed here. There are many other integrity bodies which have jurisdiction, and that has been addressed too. The Richardson review noted, for example, that the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the IGIS had oversight of the same agencies. This creates the potential for duplication. Where there is a potential for duplication there is a potential for conflict, miscommunication, misunderstanding and waste. There is an onus on all of us to reduce waste in government, and this is an example of that. That duplication will be addressed and there will then be consistency in terms of the treatment of the agencies within the jurisdiction. It will be able to inquire into DIO, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, and the Office of National Intelligence, ONI, and that brings the treatment of the agencies into line with the treatment of others within IGIS's remit.</para>
<para>When it comes to due diligence in national security measures, in principle many of these measures are sensible and were previously considered by the PJCIS. The PJCIS supported the Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill 2020, and many of the measures now before the House are therefore uncontroversial. Unlike the coalition's integrity measures bill, this bill does not bring AUSTRAC or the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission within the remit of IGIS. We do submit that this is an oversight. It's a significant one because that function of enquiring into a decision in relation to an Australian government security clearance of the highest level is an important one. The bill confers jurisdiction to inquire into acts and practices that may be inconsistent with or contrary to a human right. The coalition had previously proposed a similar function, with the key difference being that a referral from the Australian Human Rights Commission would be required, and that filter is not applied in this bill.</para>
<para>We submit that it's appropriate for a parliamentary committee to give the bill scrutiny, and it will allow all of us in this place to understand the effect of the changes. It is a matter of good practice for due diligence. Australia's national security architecture is too important to simply change without carefully considering the consequences. The risk of unintended consequences is high. That is why we say this bill should be considered by a committee, and, subject to that committee inquiry, the coalition will support the measures of this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm particularly glad my colleague the member for Hasluck has arrived, because I don't actually have 15 minutes of contribution. I had threatened to start reading out large slabs of the submission in the committee's report if not—so there we go! I want to record a few brief comments. This is a critically important institution, as previous speakers have rightly acknowledged, albeit in varying levels of soporific tones—such is the nature of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022. I'm not having a go at you, actually, Keith!</para>
<para>It oversights Australia's intelligence and security agencies, the IGIS does—the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, funnily enough, if the clue wasn't in the name. But these agencies have enormous and deeply intrusive powers which, unchecked, unmonitored or misused, could genuinely threaten the foundations of our democracy and our self-conception and reality of a liberal society. I'm pleased to serve as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Constantly—pretty much every meeting, really—through that committee's work we're reviewing government national security legislation and undertaking regular statutory reviews, scheduled reviews of existing national security legislation and the statutory obligations to oversight the intelligence and security agencies. Through all of those aspects of our work, we're constantly grappling with the tension and imperfect balance between collective security and individual liberty, which are deeply complex matters. There's often no perfect answer; it's about where you draw the balance and where you draw the line.</para>
<para>The PJCIS was the successor to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, which was introduced by Prime Minister Bob Hawke in 1988, to his credit, with a degree of courage to take on then institutional resistance to the establishment of that committee because it was directly not recommended in the Hope royal commissions. Prime Minister Hawke made what I think was the right call. In the long run, strengthening democratic oversight and parliamentary oversight of the intelligence and security agencies was both the right thing to do from a democratic point of view but also, importantly, over time it is a protective factor for those agencies. Dealing with the heads of the agencies, they certainly profess that and, I think, believe it in their acknowledgement that the work of the committee strengthens their social licence to do what needs to be done. Hopefully it is a protective factor or a trust-building factor when mistakes occasionally are inevitably made and when they come to public light.</para>
<para>All of the agencies and all of the legislative work we do are balanced, at least in my mind, on three tests: is this necessary, is it proportionate to the risk and is it subject to effective oversight? The IGIS itself is necessarily powerful. It reports to ministers. The IGIS is not an officer of the parliament; it sits within the Prime Minister's portfolio. But the reports of the IGIS are classified and provided to the responsible ministers. They are a critical tool for ministers to be able to fulfil their responsibilities to oversight the agencies and to refer matters of concern.</para>
<para>The bill does two things. It seeks to strengthen the oversight arrangements for the inspector-general and ensure the enabling legislation is adapted to contemporary circumstances. This includes expressly empowering the IGIS and his staff to enter and remain on any intelligence premises, gain full and free access to any information and make copies or take extracts from documents held by the intelligence agencies. There are also amendments to clarify that whistleblowers are able to fully disclose classified information to the IGIS without breaching secrecy or unauthorised disclosure offences. The bill also implements two recommendations of the Richardson review, which was the full review, nerdy and long, of all of the intelligence and security recommendations which flowed out of the most recent review of the intelligence agencies, the Merchant and L'Estrange review from 2017.</para>
<para>Importantly, the implementation of those recommendations would see a preclusion on the appointment to the office of the IGIS of a person whose immediate prior role was the head or deputy head of an agency. I'd just draw the Chamber's attention to the recommendation of the committee. We had a look at this, and the committee's recommendation is that that go a little further—I'm not sure yet what the government's position on those amendments will be; hopefully we will deal with them in the Senate—and preclude the appointment of anyone who has worked in an intelligence agency for an appropriate period of time, and not just as head or deputy head. It's probably semantics, but there should be no reason to oppose that and make sure that that's an ironclad, watertight prohibition on a potential conflict. Secondly, the IGIS should be amended to give an inquiry function for employment related grievances of staff employed under the Office of National Intelligence Act, recommendation 174—yes, there were many hundreds of recommendations.</para>
<para>The only other thing I want to place on the record a few brief remarks about was that there was a bill in the previous term that lapsed. It contained the stuff that's in this bill but it also had a few other aspects, including an expansion of the jurisdiction of the parliamentary joint committee and the IGIS to cover all 10 agencies in the national intelligence community. There was a little bit of a divergence of view around some of this between the 2017 review of the intelligence agencies and the Richardson report. I'm really pleased that the Attorney-General has confirmed publicly that he is currently considering these issues. They don't form part of this bill consciously—it's not that the government has forgotten; it's a deliberate decision to not include those changes at this point, in this bill, because the Attorney is considering more broadly possible amendments to the Intelligence Services Act to deal with this and related matters.</para>
<para>I'll just place on the record that my preliminary view would be that the jurisdiction of the PJCIS and the IGIS does need to be extended to cover those agencies, but there's also the question of the PJCIS's relationship with the IGIS more broadly. And these are my views, not government policy. I don't see it as strictly necessary—and this contradicts the position of many senior people in the Labor Party in previous terms, but not all—that the PJCIS gain full operational oversight of the intelligence agencies. This has been a significant point of debate over the past decade or more. I've sort of shifted my view on that in recent years, having thought through it and having the experience of being on the PJCIS. I think that to do so risks Benghazi-style politicisation. That's not a final view, but I think there is a risk there.</para>
<para>And I think there's enormous information and resource asymmetry, frankly, between any group of busy parliamentarians and the many-thousand-strong secretive world of the intelligence agencies. I think it'd be almost impossible to set up a system unless you had a committee staffed with 40 or 50 staff who dealt with that information and resource asymmetry in a realistic and meaningful way, as well as the deeply complex and problematic secrecy issues, given what 'operational oversight' actually means and given the nature of what these agencies do and, frankly, the lives of Australians at risk if that secrecy is compromised.</para>
<para>I think that instead we could consider a stronger reporting line between the IGIS and the PJCIS. I just put that on the record as something I'm particularly attracted to. The parallel I'd draw in saying that is with the Auditor-General, who is an officer of the parliament and works on behalf of the parliament with a staff and a bunch of resources that the parliament gives the Auditor-General to oversight the public sector—the efficient, effective, economical and ethical use of taxpayer funds. I'd draw that parallel. The IGIS has the powers of a standing royal commission and works on behalf of the executive to interrogate and assure the legality and propriety of the intelligence and security agencies.</para>
<para>To close that loop, the PJCIS would be far better positioned to perform our statutory oversight role on behalf of the parliament if we had the benefit of a line of sight to more—perhaps not all, but most—of the IGIS's work. There'd need to be some appropriate redactions. But, as a committee member, I would feel far more confident in sitting there behind closed doors, sometimes for days on end, interrogating ASIO, ASD, ASIS and all the others if I knew what the IGIS was seeing in terms of breaches of law or systematic problems, be they cybersecurity, human issues or whatever, and feel far more assured that I could do the job that the parliament has appointed me and my colleagues to do on behalf of the parliament to oversight these agencies. There'd need to be appropriate redactions. We don't need to know every little spying operation and all that kind of stuff. Hence I'm sceptical about the need for full operational oversight. But it is about strengthening that line. At the moment there is no real formal reporting relationship. Indeed, worse than that, as the committee's report makes clear:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee is concerned about the growing restrictions on information sharing between this Committee and the IGIS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3.8 As discussed in Chapter 2 of the report, several provisions of the IGIS Act are prescriptive about the circumstances in which information can be shared, which, when aligned with the secrecy provisions contained in the Act, actively prevent the Inspector-General from sharing non-operational information with the Committee even when the information would be directly relevant to the functions of the Committee and the Inspector-General may be minded to share the information if not for legislative limitations.</para></quote>
<para>I just want to put that on the record. I trust that the Attorney will be thinking about these issues carefully, as he does. It seems to be low-hanging fruit to remove some of those limitations. But, to the greatest extent that we can colour in that line—what I'd describe as perhaps a solid dotted line, not a faint dotted line and not necessarily a hard line, between the IGIS and the committee—I think the parliament's need for assurance over the agencies would be much better served. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022. I do so after a couple of decades in the Defence Force in the signals intelligence community, in the Royal Australian Corps of Signals, from a tactical and operational perspective, so this is an important subject for me. The subject of classified material and intelligence security is uppermost in my mind. I reflect back to my time at the 7th Signal Regiment (Electronic Warfare) unit, based in Cabarlah in South-East Queensland. It is a role that 7 Sig has done for many decades—intercepting and prosecuting enemy transmissions in the area of operations in the defence of Australia.</para>
<para>Those young men and women that are up in that unit are often involved in what we call the black arts of defence, cloaked in secrecy and cloaked in security. Their stories often aren't told. But I want to make it very clear—I want to put it on the record today—that those young men and women of the 7th Signal Regiment and our signals intelligence operators are absolutely professional and force multipliers when it comes to prosecuting a target in the area of operations. They have saved lives on many, many occasions. They have been on every deployment and every operation, both disclosed and undisclosed. They use cutting edge equipment in satellite communications in tactical areas such as radio communications, broadband communications and the like. Together with the two-shop—that is, general intelligence—the formulation of that intelligence picture is then painted to the commander on the ground, which makes that commander's job that much more efficient and effective. So let me state that this is an important subject. This is important at the tactical level, but once we get above the operational level and start getting into strategic protection of intelligence, particularly signals intelligence, that is of the utmost importance for me.</para>
<para>This bill amends the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, the IGIS Act, to ensure that legislation governing the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, IGIS, is adapted to reflect contemporary circumstances. Everyone in this room and everyone in Australia understands the changes in geopolitical tensions throughout the region, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. Defence plays a big part in that, and intelligence is at the forefront of that defence. This includes technical amendments to clarify and to modernise drafting expressions and to remove redundant provisions, so it cleans the act up. The bill also provides amendments to ensure and enhance that IGIS's oversight functions and powers are maintained at all times and are commensurate to the risk. It's important to note that these measures do not seek to expand IGIS's jurisdiction—that's an important thing to have on the record—but merely to enhance IGIS's oversight of the agencies within existing jurisdiction.</para>
<para>Australia's dedicated oversight body, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, is crucial to our nation's ongoing security and maintenance of all types of classified material and intelligence. Created in 1986, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has become our independent watchdog over intelligence and security agencies more broadly. For 35 years, the inspector-general has performed a critical role in ensuring that Australia's intelligence agencies act legally and with propriety. The powers of the intelligence and security agencies have evolved significantly over this time and they continue to evolve. It's important that the inspector-general's powers and jurisdiction evolve commensurate to that. Our domestic and international threats have changed, as I said earlier, and the way in which intelligence and security manage those ever-present, ongoing threats has also changed in those 35 years, but the powers of the inspector-general have not changed to meet this evolution. It's therefore necessary and paramount that we make sense of the powers of the inspector-general and that they are adaptive and responsive to this rapidly changing environment.</para>
<para>To that end, I think this bill amends that and meets those challenges. It amends the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, the IGIS act, and other Commonwealth legislative frameworks to enhance the oversight of the Office of National Intelligence, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation and the Defence Intelligence Organisation.</para>
<para>Importantly, this bill also implements two recommendations of the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community. This was a wide-ranging review of Australia's laws governing intelligence and security, undertaken by former Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Chief Dennis Richardson. It was released in 2020.</para>
<para>Recommendation 172 deals with IGIS's independence and their eligibility to be appointed to IGIS. Recommendation 174 relates to inquiring into employment related grievances for staff at the Office of National Intelligence. The coalition agreed to both of these recommendations when in government, and we were pleased to see them implemented in this bill also. So, well done to the government.</para>
<para>In relation to PJCIS's examination of the bill, as the previous speaker has already alluded to, on 7 February PJCIS went through an extensive investigation of these matters. Government referred this bill to the PJCIS for inquiry and report. Subsequently, on 20 March, the report of the committee was tabled. The PJCIS made five recommendations, two of which are relevant to this specific bill, as far as I'm concerned. Recommendation 2 suggests amending the provisions around the aggregation of privilege so that they align with the privileges for other integrity agencies. Recommendation 4 suggests excluding people employed by any intelligence agency for an appropriate period of time. The government has indicated that it is not acting to amend the basis of these recommendations but will consider the recommendations, particularly recommendation 4, in the next tranche of IGIS legislation.</para>
<para>From our position, we support this legislation. We also note other matters raised by PJCIS, particularly the need for greater information sharing, as a previous speaker alluded to; greater sharing of intelligence and matters between IGIS and PJCIS; and the need for an expanded oversight of the PJCIS and IGIS to cover of the entirety of the national intelligence committee. I think it needs to have a holistic, strategic position in this big picture. That interface, between the committee and the commissioner, is absolutely paramount.</para>
<para>While I've learned from two decades of dealing with classified signals intelligence particularly is that the overclassification of those matters tends to lead to mistakes happening. We can be too secretive, we can be too cloaked and too compartmentalised. So I'm pushing for this particular recommendation, that the delineation of responsibility between the committee and the commissioner is highlighted, is clarified and is clear for all to see.</para>
<para>Finally, the government should give these matters serious consideration. I appreciate the chance to speak on this important matter and commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A rather poignant quote from the <inline font-style="italic">Canberra Times</inline> editorial in May 1984 reads:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The watchdogs have to be constantly watched. None the less watchdogs are necessary.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   …   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Liberty and security go hand in hand. Without liberty there can be no security; without security there can be no liberty.</para></quote>
<para>One of the key differences between a democracy and a totalitarian regime is the lack of effective oversight of the executive in the latter. This is an issue I spoke on about a fortnight ago in the debate on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill. Likewise, on the bill for the National Anti-Corruption Commission I opined that corruption undermines trust and trust is the basis of legitimate government.</para>
<para>This legislation is also about effective oversight, and of parts of the executive government that must by necessity conduct most of their operations secretly. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is a fundamental way in which trust is engendered in the workings of our security services. Integrity and respect are vital in our national institutions. Today, the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is headed by the Hon. Christopher Jessup KC and has broad support across the parliament, as we have heard from our previous speakers, as does the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which was established at the same time. But this was not always the case.</para>
<para>The Hope Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security was established by the Whitlam government in 1974 and reported in 1977. In 1986 the Hawke government enacted the legislation for an Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, which had been a recommendation of that commission. When the legislation was before the parliament in 1986 it was opposed quite vehemently by some members of the then opposition. The late Hon. Michael Mackellar, the Liberal member for Warringah, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I have great difficulty in accepting that the office, when it is established, will do anything but make it more difficult for ASIO to operate in a proper fashion.</para></quote>
<para>The Hon. Neil Brown, a former Liberal member for Menzies said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the very notion of having an Inspector-General to second guess an intelligence agency is utterly absurd and it is a severe restriction on its effectiveness. The powers to be given to the Inspector-General will negate a lot of the effectiveness of ASIO and its activities.</para></quote>
<para>The opposition spokesperson the late Hon. John Spender said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we certainly would not permit, in any legislation to be introduced into this House when we have the carriage of legislation, that there should be inquiries of the kind contemplated by the Bill, that is, inquiries into practices alleged to be contrary to human rights. It is perfectly absurd and quite obnoxious that that kind of inquiry should be directed against an intelligence organisation.</para></quote>
<para>Well, those fears have not been realised in the decades since the creation of this legislation. Former Labor Attorney-General Lionel Bowen, upon introducing the bill, said he believed: 'The creation of this office is a highly beneficial addition to the machinery of government.'</para>
<para>Interestingly, some commentators have suggested the rise of integrity agencies constitutes a new differentiation and separation of powers within our system of government. We have all grown up with the teaching that Australian system involves three heads of power—the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. However, integrity bodies such as IGIS and the new National Anti-Corruption Commission are not easily categorised under any of these. Perhaps we need to accept that our world has changed and so change the way we describe and teach about our separation of powers. Indeed, on the introduction of this amending bill, Attorney-General Dreyfus stated quite rightly that 'strong and effective oversight mechanisms do not stand in opposition to Australia's national security interests. They are best understood as an essential part of advancing them'.</para>
<para>Separate from the office of the IGIS and constituted by its own act, we also have Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, which reviews the operation, effectiveness and implications of national security and counterterrorism laws. The current Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is Mr Grant Donaldson SC. I agree with the Attorney-General on the need for strong and effective oversight organs.</para>
<para>In 2010 I was the principal policy adviser to three consecutive West Australian premiers on security and emergency management. These were the Labor premiers Gallop and Carpenter, and Liberal Premier Barnett. In that role I advised the premiers on our state responses to terrorism. I worked on committees supporting the national counterterrorism efforts and provided input to the COAG processes and decision-making, providing draft instructions on different laws both state and federal. As part of my role was working on the National Counterterrorism Legislative committee, I was specifically involved in the drafting of the Anti-Terrorism Act and the state-equivalent versions, particularly around preventative detention. I can share with the House that, during those deliberations, questions of safeguards and human rights were front and centre and the role of IGIS in ensuring propriety and respect for human rights was appreciated and valued—although, I must say, contested. This was at the time that David Hicks was still in Guantanamo Bay. We can recall the history and record of the struggle there was to restore his human rights and dignity and to return him to Australia. The extent to which the legislation was unified around the nation and reflected in state laws completely underpins the need for these oversight bodies.</para>
<para>The preventive detention laws, which refer back to the antiterrorism acts, enable a person to be detained without charge and without the knowledge of their family or their employer for a given period of time. I had the responsibility of inspecting the potential places where a person could be detained. I can't speak to it today, but certainly back then in jurisdictions like Western Australia the accommodation options were limited, particularly for women and juveniles. We are talking about extreme, draconian laws that we had to work through, and the only sense of a surety that the human rights of each individual would be observed within the constraints of trying to prevent an act of terrorism or to control a person who had committed an act of terrorism, where their freedom of movement would be limited, was to have the security inspector to oversight that activity.</para>
<para>With any security legislation—state or federal—there is a need for vigilance not only over the operations of those powers but also against the creep of powers. I know that in those extensive meetings we held framing, forming and drafting those laws we were very concerned that they were understood to be draconian, that they were only meant to be used in the context of terrorism. But since that time, I am sad to say, I have seen the laws stretched to be considered to be appropriate to apply to bikies. I have seen attempts to apply them to protesters. That was never the intention behind those laws. It is important that our security—</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called i</inline> <inline font-style="italic">n the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 10:52 to 11:03</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In a democracy we must minimise laws that can only be described as Draconian. It's all the more reason to have an oversight body to assist and provide feedback where operations fall short of the mark in any area. This amending bill helps to further empower the IGIS in reasonable and measured ways. I note that the Attorney General has flagged a number of other areas in the field of security which are under active review.</para>
<para>The inspector-general works in two main ways. Firstly, the office is empowered to conduct inquiries. The amending bill seeks to enhance the ability of the inspector to commence an inquiry. Secondly, the inspector conducts proactive inspection activities. Through both of these roles, the IGIS supports the creation of a culture of compliance within the intelligence organisations. There is also regular formal correspondence between the IGIS and each of the agencies. These points of contact and the ability of IGIS to make recommendations to the agency heads contribute to a more reflective intelligence service. Recommendations by the IGIS appear to be taken very seriously. It is important to note that the IGIS has the powers of a royal commission and can report his or her dissatisfaction to a minister and, albeit in a careful manner, in the annual report tabled to parliament. The IGIS is also able to provide feedback to the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.</para>
<para>The powers of the IGIS are a significant consideration which intelligence agencies must take into account when conducting their important work. In order to conduct their oversight role, IGIS officers are cleared and empowered to enter any Australian security agency and inspect the work being done, including emails, files, correspondence and other documentation. In relation to this task, I understand that IGIS is now building its own IT department, whereas it has in the past been reliant on the IT services of each agency.</para>
<para>Last year's annual report by IGIS disclosed that the organisation received hundreds of pieces of correspondence, 80 of which were ascertained to be complaints under the act. In relation to their oversight of each organisation, the reports on ASIO are demonstrative, with 21 inspections completed and 30 compliance incidents reported.</para>
<para>When we create security legislation and when we create legislation to provide oversight of our security apparatus, we are engaged in a balancing exercise. In a democratic society there must be ways to assure ourselves that our security agencies are acting with proprietary while at the same time allowing them to carry out their activities without the publicity that would render them less effective. In this balancing exercise there are a number of rights and interests that need to be considered, including the principles of the separation of powers, which I spoke to earlier, between the different branches of government, as well as the divisions of powers between levels of government within the federation, the accountability of government agencies' work practices within those agencies, civic and human rights and, of course, the right to protest.</para>
<para>The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, which commenced in 2010, was carried into being by the Attorney-General and the previous Labor government. The Attorney-General referred in his second reading speech on that bill to 'the balance between the liberties that Australians enjoy—indeed, the liberties that Australians have fought wars for—and the need for authorities to be armed'. We have separated the roles of overseeing the legislative framework by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and overseeing the operations of agencies by the IGIS. This separation is a good thing.</para>
<para>The modern role played by our security agencies is not easier than in the past. Researcher Ben Scott recently remarked:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The blurring of old distinctions between security, economics, development and technology is a recurring theme of the new geopolitics.</para></quote>
<para>Globalisation, economic interdependencies and an increase in cyber-interference and cyberattacks—sometimes state-sponsored—mean that it is more difficult terrain for our services to navigate. It is, in short, a more difficult world within which to write a credible spy thriller and a more difficult world in which to operate a security agency. I am satisfied that the system that we have here is working and that the amendments to this act will assist IGIS in its important work. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I start, I want to commend the member for Braddon, who spoke earlier and shared his experience in the Signals Directorate, for the words he spoke in thanking those men and women who do the service that they do and for the lives and safety that they provide for the Australian public. I want to echo his words and also thank him for sharing a bit of an insight into their work because, by its very nature, many Australians—myself included—don't know or understand the work they do. As with many great agencies, we don't know what they do and we hear about them only when things go wrong, so I want to echo the words of the member for Braddon.</para>
<para>When it comes to the intelligence and security of our nation, it is vital that our legislation remains modern so that our security and intelligence agencies can continue to operate with our nation's best interests in mind. It is crucial that the Australian public have trust in our security and intelligence agencies. The work of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Office of National Intelligence and the Defence Intelligence Organisation is often carried out in secret, and for good reason. But this means that many of the usual forms of democratic accountability—whether it be questioning in parliament, in the media or in reporting—are often not appropriate. That's where our dedicated intelligence oversight body, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, comes in.</para>
<para>Oversight mechanisms such as the Inspector-General exist to strike the right balance between national security and individual rights. It's a balance that can be hard to strike but it's important that we get that balance right. Our role as parliamentarians is to ensure that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is empowered to carry out its oversight functions, and the way we do that is through ensuring that our legislation is up to date. And just as the powers of intelligence and security agencies need to be updated as new challenges arise, particularly with the rapid rise of digital technology, we must ensure that the powers of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security are also updated to allow it to respond to new threats. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has significant investigative powers similar to those of a royal commission, including powers to summon witnesses, question under oath, enter intelligence agencies and access all relevant information and documents. This bill seeks to modernise the legislative framework to allow the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to continue its important and great work.</para>
<para>The bill implements two recommendations of the Richardson review, the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community. The first of these recommendations will prevent the head or deputy head of an agency within the jurisdiction of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security from being appointed as the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security immediately after serving in that position. We are of the view that it would not be appropriate to appoint a person to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security who was previously the head of one of the agencies that it oversees. And it is necessary that there is a distance between the head of the oversight body and the agencies within the remit. That was the position taken by the Richardson review and it's the position of the coalition. It's a sensible change to remove any perception of conflict of interest. This bill implements that change, and we welcome it.</para>
<para>The second recommendation from the Richardson review that this bill implements is to allow the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to consider employment-related grievances for staff of the Office of National Intelligence. This will resolve an oversight gap to ensure that staff employed under the Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 can access an independent review for employment grievances. As it stands, there is no pathway of redress for these workers. This bill will change that by filling the gap and ensuring that all workers have grievance mechanisms available to them. This is important work.</para>
<para>This bill will also allow the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to manage jurisdictional double-ups. There are a number of other integrity bodies that also have jurisdiction over some agencies within the remit of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The Richardson review noted, for example, that the Commonwealth Ombudsman and Inspector-General had oversight of the same agencies. This creates the potential for duplication of oversight. The bill will reduce this duplication by allowing the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to streamline information sharing between the bodies.</para>
<para>In short, many of the measures proposed by this bill are sensible changes that were previously considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Many of these measures were also previously contained in the coalition's Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill 2020. However, this bill is not the same as our bill. Labor's version does not bring AUSTRAC or the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission within the remit of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and we believe that it must.</para>
<para>This bill also admits the significant oversight function of inquiring into a decision in relation to an Australian government security clearance of the highest level. The bill confers jurisdiction to inquire into acts and practices that may be inconsistent with or contrary to a human right. The coalition had previously proposed a similar function, with a key difference: that a referral from the Australian Human Rights Commission would be required. That filter is not applied by this bill. The operational impact of these changes and the implication for Australia's national security architecture have not been scrutinised. Australia's national security architecture is too important to simply change without carefully considering the consequences. The risk of unintended consequences is too high. On 7 February, at the urging of the opposition, the government referred this bill to the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry and report, and the report of the committee was tabled on 20 March.</para>
<para>The PJCIS report made five recommendations, two of which are relevant to the bill: recommendation 2, which suggests amending the provisions around the abrogation of privilege so that they align with provisions for other integrity agencies, and recommendation 4, which suggests excluding people employed in any intelligence agency for an appropriate period of time. The government is not acting to amend on the basis of these recommendations but have indicated that they will consider recommendation 4 in the next stage of the IGIS legislation. We support this legislation. We also note other matters raised by the PJCIS, particularly the need for greater information sharing between the IGIS and the PJCIS and the need for expanded oversight of the PJCIS and the IGIS to cover the entirety of the national intelligence community. The government should give these matters serious consideration to strengthen the important framework that ensures that the Australian public has trust in its intelligence and security agencies.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022. Broadly, this legislation relates to the way our intelligence and security agents operate. I take this opportunity to endorse the words spoken by the member for Braddon today in this place and thank all those who serve our country through working in our intelligence and security agencies. Most of this work is necessarily done in secrecy, and it is therefore very important that the Australian public have trust and faith in our intelligence and security agencies.</para>
<para>I turn to the bill itself. The stated purpose of the bill is to amend the 1986 act and a number of other related acts. This will involve tidying up some administrative matters, including enhancing the Inspector-General's oversight powers, supporting appropriate information sharing by the Office of the Inspector-General and implementing two recommendations that came out of the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community. Particularly, those two recommendations related to the appointment of the IGIS Inspector-General and consideration of employment related grievances. The bill will also make consequential amendments to a range of legislation to ensure that information that is protected by existing secrecy offences under that legislation can be disclosed to IGIS officials who are performing duties or functions or exercising those powers as IGIS officials. For all the reasons that I'm now going to highlight, I support this bill.</para>
<para>Just broadly, the structure of the bill is divided into three schedules. Part 1 contains primary amendments to the IGIS Act, which the government states is aimed at improving and streamlining IGIS reporting and information-sharing procedures. It also seeks to modernise and clarify drafting expressions and removes some redundant provisions. Part 2 then contains consequential amendments to a wide range of related legislation, including the Australian Human Rights Commission Act, the ASIO Act, the Intelligence Services Act and the Office of National Intelligence Act. Schedule 2 includes amendments that, it's stated, are in line with the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022.</para>
<para>By way of background, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, which I have referred to as the IGIS, is an independent statutory holder in Australia established under the IGIS Act. It reviews the activities of Australia's intelligence and security agencies to ensure that they are acting with legality and propriety and consistent with human rights. The IGIS has the power to investigate complaints, conduct own-motion inquiries and conduct inquiries as directed by the minister and also has the power to access information held by intelligence agencies. This is obviously very important, and when accessing that information the IGIS has two main aims. These are, firstly, to ensure that the public interest in the proper functioning of the security and intelligence agencies is met and, secondly, to promote public confidence in the national intelligence community, known as the NIC. There are many acronyms within this legislation that I'm going to refer to.</para>
<para>In regard to the purposes and functions of the IGIS generally, the stated purposes of the IGIS include assisting ministers in oversight and review of a range of matters. These include things such as the legal compliance and the propriety of intelligence agencies, the effectiveness and appropriateness of the procedures of intelligence agencies and various other aspects that are incidental to the legal compliance issues. Another purpose of the IGIS is to ensure that the activities of intelligence agencies are in alignment with human rights. The IGIS also has the function of investigating Commonwealth agency intelligence or security matters, which can include agencies that are not intelligence agencies. The last stated purpose is to assist the government in assuring parliament and the public that there is scrutiny of intelligence and security matters associated with Commonwealth agencies, with a focus on intelligence agencies.</para>
<para>As you can see, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Stevens, the IGIS has very important purposes and functions. Generally, the IGIS reviews various intelligence agencies under its jurisdiction. These include ASIO; ASIS; the Australian Signals Directorate, ASD; the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, which is known as AGO; the Defence Intelligence Organisation, or DIO; and the Office of National Intelligence, ONI. Therefore, IGIS has oversight of network activity warrants by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and the AFP.</para>
<para>In fulfilling the purposes and powers to which I've just referred, the IGIS has the power to formally inquire into the activities of Australian intelligence agencies in instances of a complaint or of referrals from a minister. The Inspector-General can also initiate inquiries, conduct inspections, monitor agencies and, in some instances, investigate complaints. When conducting inquiries, the Inspector-General has the power, among others, to require the attendance of a witness, take sworn evidence, copy and retain documents, and enter the premises of Australian intelligence agencies, so it has very broad powers of investigation.</para>
<para>I am just going to speak now to the review of the legal framework of the national intelligence community. This is work that was commissioned by the then Attorney-General in May 2018 and was undertaken by Mr Dennis Richardson, AC. The terms of reference of the review provided that the review would comprehensively examine the effectiveness of the legislative framework for the NIC and prepare findings and recommendations for any reforms. The outcomes of the review were delivered in a report released by the then Attorney-General on 4 December 2020. With respect to the amendments contained in the bill on which I speak today, relevant recommendations included what I will call recommendation 172 and recommendation 174.</para>
<para>In detail, recommendation 172 provided:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act should be amended to preclude the appointment to the Office of the IGIS of a person whose immediate prior role was as head or deputy head of an agency within the IGIS' oversight remit.</para></quote>
<para>Recommendation 174 provided:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act should be amended to give the IGIS an inquiry function for employment related grievances of staff employed under the Office of National Intelligence Act.</para></quote>
<para>The government response to the report was released on the same day as the report itself. With respect to recommendations 172, the government at the time noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Agreed. The IGIS has a unique role as the primary body with responsibility for intelligence oversight. Accordingly, this additional safeguard on IGIS's independence (and perceived independence) is appropriate.</para></quote>
<para>Recommendation 174 was also agreed to by the government. The purpose of these recommendations is to allow the IGIS to ensure propriety and compliance with laws, ministerial directions and guidelines, and consistency with human rights.</para>
<para>The IGIS can make inquiries firstly of its own motion, secondly in response to complaints and thirdly in response to disclosures from members of the public, including current and former agency staff, under the PID Act 2013 or at the request of a responsible minister or the Prime Minister. The IGIS has strong investigative powers similar to those of a royal commission. As such, we have to ensure that there is integrity in the process and that we have confidence that the investigative powers of the IGIS are being carried out appropriately. Significant resources are directed towards ongoing investigation to identify issues before the need for major remedial action.</para>
<para>To conclude, this bill updates the IGIS Act to bring it into line with modern drafting standards. Importantly, it also implements two recommendations, recommendations 172 and 174, of the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community, also known as the Richardson review. I note this was work done under the former coalition government. The two recommendations were agreed by the previous coalition government, and the provisions are to ensure that the IGIS is able to continue to act independently. For all of the reasons I've already stated, I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022. Just as the powers of intelligence and security agencies need to be adapted from time to time to address new security challenges, the powers of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security must also adapt in response to the changing nature and activities of intelligence and security agencies.</para>
<para>The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act was enacted in 1986 and was designed for a smaller agency and a different Commonwealth integrity framework. This bill will enhance the inspector-general's oversight of the agencies within its existing jurisdiction—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 11:27 to 11: 38</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, this bill will enhance the inspector-general's oversight of the agencies within its existing jurisdiction, ensuring that Australian oversight functions are commensurate with the functions and powers of the intelligence agencies. Strong and effective oversight mechanisms do not stand in opposition to Australia's national security interests. They are best understood as an essential part of advancing them. To that end, this bill will bolster the ability of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to provide effective oversight of intelligence agencies within its jurisdiction.</para>
<para>I note that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security presented its advisory report on this bill to the House on Monday. The government will consider the committee's report and table a government response in due course. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>131</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6991" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>131</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The bill before the House, the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023, is a very exciting one. It will help unlock the potential of so many in our country to develop new ideas, to come up with inventions that will improve our world and to put Australia in a stronger position in terms of our reputation as a smart country with sovereign capability in ideas and innovation. Quite simply, this bill creates a new form of assistance under the Higher Education Loan Program to support participation in higher-education-based accelerator programs that will facilitate the development of the entrepreneurs and innovators of the future.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Chisholm we have a very strong foundation in ideas and innovation. We are home to the Burwood campus of Deakin University, which is, of course, the first international university to open a campus in India, an achievement of which we are all very proud, and to the expansive Clayton campus of Monash University. Monash is Australia's largest university. It is where I studied when I was an undergraduate and a place I visit often today. I am so fortunate to enjoy strong relationships with these institutions, and it is my great honour to advocate for excellence in higher education as the representative of the area these institutions are situated in. But they are not the only wonderful institutions in my electorate. We are also home to the Australian Synchrotron, to the CSIRO, to the Monash Technology Precinct and to so many other businesses and innovators working in the pharmaceutical sector, in medical technology, in defence technology, in advanced manufacturing and in medical research.</para>
<para>The ecosystem of talent we have in our electorate will only be enhanced by the Startup Year HELP initiative. This bill demonstrates our government's commitment to building a better future through supporting the higher education sector in a meaningful way, through championing ideas and Australian ingenuity and through having the patient to set up our communities and our country for the long term as a place of excellence for talent.</para>
<para>It is very clear that we need to diversify our economy. This has been the case for some time, but it was so starkly highlighted over the last few years as we experienced the shutdown of supply chains through the early era of the COVID crisis, and now we face continued disruptions as a result of the war in Ukraine. Like so many in our community, I was horrified to see the full extent of the failure during the previous, wasted, decade of government to ensure that our nation had the sovereign capability it needed to help our country, to help Australia get through a pandemic with local supplies. The pandemic laid bare the fact that our economy was not as strong as it could be, with missed opportunities for Australia to make things to export to the world, to diversify our economy and to grow our nation's wealth.</para>
<para>We know that in advanced manufacturing the multiplier effect across the economy is high, as high as 10 to one in certain sectors, and we know too that Australia is missing out because for far too long—shamefully too long—we have been governed by people who were short-sighted when it came to the potential of our nation. Previous governments were very short-sighted when it came to ideas, and higher education as a sector has been made poorer due to the wasted decade when those opposite were in government. We, on the other hand, are a forward-looking, optimistic government. This bill is about that. And other measures already initiated by our government, such as the National Reconstruction Fund, demonstrate our commitment to a prosperous, optimistic Australia.</para>
<para>We've done more to support manufacturing in our 10 months in government than those opposite managed to do in 10 years. Under their watch companies left Australia, causing devastation right across the supply chain and in our communities, as good, secure jobs were shed and the industries Australian governments should have supported, should have been proud of, were abandoned. And, of course, that includes the skills sector and higher education in all of that.</para>
<para>Let us too never forget the callous disregard those opposite had for international students during the early part of the pandemic, nor let us forget the exclusion, deliberately, of universities and academics from JobKeeper. That act damaged research in this country. It is an enormous shame that any government would be so deliberately destructive to our higher education sector, a sector of which we should be enormously proud and ensure we do everything we can to protect and support so that it has a strong future. A strong future for higher education is inherently good for society, for all of our communities and for the whole of Australia.</para>
<para>This bill helps us as a nation support our higher education sector through supporting institutions and students to make sure they have opportunities to pursue ideas, to reach their potential as leaders in business and innovation. This bill represents a truly bright moment for Australia. Investment in Australia's future entrepreneurs and business innovation leaders will help build a smarter, stronger and more innovative economy that attracts and retains talent. We want students to be equipped with the skills, experiences and capabilities to realise their own entrepreneurial endeavours and support our country in achieving our national priorities. Through this increased focus on university accelerators, higher education providers will be able to develop student skills and create a pipeline of aspiring entrepreneurs that will help shape a diverse and competitive economy. To do so, students need access to education that will advance their own careers and encourage an innovation driven Australia. These programs enable our future entrepreneurs to receive the support and the confidence they need to remain in Australia and found their startups. This culture begins with initiatives that signal government endorsement. Again, the contrast between the last 10 months and the last 10 years could not be clearer. We support higher education. We support a cultural change that values ideas.</para>
<para>Our government has engaged in an extensive stakeholder discussion process with universities, industry and students and what this has highlighted has been the appetite for expanded accelerator programs. Not only do these programs enable students to gain important skill sets that are really desirable to industry and future employers—and this is a topic that I speak with employers in my own electorate about very often—it also provides valuable communities, connections and networks for students. I reflect too on the technology precincts in my own electorate, again in terms of seeing how those communities, connections and networks are formed for students.</para>
<para>Startup Year will have a positive impact on the university sector, individuals and industry. This program will provide additional funding to participating universities to build and expand their existing accelerator program offerings. These loans will also encourage new entrepreneurs to build and innovate their ideas through financial support and access to world-class mentors and facilities. We need to remember too that we have some of the finest researchers in the world working in Australian universities. Again, that is something that we should be enormously proud of as a nation. Supporting startup creation and the skill set developed through accelerator programs will play a role in growing productivity and incomes and build a workforce with the skills and capabilities to adapt and thrive in the future labour market.</para>
<para>As noted before, this bill represents the work of a government that is committed to an optimistic future for Australia, with a diverse economy and a reputation as a smart nation. On average, across OECD countries, young firms account for approximately 20 per cent of employment and create almost half of all new jobs. In Australia, startups have a high impact on the creation of new jobs, and the Startup Year program will work to support this new growth. We've had really strong feedback and support from the sector during our consultations. A first-year pilot will be delivered to test aspects of program design, to engage student demand and to assess capacity to deliver the program. But this is a really exciting development, again demonstrating our commitment not just to higher education but to building an economy and communities that Australians really deserve, that value ideas and that respects the contribution that higher education makes to our communities. It will be something that delivers not just now but well into the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Growing our economy and encouraging the development of new business is at the heart of the coalition's vision for Australia. I was fortunate in my time prior to this role to spend over 15 years working in and with small business and seeing the innovation, the new products and the new markets that they develop and to spend the last three years working in the tech sector, which is very much at the heart of startups and entrepreneurial culture here in Australia. I had the fortune last Friday to attend a breakfast with the tech council and speak to many startup founders and to Ant from Bloc, now owned by Afterpay. He was there, and that's a great example of the startup culture that we have in Australia. It's very strong.</para>
<para>Education is important, absolutely, and I'll talk to that, but many startups know that the best experience is on the job, getting in there and learning, particularly during that early phase. It's so important that we have a strong economy that allows those startups to flourish, because startups and entrepreneurial culture are key to our future economic growth. That's why the coalition, when in government, delivered a number of major investments to support entrepreneurs and help universities to commercialise their research, which I'll get to.</para>
<para>This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and is designed to assist students to enrol and participate in tertiary courses that develop and commercialise their entrepreneurial and startup ideas. The bill creates a new category of income-contingent loans, SY-HELP, under the Higher Education Loan Program. The bill includes amendments to various social security acts so that students who are participating in accelerator program courses who are entitled to SY-HELP assistance can potentially qualify for student social security payments. In addition to measures related to SY-HELP loans, other measures included in the bill are amendments to the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to update funding caps for approved research programs and amendments to HESA. SY-HELP funding up to the amount of $11,800 will be provided to students in relation to the course fee of a higher-education based accelerator program. Eligible students can receive a maximum of two separate loans over their lifetime to fully recover the costs of their participation in accelerator programs. The scheme is scheduled to commence on 1 July 2023 and is capped at 2,000 places. However, the government plans to commence with a pseudo pilot of 1,000 places, for which universities will effectively bid.</para>
<para>Universities have raised concerns that the funds available are unlikely to fund a full year's course, and the value proposition for higher-education institutions is also unclear. A wide range of issues have been raised by various key stakeholders. The bill does not provide certainty as to how the loan funds will flow, including whether students will be able to access any of the funding as startup capital. Only courses of a minimum of six months are funded, which may not be in the best interests of either the students or higher education institutions. And given the barriers to commencing a new accelerator or incubator program, students attending regional and smaller universities which do not have access to an existing accelerator or incubator program may be disadvantaged.</para>
<para>There is insufficient clarity as to whether students will be able to retain their intellectual property rights in relation to the work funded through SY-HELP. Between September and November 2022, the government conducted a consultation on the Startup Year program, releasing a consultation paper. Concerningly, the government has declined to make public both the submissions made to the Department of Education as part of the consultation and a survey of students and recent graduates conducted by the department. Surely the government has an obligation to be transparent on legislation it proposes to pass.</para>
<para>The coalition has received some submissions independently, and some of the feedback was concerning. Universities Australia recommended that an expert working group be established to provide advice to government about the purpose, value proposition and funding arrangements, including the flow of funds and implementation issues such as accreditation and legislative requirements, but this was disregarded. The Australian Technology Network of Universities suggested, among other things, that funding be given directly to students and not to universities. It also raised concerns that student costs may be a barrier to participation. And the Regional Universities Network expressed concern about the value proposition for both students and regional institutions. It supported the option to commence with a pilot but asked that more than one regionally based accelerator be included.</para>
<para>As a number of university peak bodies have submitted, the Startup Year demands an evidence based pilot program to test the best to design and deliver the SY-HELP loan scheme. Rather than conduct a proper pilot, the government is planning a type of auction where universities are encouraged to bid for an initial thousand places, which will be made available from 1 July 2023. The government needs to explain how it will test the efficacy and effectiveness of the Startup program, how the government will ensure value for money and that the scheme delivers for young entrepreneurs. This is a really important question, because, as I said at the start, I've spent time in the tech sector and the startup world and it's fair to say that, while there are a lot of people that are highly educated and they do value higher education, they also value practical experience. What we don't want to create are debt traps for young Australians who do an accelerator program that isn't fit for purpose, isn't respected by the industry or doesn't help them get into a job, because all we're doing then is making the future economic prospects of these young Australians even harder. It's so important that this program is respected by the industry, by entrepreneurs and by tech startups and it delivers value for money for the Australian taxpayer but importantly delivers value for money for those young Australians who take the opportunity to participate in this program, because tech startups don't need a piece of paper to give you an opportunity.</para>
<para>Although, as I've said, encouraging the development of new business is at the heart of the coalition vision, it is also prudent to consider that 97 per cent of startups exit or fail to grow and that the stakes are high. So where are the incentives for higher education institutions to partner with industry or angel investors and to develop pathways to employment? While it is expected that universities will continue to deliver innovative accelerator and incubator courses, the Startup Year program is a missed opportunity to provide greater incentives for partnerships between higher education institutions and industries that will deliver real outcomes for students.</para>
<para>The coalition has a strong track record of backing our young entrepreneurs and innovators. In 2014, the coalition government introduced the $400 million Entrepreneurs Program which funded the commercialisation of good ideas, boosting jobs, lifting the capacity of small business and providing access to experienced private-sector providers and researchers. This program was comprised of many elements, including accelerating commercialisation, which helps small and medium businesses, entrepreneurs and researchers to commercialise novel products, services and processes. It also includes the business growth grants to provide access to a national network of experienced business advisers and facilitators to assist businesses to improve business practices, become more competitive, and take advantage of growth and collaboration opportunities in order to increase access to domestic and international markets. It also has the Incubator Support program to assist new and existing incubators to improve the prospects of Australian startups achieving commercial success in international markets through helping them to develop their business capabilities.</para>
<para>Innovation connections was also part of this program. Experienced innovation facilitators would work with business to identify knowledge gaps that are preventing business growth. The outcome is an innovation facilitation report. There is also the Strengthening Business program to connect businesses with specialists to help strengthen resiliency and to help future proof the business. But guess what? They don't like to talk about this on the other side, but the Albanese Labor government cut $197 million from this program over four years in the October 2022 budget. According to Parliamentary Library research, this represents about 75 per cent of the EIP's funding.</para>
<para>When in government, the coalition also proposed a $2.2 billion university research commercialisation package, which we are pleased to report has been adopted by the government. Our commitments included $243 million for the Trailblazer Universities Program to boost research and development, and to drive commercialisation outcomes with industry partners. There is also $150 million capital injection to expand the CSIRO Main Sequence ventures program, which backs startup companies. There is $296 million for 1,800 industry PhDs and over 800 new fellowships, the creation of a new IP framework for universities to support greater university-industry collaboration and the uptake of research outputs. And, of course, there is $1.6 billion over 10 years for Australia's Economic Accelerator, a new staged gate competitive funding program to help university projects bridge the so-called valley of death on the road to commercialisation.</para>
<para>We hear often from those opposite that supposedly nothing happened for 10 years. While words are cheap, the facts matter, and these are the facts about what the former coalition government delivered in this space. Regrettably, while perhaps well-intentioned, there is much wrong with this bill, reflecting the government's failure to again get the detail right and made worse because the government is now trying to keep secret its consultation and the wide ranging concerns raised by key stakeholders. There is no guarantee of success with a startup or, importantly, a startup loan. Unlike angel investors or large companies, students don't have deep pockets, and we need to make sure that we are avoiding a situation where we are setting young people up for failure and for debt traps. I fear that the failure of this bill, or the issues with this bill, could set young people up for those debt traps.</para>
<para>While we on this side won't stand in the way of giving the bill a second reading, our second reading amendment makes it clear to all Australians our concerns about the purpose, design, value and risk to students posed by this bill. We hope and trust that a Senate inquiry will give key stakeholders a proper opportunity to be heard and the Senate an important opportunity to scrutinise this bill to ascertain whether the Startup Year program is in the best interests of students, the higher education sector and industry. The cost to individuals is too high to allow the government to get a headline and play politics and spin that they are investing in startups. The cost to individuals is high, so we need to make sure this legislation is effective and will work because there are young Australians who will get caught in a debt trap if we get this legislation wrong, so I urge that it moves to Senate inquiry to understand these issues in more detail.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak in support of the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023, and I am excited, because this bill delivers on yet another vital election commitment. This bill proposes important changes to the Higher Education Support Act that will create a new form of assistance under the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP. This new form of assistance will be called SY-HELP. This bill will provide support to final year undergraduate students, current postgraduate students and recent graduates. Importantly, it will support them to participate in higher education based accelerator programs. SY-HELP loans will help create a pipeline of inspiring entrepreneurs who will shape a diverse and competitive economy.</para>
<para>Investment in Australia's future entrepreneurs and business innovation leaders will help build a smarter, stronger and more innovative economy that attracts and retains talent. This will help keep our economy innovative and competitive on the local, regional and global scale. It is essential that we equip our students with the skills, experiences and capabilities to realise their own entrepreneurial endeavours. This in turn will support our country in achieving our national priorities.</para>
<para>This bill will allow higher education providers such as the University of Wollongong in my electorate to develop student skills and create a pipeline of aspiring talent that will shape a diverse, competitive economy across the whole country. Through this increased focus on university accelerators, students will have access to education that will advance their own careers and encourage an innovation driven Australia. These programs will enable our future entrepreneurs to receive the support and confidence they need to remain in Australia and found their startups.</para>
<para>We have smart and innovative people in Gilmore and across Australia, and this bill will support them. With initiatives such as this bill, which clearly signal this government's endorsement of innovation, I'm proud to support an innovative culture change. I'm also pleased to say that this bill has been carefully developed. An extensive stakeholder engagement process with universities, industry and students has highlighted the appetite for expanded accelerator programs. Programs such as the one this bill will support not only enable students to gain important skill sets desirable to industry and future employers but also provide valuable community connections and networks for students.</para>
<para>On average, across OECD countries, young firms account for approximately 20 per cent of employment and create almost half of all new jobs. That's massive, and that is something the Albanese Labor government wants to continue to support. The bill proposes the establishment of the Startup Year program, which will expand the use of the HELP system to include higher education based incubator and accelerator programs. In Australia, startups have a high impact on the creation of new jobs, and the Startup Year program will work to support this new growth. Supporting startup creation and the entrepreneurial skill set will play a role in growing productivity and incomes, and will build a workforce with the skills and capabilities to adapt and thrive in the future labour market. From mid-2023, Startup Year will provide up to 2,000 income-contingent loans each year for final year undergraduate students, current postgraduate students and recent graduates to undertake a business-focused accelerator program based at an Australian higher education provider.</para>
<para>I've seen innovation like this in action in my electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales South Coast at the Shoalhaven Industry 4.0 Hub. In 2021 I and the honourable member for Chifley, Ed Husic, the then shadow minister for industry, toured the Industry 4.0 Hub together. We were in opposition then, but we went to the Industry 4.0 Hub to see and learn firsthand the many benefits of 4.0 and to gain initial feedback on a potential startup year. I don't think Ed will mind me saying that he was quite impressed with the Industry 4.0 Hub, and rightly so; it is an impressive place.</para>
<para>The Industry 4.0 Hub is located at the University of Wollongong's Shoalhaven campus, not too far away from my office in Nowra. The hub is a collaborative environment open to students, industry and entrepreneurs. This cutting-edge facility enables industry to access innovative technologies, equipment and technical expertise through partnerships and collaborations, delivering real-world impacts. The hub is a public space open to the community, and it helps both new and experienced innovators create and meet like-minded people.</para>
<para>The Industry 4.0 Hub serves as a key enabler to translate research and development into commercial outcomes that are driven by innovation and excellence. A great example of this innovation from last year is the hub's collaboration with Verbotics. The Industry 4.0 Hub provided a space for Verbotics, a startup based in Wollongong, to collaborate with Universal Robots. The collaboration worked on a project to automatically program robots for welding applications and has the potential to streamline many manufacturing processes. If you'd like to see an example of this automated welding in action, you can visit the Verbotics website—how fantastic is that! The Industry 4.0 Hub gave an ambitious group of people the space to integrate improved software into an automated welding process.</para>
<para>I'd invite any business owner in Australia to get in touch with the Industry 4.0 Hub team to see some brilliant innovations from the New South Wales South Coast—who knows, they might be developing something perfect for you right now. And it happens. John, who owns the small business Smith's BBQs in the town of Temora in the New South Wales Riverina, engaged the hub to see if it could help his business. He attended a workshop, and as a result of the workshop John purchased and integrated a robot arm into his workflow. John said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">UOW's Industry 4.0 Hub in Nowra has been a vital source of information, training and help with the introduction of robotics into my business. We at Smith's BBQs will be using Collaborative Robots to help fold the metal BBQ parts and to weld.</para></quote>
<para>How good is that? Like I said, this happened right down the road from my office in Nowra. That's just one example of what initiatives like the Industry 4.0 Hub can develop.</para>
<para>I wholeheartedly support initiatives that inspire and enable innovation, which is why I'm so supportive of this bill. It's a great idea and it will be a well administered program. Student and provider eligibility for SY-HELP assistance is defined in line with existing types of help assistance. SY-HELP will operate in a similar manner to existing assistance, with a student incurring a HELP debt on a predetermined census date. Those are just a few details about the program.</para>
<para>The details are important, but programs like this are, at their core, about the bigger picture. As we embrace this new era, we must also recognise the challenges that come with it. The rapid pace of technological advancement means that we need to constantly adapt and stay up to date with the latest developments in our respective fields. We must remain open-minded and willing to learn, not just from our own experiences but also from the experiences of others. One way to stay ahead of the curve is to collaborate with others. Whether it's partnering with other organisations, joining a professional network or simply exchanging ideas with colleagues, collaboration allows us to tap into a wider pool of knowledge and resources. By working together we can achieve more than we ever could alone. Collaborative processes have the potential to create initiatives and outcomes that are far greater than the sum of their parts. We need to be constantly looking for ways to improve our products and services and to create new ones that better meet the needs of consumers and businesses. This requires a willingness to take risks, to experiment and to embrace failure as a necessary step in the process of discovery.</para>
<para>Of course, innovation is not just about creating new products and services; it's also about finding new and better ways of doing things. There are plenty of great examples of this on the New South Wales South Coast. For example, just last month I went on a tour of the Alkath factory at South Nowra. Alkath comprises Global Defence Solutions, Mellori and Resilience Logistic Solutions. Alkath is a company in my electorate that produces innovative solutions which help Australia's military and emergency services personnel achieve their goals. It's quite a remarkable business, and it is most certainly innovating to create meaningful solutions. They provide mobile catering solutions, mobile hygiene systems, lighting and power distribution systems and air-conditioning, delivering core capability across the intelligence community and more.</para>
<para>Among the many things they create that are particularly impressive are deployable infrastructure modules. I was taken through the factory at Nowra and saw firsthand modules that could be built into many things, one of which is a fully functional mobile hospital. There was even a container that could house a fully functional mobile MRI machine. These infrastructure solutions are used by defence in strategic deployments, but it's not only defence that can utilise them; they can also be used by emergency service workers. These resources can help our emergency service workers and volunteers to more effectively respond to crisis situations such as natural disasters. I don't have to remind anyone of the devastation of natural disasters on the New South Wales South Coast and in Australia as a whole. That's another example of innovation in my electorate of Gilmore: a 100 per cent Australian owned company providing innovative solutions to help keep Australia moving forward.</para>
<para>There are many more ways people will be able to innovate in the future, and the Albanese Labor government want to support that. This bill will give many Australians the opportunity to innovate and create. This might mean streamlining operations, adopting new technologies or rethinking our business models. Whatever form it takes, innovation is essential if we want to stay competitive in today's fast-paced world. Perhaps the most important thing we can do to succeed in this new era is to stay focused on our values. Technology may change, but our core principles should remain the same. We need to continue to prioritise things like honesty, integrity and respect, and to use these values as our guide posts as we navigate the challenges and opportunities ahead. We are living in a time of incredible change and innovation. The choices we make today will shape the world we live in tomorrow. If we stay open-minded, collaborate with others, innovate and stay true to our values, we can make the most of this new era and create a brighter future for ourselves and for generations to come. Startup Year will assist educating our future innovators and business leaders. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in favour of the amendment from the member for Bradfield, the Manager of Opposition Business, to the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023. I commend the terms of that amendment, which I think very adequately encapsulate concerns we have for this bill that is currently being debated. Particularly, I think, the amendment underlines that this is the government implementing a press release from a campaign. It was about getting some media attention and looking like they were interested in entrepreneurship and facilitating startup culture and all those great buzzwords that are helpful content for journalists, probably as part of the Labor Party realising they had to have something to say on that topic during the campaign. So this was concocted and, regrettably, like so many other things from that campaign, we have now seen the gory detail of implementation. I think the feedback from stakeholders says it all. If I can simplify the complexity of that, it is that this is an extremely confusing, hard to understand, very opaque policy measure that could have all sorts of unintended consequences. The government are dutifully not listening to any of that feedback from very relevant stakeholders and are just preceding to implement this.</para>
<para>I'm a very passionate supporter of the startup culture we have in my home state and in my electorate of Sturt. I've been a very longstanding associate, in both my current role and previous roles, with the startup precinct at Lot Fourteen, which is the old Royal Adelaide Hospital. That was the subject of a City Deal between the Turnbull and Morrison governments, the Marshall government and the City of Adelaide—the three levels of government being the City Deal model. That was an opportunity to transform that precinct, the former Royal Adelaide Hospital on North Terrace in the Adelaide CBD into a real startup hub and incubator site, underpinned by the decision to headquarter the newly committed to Australian Space Agency there. I was there just last week, actually, at another milestone event, the launch of an industry road map for the space industry at the mission control centre in the building of the Space Agency headquarters. It is also a real hub for the defence sector and defence industries. That, of course, is creating an unbelievable culture there of startup.</para>
<para>We have a track record that we are very proud of, in the coalition, of tangible examples we can point to of policy decisions and policy investments that are leading to a great outcome, which is what the government purports that this policy measure is about. It's to foster job creation. As much as it's good to have a job, we particularly like people that create jobs—who start a business for themselves, grow a business and employ more people than they did in the previous year. That's how we grow our economy. In the coalition we are very proud, consistent supporters of small businesses, startup businesses and businesses that want a policy framework and policy settings in place that help them grow. They are the heroes of our economy. They are the ones that get us to the situation we're in right now, where we're effectively at completely full employment at 3½ per cent nationally. That is not because of government doing the hard work. Government needs to have policy settings in place that help the private sector do that work, and we are still seeing the legacy of the previous coalition government play out in the circumstances of employment in this nation. We'll see where that goes in the years ahead as policies like the one that we are now debating are rolled out by the new government.</para>
<para>There is some confusion around what this is going to do to existing programs and incubator models. The universities in South Australia have programs that facilitate graduates being supported by that institution to perhaps commercialise an idea that they've developed through their course of study with the university. We encourage universities to be more involved in commercialisation, frankly. That's one of the missing opportunities. An opportunity that has been lost in Australia for far too long is not having a good-quality structure for commercialising good ideas. Regrettably, there is a litany of excellent ideas that are developed through research and development institutions in this country and then commercialised somewhere else in the world because we haven't had the best framework for commercialisation. We would certainly like to see enhanced support and a change of culture, particularly from the financial institutions around how they provide support and engagement to commercialisation of great ideas that will start businesses, grow businesses and grow our economy.</para>
<para>We certainly have concerns, outlined in the amendment to the second reading question that I'm speaking to now, around the feedback that's come from Universities Australia and the Group of Eight and others about whether or not this is potentially going to have a lot of unforeseen consequences to some of the programs that already exist. Instead of achieving the 2,000-place outcome of new entrants, maybe a lot of existing programs could be adjusted to give an opportunity to access this funding. So something that was already happening, perhaps at the expense of the institutions, could in fact be now an opportunity for them to say, 'Because you can access this loan facility, we're going to start charging for things that we haven't in the past because you can just borrow that money and load it up onto your HECS-HELP debt and pay it off on top of the costs you've already incurred in your study.' So we hold those concerns. Also, there's a lot of ambiguity around how the program is going to operate because, as I've mentioned, the consultation seems to have just been the process of ticking a box. It feels like the response to that consultation has not been listened to and the concerns raised in that consultation process have not been addressed.</para>
<para>We can see that issues raised in the consultation process are simply not addressed in the legislation, and that is my interpretation of the feedback from the stakeholders that participated in that consultation as well. The government is certainly not saying, 'We really appreciated that consultation process and the sensible issues that were raised and this is how we've subsequently changed things, to make sure that those issues that have been raised have been addressed.' We've not got that situation, which is why we in the coalition are calling for this to be referred to a Senate inquiry, because whatever consultation occurred wasn't good enough for the government to listen to. We would like a committee in the Senate to look closely at this bill, to offer those who have been participating, and anyone who wants to participate, in the inquiry—particularly those who have already made submissions—the opportunity to raise these issues through that Senate process. In the Senate, senators can look at this bill in light of that feedback and perhaps look for some sensible opportunities to address some of those issues. We are very concerned about this.</para>
<para>In the coalition, we strongly support the principle of HECS. I'll do something that government members won't be doing in this place and commend Paul Keating for the approach he always took to HECS. It's important that people who are going to have a high future income-earning capacity from their education pay for it. I won't say I'm shocked—it's not a surprise—but I note the position of the Greens party in this parliament around the forgiveness of student debt.</para>
<para>The Greens are suggesting that hardworking taxpayers who haven't gone to university, who haven't therefore had the benefit of that education that pays future dividends to their income-earning capacity, should bear the cost of removing the student debt that lawyers, accountants and whoever else have accumulated. They're going to go on to earn quite a lot of money, and good luck to them, but they should pay for the education that unlocked their ability to earn that future income. We have the Greens saying the taxpayer—the plumbers, electricians and other hard workers who chose a different vocational path that didn't involve going to university and incurring a significant debt through HECS—should pay more tax to remove the debt of high-earning lawyers and accountants.</para>
<para>Let's be honest and blunt here: the Greens are a socialist party. You would think they could understand their own ideology, but they don't even understand what they say they stand for. They're saying workers should pay a higher amount of tax to subsidise wealthier income earners in our society. That's what they're about. That's what the Greens are about. I make these points because they are relevant to the bill, because we are talking about the higher education loan schemes that we have.</para>
<para>I commend the era in the Labor Party when Keating and others said that free higher education is not appropriate. It is appropriate to have a structure that involves debt financing of a proportion of that education, and when people can afford to repay the government for it—which is exactly how the HECS system works—they should do that, because that education is empowering them to earn a higher income. Now we have the Greens party saying they're not about that. They think the really high income earning people in our economy who incurred a large debt on their education to earn that high income shouldn't have to repay it. They'd like all the workers to pay more tax instead so that those high-income earners can have that education for free and then go and make more money from it. I really condemn that approach that some take when it comes to the appropriate financing of people's higher education.</para>
<para>We hope this amendment to this bill is agreed to, for the reasons that I've outlined. We really do want to look at a lot of these concerning unintended consequences that are simply not being addressed by the government. We want to back entrepreneurship and innovation in our economy. In principle, I like the concept of all forms of facilitating people at the start of their careers to start a business, make a living for themselves and even grow that business and employ people in our economy. That's what the Liberal Party and the coalition are about: free enterprise and backing people to take their ideas and commercialise them, create a business, make money for themselves, make money for our economy and increase the wealth of our nation. That's absolutely what we're about, and that's why the issues that we raise in this debate need to be addressed.</para>
<para>This bill purports to be in that policy space, and yet the feedback from the consultation raises a lot of concerns about a variety of elements. We don't know whether what it is claimed will be achieved through this is going to be achieved. So I urge the government to consider that strongly. I urge the Senate, were this bill to pass through our chamber, as I expect it will, to avail themselves of the opportunity to undertake that inquiry process, get to the bottom of some of these concerns and potentially amend this bill to adequately address them. On the basis of that, I commend the amendment to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Standing on this side of the House, I do feel surprised hearing all the negative stuff coming from those opposite who had 10 years to do something to really support startups and young entrepreneurs. They had 10 years to bring something together. They could have had all the inquiries they wanted. They could have pulled it together. And what did we get from them? Absolutely nothing. In 10 months we have done more than those opposite did in 10 years, yet all they can do is say: 'Oh, it's too soon. We need an inquiry.'</para>
<para>What is really terrific about this legislation is it brings to fruition an election commitment we made, an election commitment that was borne of many conversations over many years with people around the country about it. In particular, there were conversations in Western Sydney about the need for support for startups and entrepreneurs in the western part of Sydney. I note the member for Lindsay is here, and I'm looking forward to her supporting this, because she knows as well as I do the great work that the Western Sydney University Launch Pad does at its Kingswood campus. I remember when it first started—I think it was around 2015. It has been a really great stepping stone for young people of all backgrounds across Western Sydney, to be part of an accelerator and get support. That's what this legislation is about—making that even more available to people.</para>
<para>I note that some of the objections that I've just heard from the previous speaker relate to them still having questions. Well, that's why you do a pilot. We are not the sort of government that's just going to sit and wait and twiddle our thumbs; we are going to do stuff. The intention is that the pilot will commence from the middle of this year, so let's put it in action. And, unlike those opposite, we are also not a set-and-forget government; we will keep monitoring the progress of things and not be afraid to make adjustments as they go on.</para>
<para>For me, this is a crucial piece of legislation. We know that startups have a really important role in job creation. It's all about helping commercialise ideas. It's solving community and socially based problems, and often those solutions come from the communities themselves. It also helps to really strengthen the links between universities and the broader community, including business.</para>
<para>What we know about young firms is that across the OECD they account for around 20 per cent of employment and they create almost half of all new jobs, so they are a real engine room for creativity and job creation. In Australia, startups have a high impact on the creation of new jobs. The research is telling us that that job creation is highly concentrated, and here's just one example from a couple of years ago. In 2020 there was an increase of over 3,000 employees that could be attributed to Australia's eight most successful startups. That's a lot of jobs coming from a small number of businesses.</para>
<para>A few years ago I had the privilege of travelling overseas, with the now Minister for Industry and Science and the former member for North Sydney, as part of the trip with the Australian Computer Society. They wanted us to see in Scandinavia what that startup and entrepreneurial ecosystem is when it has a strong basis in technology and the digital world. We went to Estonia and Finland. What we saw were nations that were a long way ahead of us in thinking about how you create a really supportive ecosystem. I know the now minister had already been thinking about this for a long time, but what struck me, as someone who was fairly new to that environment, was the whole culture of creating space for these really clever, young people to try stuff. But what struck me, as someone who was fairly new to that environment, was the whole culture of creating space for these really clever young people to try stuff. What particularly struck me was that the first attempt is not always successful. There might be investment that they've got. They're giving it a first go. But they don't always get the result they want. What I noticed in Estonia and Finland is that that's not a bad thing. Here we seem to think, 'Oh well, that's a failure. You have had your dash. There's your turn.' What I saw there was, 'Great. That didn't work, but what do we learn from it? How do we move forward?' It's a totally different way of thinking about failure and success. As somebody who's been in business for 25 years you know your greatest learnings come from the stuff that went wrong, not the stuff that went well. So I see this as enabling a whole generation of entrepreneurs, allowing them access to a university-style FEE-HELP system to be able to keep giving it a go.</para>
<para>We know the benefits that there are going to be. Beyond job creation, startups have a key role in driving that research translation and commercialisation, and that's something that Australia hasn't always been a great at. We see that there's a lot of opportunity to do that a whole lot better. While this sort of program might just come across as, 'Well, here is another not that exciting way to fund you tertiary education,' it actually has some really profound possibilities that come out of it. So I commend the ministers involved in getting this done fast, and not hanging around waiting for all the little things that those opposite want to go on about—dot the i's and cross the t's. We want to get in there, do the pilot and learn from that experience so that we can make this the best possible scheme.</para>
<para>We've already seen universities get into this space, this university based accelerator space, with their programs which bring together industry, academic expertise and resources so that they can build and accelerate startup ideas. According to Universities Australia there are more than 100 hubs in Australian universities. The university sector weren't waiting for the previous government to get on with this. They knew what needed to be done and they got on with it. We are very proud to be able to support them and help that thrive.</para>
<para>The accelerator programs typically offer immersive, wraparound services to support students and first-time entrepreneurs. It might be everything from mentoring and networks, access to facilities and equipment that they need—those co-working spaces where ideas can be bounced off each other. I want to celebrate the work that universities have done on this. As I've said, in 2015 Western Sydney University knew this was a path it wanted to go down.</para>
<para>You can sense my enthusiasm for this, but let me turn to some of the detail of the bill. These are loans that will create a new form of assistance under the Higher Education Loan Program, the HELP scheme. These startup HELP loans will support final year undergraduate students, current postgraduate students and recent graduates participate in the higher education based accelerator programs. The assistance is capped at the maximum student contribution amount for medicine, dentistry and veterinary science, so we were very specific about where it fits and what students can access. Eligible students can receive not just one but two discrete startup HELP loans over their lifetime to fully cover the cost of their participation in accelerator programs, and, as I've said, I think that is crucial because the first won't necessarily go to plan. This system provides for there to be the learnings and then the evolution to whatever the next event is. It is just terrific to think that students aren't going to have to put all of their eggs in one basket for it. There's nothing worse for creativity than encouraging people to not take a risk. We actually want students to be creative, to push the boundaries and to take a risk on something that might work. This bill also creates legislative authority so there can be guidelines. I have heard the criticism of those opposite. In my reading of the legislation, there has been a heap of work done. The consultation that we do is genuine consultation. It is not tick-a-box consultation; it is genuinely listening to the submissions that were received.</para>
<para>It is worth recognising how hard it has been for the university sector, particularly in the past few years. In spite of that, they have still evolved programs. I read the submission from the G8 universities about the things they would like to see and I can see many of their ideas are in here. We look forward to working with them as we go through the pilot to understand how the programs can be made even more effective for them and for students to be able to access the support that they need. If you think about where the program sits, it is essentially boosting those connections across the university and broader community.</para>
<para>I want to talk for a moment about the interaction with businesses. As someone who was in business for 25 years and who worked with businesses, small, medium and large—Australian and multinational—the more we create an environment where there is support for innovation and the faster we get the translating and flowing through to the private sector, the better. I am really hoping that there will be people working in small businesses in Western Sydney, who have seen the potential for something innovative from a technology perspective, who will now have the capacity, because they can access funds to help cover the fees, to be able to get involved, and that is the thing that has been missing. You might have a great idea but finding the funding was a job in itself. In that way, many people have gone, 'I have a great idea but I'm running a business—or I am a key person in a business—and I don't have capacity to do both.' I really hope this opens up the opportunities for people who might otherwise not look at it as a possibility.</para>
<para>I am conscious I only have a couple of minutes left, so I just want to spend a few minutes talking about not only Western Sydney University, this program and the difference I know it will make for Western Sydney but also the whole range of innovation we are seeing there. One thing we committed to at the Hawkesbury campus of Western Sydney University was to encourage innovation in agriculture by constructing greenhouses, glasshouses, that will really focus on one of the advantages we have, which is being close to a new Western Sydney airport that may allow for niche exporting to Asia. But we need to look at how we grow the stuff that we send there. The Western Sydney University campus at Richmond is going to have around $16 million in federal funding to help construct these new greenhouses. It is not just to build some greenhouses; it is to support the programs there. They have things like mini drones that fly through the greenhouses and check whether there is insect damage, whether there are spots on the leaves. They are already doing incredible things, and we want to help them do it on a bigger scale because that kind of innovation is where peri urban societies like mine, where there is a strong agricultural base, can really look at moving that into the 21st century, maximising the opportunities that we have.</para>
<para>What this government is saying to universities is we believe in the innovation that you can help create and we certainly want to be part of that. I am looking forward to being able to see the progress of this project at Western Sydney University. It will create jobs. It will create construction jobs. It will create ongoing, good quality teaching and mentoring jobs. It will also build the link between the private sector and all the research. So much of what is happening there already is done in partnership, some of it with the big organisations—Coles and Woolies—some with people who have a particular expertise in one agricultural area. We're very proud of the Richmond campus of Western Sydney University and the innovation that it achieves.</para>
<para>I think this legislation demonstrates very clearly that this is a government that wants to encourage and grow that innovation, because we know that Australians can do the very best and cleverest stuff in the world, and we want to support them to do that. We're the ones who have faith in Australians to really get out there on the world stage and show people what we can do.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Growing our economy and encouraging the development of new businesses—the small businesses, the microbusinesses—has always been core business for the coalition. Startups and other entrepreneurial activity are a key part of this, especially around the small business space—the courageous, creative people who have ideas, passion and a willingness to invest their own money in small business or microbusiness, often having to mortgage their homes just to have a go. They don't always succeed immediately or the first time. The coalition, in government, delivered a number of major investments to support entrepreneurs and universities to commercialise their research—the entrepreneurs program that was cut by the Albanese government in the last budget and the coalition's $2.2 billion university commercialisation package, which I'm really pleased that the government has adopted and will deliver.</para>
<para>But as an opposition it is our job to hold the government to account and ask questions, which is what I will do as I move through my contribution on this bill, the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023. This is the government's Startup Year program for students through an education or education accelerator program at the higher-education level. It creates a new category of student loan, the SY-HELP loan. Students who are participating in the accelerator program courses who are entitled to SY-HELP assistance can also potentially qualify for social security payments, such as youth allowance.</para>
<para>As a long-term advocate for regional, rural and remote students to have access to higher education and access to youth allowance, I note that what I've seen in this bill doesn't actually clarify whether all students, irrespective of where they live, will have SY-HELP available, or whether students from inner, outer and remote areas will also qualify for SY-HELP. I am very concerned. The last time Labor was in government they denied students from inner-regional areas access to youth allowance. It took my private member's motion, which passed in the House of Representatives, to get the government to acknowledge the fact that students in inner-regional areas, like those who live in my electorate of Forrest, cannot just drive an hour and a half or more every day to a university in the city—students from Harvey, Australind, Bunbury and beyond, who were deemed by Labor to not be eligible for youth allowance.</para>
<para>So, students living in these areas actually have no choice but to move to Perth to pursue their studies for many educational courses, like law, medicine and engineering. Last week a principal in my electorate said that kids are already self-selecting—those who cannot get access to youth allowance or whose family literally cannot afford to send them. So, they're self-selecting in regional areas. We already know about the underparticipation in higher education among people in regional communities. This is an important point that is not always understood on the other side.</para>
<para>In government we made significant changes to youth allowance which enabled many more young regional people to follow their education dreams. Interestingly, I was talking to a parent in Margaret River just last week. He has two children, who will both need to go to university in Perth. The family has calculated, under the current cost of relocation and cost of living, that it will cost their family $30,000 a year per child. So the family is now considering that they may have no choice but to move, and we will potentially lose those good people and their kids from the region. Unfortunately, this happens too often.</para>
<para>It also begs the question as to whether and how many regional universities and university hubs will be eligible or considered with this option to become new accelerators and, if so, how many and which universities will actually be eligible. For instance, will Edith Cowan University in Bunbury be selected or eligible? It has a very progressive, innovative deputy vice-chancellor who is strongly supporting their new university department of rural health, which I worked to secure while in government. The UDRH will provide research and training for nurses and other allied health workers in emergency medicine, aged care, mental health, disability, child and family health, and other community settings, including primary and secondary schools. ECU Bunbury is also hosting the first WA Creative Tech Innovation Hub.</para>
<para>If regional universities are not eligible or included, where does this leave our regional universities sector? It's a valid question to ask around this legislation. Regional universities around Australia will be asking not only me but the Labor government: 'Why not us?' For this Startup Year program, they will rightly be asking whether their regional universities will be eligible. Will our regional university centres—and we've got a few of those—be eligible to become incubators? Or will these students who go to these RUCs and communities miss out on an opportunity?</para>
<para>The bill certainly raises more questions than it answers, and we are right to ask those questions. In looking at the bill, it appears to me that the government has yet to do enough work and enough homework. It appears to be rushed, without the detail needed to back it up. The bill as it stands raises more questions than it answers. What is its actual purpose? Is it intended to build a pool of skilled entrepreneurs to create more microbusinesses and small businesses ahead? And if the entrepreneurs are innovators or inventors, they will certainly be facing the additional challenges of financing their ventures. We saw the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank, and we've seen the amount of pressure there is to finance startups, whether it's through business loans, venture capital or even crowdfunding. These are very real issues, especially for these young entrepreneurs. Added to this, however, I understand that the government is considering axing the patent box tax break used by startups. I'll be watching that very closely in the upcoming budget.</para>
<para>Put yourself into the shoes of the students and those who are going to put their hands up for this program. This will be a loan, and they certainly need to be under no illusion that it is a loan that they will have to repay. A loan of up to $23,600 may result in a student incurring a substantial additional debt. The question I have is: what sort of actual academic credential goes with that $23,600? It is a significant amount of additional debt for each student to incur, particularly when we're in a situation of high inflation, and the SY-HELP loans are actually indexed to inflation. If you're the student, that's something you need to be aware of before you put your hand up. So it's a really serious decision for the student to make.</para>
<para>I noticed that on 17 March the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> reported, in an article entitled 'Debt bomb for uni students', that three million graduates will face a $4.5 billion increase to student debt due to the high rate of indexation linked to high inflation. It is a serious decision for each individual to make, coming on top of high rent, increasing food prices and the general cost-of-living issues they face. So if you're a regional and rural student who has to go to a city to continue your higher education, as well as what you're already facing you have to work simply to be able to stay in university and study what you want to do to attend a metro university. It all adds up to a significant cost, and that's without the cost of going backwards and forwards to home, however far away that is.</para>
<para>Added to this, the Albanese government abolished the 10 per cent HECS discount. Students only needed to pay a minimum of $500 towards their course fee to actually receive a discount—a real benefit for a student. Labor's approach actually drives up student debt, given the combination of indexation and inflation. If you're a rural and regional student already facing significant costs, this just adds further and further. In government the coalition focused on helping students to pay down their debts as fast as possible.</para>
<para>As you would expect in this, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Young, universities have rightly raised concerns that the SY-HELP funds are unlikely to fund a whole year's course. They will be assessing what value this is to their institutions in practical terms and in how they actually manage their course time frames and offerings. So how will SY-HELP loan funds flow, and when? Will they go to universities, or to students directly, and when? Will students be able to access any of the funding as startup capital, given that only courses of around six months are actually funded? So it may not be in the best interests of either students or higher education institutions. That's something that will have to be worked through by both the students and the institutions themselves.</para>
<para>Those students who are attending regional or smaller universities that don't have access to an existing accelerator or incubator program will be at a disadvantage. As someone who's a very passionate advocate for rural and regional education, students and families, that's something that I'll be really focused on in this offering. I think one question that the entrepreneurial students will need to know the answer to is whether they'll actually be able to retain their intellectual property rights in relation to the work funded through SY-HELP. Is it theirs? They will need to know this. Who will the IP actually belong to?</para>
<para>I also note that recommendations were made around an expert working group needing to be able to provide advice back to government around the purpose, the value proposition itself, the funding arrangements, including the flow of funds, and the implementation, such as accreditation and legislative requirements. These are very reasonable expectations. I know that the Group of Eight recommended that the Startup Year design be clear in its objectives—clarity upfront—about an accredited course model, given the complexity and lack of clarity.</para>
<para>There are some amazing young people out there. I know the Regional Universities Network also expressed serious concerns. There will need to be incentives for higher education institutions to form really solid and creative partnerships with local and broader industry. That link will be critical to fostering practical pathways to employment. These great young minds, these creative students, will help solve the problems and issues that businesses and the broader economy are facing and the challenges that the nation also faces.</para>
<para>A great question that I often ask young people is: what problem do you want to solve? I ask it because, let me tell you, they can and they will; they just need the right environment to be able to do so. This is probably why a number of university peak bodies have said that the Startup Year demands an evidence-based pilot program. It needs to be evidence based, but I hope—I really hope—that this includes regional universities. They are frequently the only option for those young people—and their families—who will never be able to afford other options. Those young people are currently self-selecting out of doing an ATAR because they know their families cannot afford to send them to university. What a tragedy. In this particular pilot, I'm expecting to see more than one regional university—different sizes, different locations, different types. This needs to be tested in those locations so that those universities themselves are actually able to offer the young people in their region the same sort of opportunity as is being offered in a metropolitan area.</para>
<para>We keep fighting in this space all of the time simply to get equal access and to give opportunity not just to the universities but to the fabulous young people who live and work in our communities. We do not want to see a constant brain drain from the regions, especially with what's ahead, and we've seen so much of the challenges that exist, whether it be about emissions or health challenges. We need those great young minds to stay in our regions. Even if they go away for higher education, we need them to come back. That's also why the young people who have no choice must get an opportunity to take advantage of these types of opportunities in situ, at our regional universities.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 16:00</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia has a strong background of innovation. This is something that I have particularly witnessed from the state of WA. Operating precision equipment in the harshest outback conditions is something that the mining industry has done but is this something that we can do better? Absolutely. That's why I rise today to speak to the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The Albanese Labor government is investing in the entrepreneurial innovation potential of our community. After a decade of delay and waste under the coalition, it's more important than ever to modernise and diversify our economy through innovation and entrepreneurship. When I spoke on the National Reconstruction Fund bill last week I drew attention to the damning ranking of Australia. The Harvard University Center for International Development, which ranks economies according to their diversity and complexity to assess their potential for growth, placed Australia at 91 out of 133 countries in 2020. Our neighbours on that scale were Kenya and Namibia and, in the last decade, we have slipped 21 places. I wonder who was driving the federal government wheel? This is incredibly disappointing.</para>
<para>Australia has a proud history of innovation. Australians invented Gardasil vaccine in the early 2000s, dramatically reducing the risk of cervical cancer worldwide. We invented technology behind wi-fi. We invented the cochlear implant enabling those with severe hearing loss a sense of sound, and, for those wine lovers on a budget, we invented cask wine. Our innovation nature is not sticking as readily as we would like it to. Our economy lacks diversity, and many of our great thinkers are going offshore or having their products produced offshore. Imagine what our country and economy would look like if what was invented here was actually made here.</para>
<para>Australia played a leading role in the creation of photovoltaic solar panels but today over 90 per cent of these are manufactured in one country. Our innovative streak will help pave the path towards a diversified the economy which will underpin our economic security and our future. Having all our eggs in one basket exposes us to greater shocks when economic conditions change. I think of our resource sector and how many in my home state of WA swing between the boom and bust cycles. I had a good run of working in the resource sector. Like many West Australians, I have worked on mine sites in country WA and country Victoria, and have spent my fair share amount of time wearing high-viz and getting covered in red dust. But to grow our economy in the long-term we need to avoid these boom-bust cycles associated with commodities and we must invest in our brains—our knowledge economy—and adding value upstream. We can't rely on just one sector for Australian jobs and to grow our economy.</para>
<para>On average, across the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, young firms account for approximately 20 per cent of employment and create almost half of all new jobs. In Australia, startups have a high impact on the creation of new jobs and the Startup Year program will work to support this new growth. This bill is a pillar in the Albanese Labor government's plan for growing our economy, creating jobs for the future and investing in the potential of our nation's innovators.</para>
<para>The National Reconstruction Fund and the higher education amendment bill will create greater research commercialisation opportunities, and the Rewiring the Nation policy will fast track clean energy jobs. These are all matters that have been brought before this parliament by the Albanese Labor government to position our economy for success in the long term, just like the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023.</para>
<para>This bill is about unlocking the potential of our nation's innovators. It gives our students the skills, experience and capabilities to realise their entrepreneurial potential and support our country in achieving our national priorities. Because when innovators succeed in this country, there are huge benefit for our community. I would like to discuss a couple of great innovators who, through their startups, have made huge impacts on the global stage.</para>
<para>Ajay Prakash had the vision to empower a billion people to discover, reskill and nurture meaningful careers through his education tech start-up called EntryLevel. He is one of Australia's top 100 innovators for 2022 and is a Forbes under 30 entrepreneur. Ajay's platform delivers short, intensive, affordable programs with professional mentors from companies including Atlassian, Wise and Startmate. Recognising that almost 200 million jobs were lost during 2020, largely due to COVID, Ajay wanted to think about quick ways to re-skill people to stay relevant in the job market. Ajay's ambitious goal is to prevent mass unemployment by 2030.</para>
<para>The thing I find particularly refreshing about Ajay is that he openly talks about failing. At the University of New South Wales, where he studied, he was part of a program that supported entrepreneurs in a serious way. He explained that he was only able to launch EntryLevel because he had spent 80 per cent of his university years launching and constantly failing at various endeavours. Smart entrepreneurial culture has taught me that it's important to fail fast and fail small to crack open the next innovation. Remember, the alternative is worse, which is failing slowly in a big, spectacular way and that is something that we all want to avoid. From his website, Ajay describes himself as 'a serial stuff up who is failing forward one step at a time'.</para>
<para>Through this bill I think that there are a number of Ajay's who may come, thanks to the Albanese Labor government, and be supported through additional funding to participating universities to expand their existing accelerator program offerings and give students that space to fail, learn and try again. Failure is an essential step on any journey to success. It was bizarre to hear the member for Bradfield talk yesterday about how prospective students should be mindful that 90 per cent of startups fail, in an attempt to pour cold water on the aspirations of this bill. You think that the so-called party of business would understand the fundamentals of entrepreneurialism. Taking risks is a part of this journey. When I stand up and speak in this place, I wont douse down the aspirations of our nation's best and brightest, because I know that the Labor Party is the true party of aspirational Australians, including those in business. I will stand up and encourage them to succeed, and, if they fail, try again. This bill will create a mechanism to ensure that more innovators and entrepreneurs are fine-tuning their skills in our nation's great universities.</para>
<para>I also think of students who leave their studies to pursue a startup who may stay on with their studies and broaden their entrepreneurial skills by taking a higher education based accelerator program. Perth born and raised CEO of Canva, Melanie Perkins, dropped out of the University Western Australia to pursue her first startup. On reflection upon her journey, from creating a year book startup to becoming one of Australia's youngest billionaires, she mentioned how daunting it was to step into the entrepreneurial space with little experience. She's very impressive, and I have no doubt that many people in this place use Canva to create materials. The thing that I would say is that while her story is inspiring, for every success story there are countless stories of people that have left university without qualifications and have not had support to actually try those innovative startups. Australia can and should be a land of innovators.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Swan, Curtin University runs its own highly successful accelerator program. More than 60 businesses have participated in that program, moving on to launch highly innovative products. They've won awards and investment funding. They've also been tackling wicked problems. For example, just last week we heard about the cybersecurity threats Latitude Financial is facing. The truth is these entrepreneurs are looking at dealing with these wicked problems. Hyprfire is a Western Australian startup which was hatched at Curtin University by PhD candidate Stefan Prandl. It's a cybersecurity company developing software solutions to detect and mitigate malware transfers and denial-of-service attacks. Stefan participated in the Curtin Accelerate program to build the business model and his go-to-market strategy. The company has now raised $2.2 million and is actively selling its software solutions. I am so excited about the structural support that the Albanese Labor government will be able to provide to the next generation of entrepreneurs and the new generation of new successful businesses.</para>
<para>In addition, I would like to acknowledge that the bill before us does more than just create jobs and foster innovation. This bill also creates the legislative authority for guidelines on how the Startup Year HELP assistance is allocated, including considerations for equitable access for disadvantaged and under-represented groups. I think that mentioning this is important, especially since yesterday was the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The historic injustices of racism and discrimination in Australia linger today. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders hold just 0.7 per cent of senior management positions nationally, despite making up three per cent of the population. To take the words of Yawuru-Bunuba lawyer and entrepreneur Cara Peek, who founded the Broome based innovation hub called Make it Happen:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If you don't have people running businesses, from a diverse cultural base, they're not out there understanding, looking for and hiring, the skill sets and the cultural diversity that needs to be there.</para></quote>
<para>By providing places for disadvantaged and underrepresented groups, this legislation creates a pipeline for historically marginalised groups to become innovators and entrepreneurs. The truth is that our first innovators in Australia were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and they will continue to be. As more students from these backgrounds go through this program I hope that disparities are bridged, particularly the employment and the income gap that shamefully exists between First Nations people and the rest of Australia.</para>
<para>I want to conclude by saying that these students need access to education that will advance their careers and encourage an innovation-driven Australia. I can't wait to see the new generation of Albanese innovators and the new people who participate in this program.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a great pleasure to follow the member for Swan, who I would like to just emphasise—having worked with her prior to her election and now, obviously, as the member for Swan—has a deep interest in terms of turning ideas into reality and being able to see firms grow in her electorate. They are leading-edge firms in her area and also some of the young talent in the university sector that we've had the opportunity to meet. We visited Murdoch University recently, where there was a great robotics group. It's the energy and the ideas of the next generation that we really want to be able to tap into. Specifically, what we are proposing in the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill will enable that to occur, but at scale.</para>
<para>We experienced, obviously, through the course of the pandemic, enormous pressure being placed on businesses, forcing them to see if they could adapt. In some cases, unfortunately we lost businesses. We need to regenerate and to build businesses back. We need to see them on a sustainable footing, using new ideas and commercialising concepts that young people may have developed in university, seeing those early-stage innovators that have a reputation for being great job creators. A lot of early-stage firms create, within the space of 12 months, a phenomenal number of jobs for their size. We need to have this kind of business-building program, and that's exactly what we are trying to do through this bill, the Startup Year bill. We want to ensure that we provide a platform where students who want to extend their time at university get the guidance of an accelerator or an incubator to develop an idea, and get guidance from people and from mentors—be they from within the accelerator or incubator or from industry—to be able to determine how to seek out future capital to help them grow. Importantly—and this is the big thing about this bill—this bill is sending an important signal. It's telling young Australians that we need their effort, we need their energy, and the Australian government values their building a business. That's the big signal that this bill sends. We want to build new businesses that can grow, scale up and contribute to the Australian economy.</para>
<para>We know from previous Treasury reporting that we could definitely do a lot better on business dynamism. We had pressures through the pandemic, as I referenced earlier. We do need to address that. We need young people, and it may also be mature-age students who have gone through university and who also seek to grow their businesses. That's exactly what this bill will help enable. I champion—and I was certainly a very big supporter of this concept when in opposition, and we were keen to see this brought to life here—a pilot program, which this bill will provide for, for the first year, to enable up to potentially 2,000 final-year undergraduate, postgraduate and recent graduate students to go on and create their own firms, if we get this up and running. Again, it's 2,000 HELP-style loans created for students that could potentially create 2,000 new firms. And if they themselves put people on, you can see the multiplier effect starting to be brought to life right there in our economy, enabling those students to participate in those programs.</para>
<para>Supporting startup creation and entrepreneurial skill sets obviously has a part to play in growing productivity and incomes and building a workforce with the skills and capabilities to adapt as the economy evolves into the future. Following the feedback we got through the consultations, the first-year pilot that I referenced earlier will be delivered to test aspects of program design, engage student demand, assess providers' capacity to deliver the program and enable unis, especially those in regional Australia and those with newer innovation and accelerator ecosystems, extra time to develop and accredit Startup Year programs.</para>
<para>Again, I come back to this point about young firms and jobs growth. This stat is very important: on average, across OECD countries, young firms account for approximately 20 per cent of employment and create almost half of all new jobs. In Australia, startups have had a high impact on the creation of new jobs, and we want to support that growth. The Tech Council of Australia estimates that new tech startups can contribute 30,000 new jobs and $7 billion in value by 2030. So, we want to back Australian know-how. We want to foster an environment where ideas can be supported and commercialised. We want to stimulate entrepreneurship, innovation and technology to help Australians to develop startup ideas. We want to accelerate jobs growth and economic productivity through the creation of these new firms, particularly through universities.</para>
<para>My friend the Minister for Education has detailed some of the changes in terms of the bill itself—the more mechanical or detailed elements of the legislative changes that will be made. But I do want to emphasise, as the Minister for Industry and Science, that where I've had an opportunity to visit our unis, particularly—and I'm conscious of this, given your background, Madam Deputy Speaker Chesters, in regional Australia—outside the major capital cities, we do have a bigger role to play and a lot of work to do in supporting the ambition that exists in those areas to grow and diversify those economies, to build manufacturing capabilities, such as the types of things we're doing with the NRF, to be able to provide that growth capital. We're doing the same in many respects here to provide a form of capital to help new firms evolve. And as a government we're looking at everything, from the growth of new early-stage innovators—seeing them along the technology readiness; they will start to grow—trying to provide the support when they hit what is described as the valley of death in those TRLs, with the NRF at the other end of this to be able to, again, provide that growth capital and, importantly, all along the way sending signals that this is going to be important long term for the good of the country.</para>
<para>As I often say, innovation is not just about making a buck; it's about making a difference. By that, I mean some of the things that great Australians have done, the ideas that they've had, that have improved quality of life, helped neighbourhoods and communities in terms of the way that they live and exist, create jobs and provide people an opportunity to make a contribution and grow the community and economy, are really important.</para>
<para>We've seen that in some of the great things that have been done, from the invention of ultrasound, which came out of the CSIRO, through to the invention of the HPV vaccine. The HPV vaccine, developed here in this country, has helped see a huge drop of 63 per cent in the rate of cervical cancer for women. If women have been vaccinated in their teenage years, there is a 90 per cent chance to avoid HPV related cancers that has seen women say early goodbyes to their families, their children and their loved ones. We have prevented that. We have improved their quality of life through an Australian idea that led to that vaccine. We need to see more of that applied at scale, which is what we want to do. This bill, if I may commend it to the House, is about sending the signal that we value the ideas particularly of our young Australians, putting those ideas to work to create new firms and to improve the economy and national wellbeing. If we can see that start from this it will be a great thing for the nation. I'm very, very supportive of that.</para>
<para>If I may end on this point: I note the presence of the member for Reid. Again, when we're talking about the value of ideas, it was terrific to go to her electorate to launch the consultations around the revitalisation of the national science priorities. We did that at Burwood Girls High School. It was terrific. We went around and saw young science students engaged in a range of activities where, in particular, there is massive under-representation from women and other under-represented groups in our STEM community. It was incredibly inspiring to see the care and commitment shown at Burwood Girls High School. I fully understand why the member for Reid was so keen for us to launch the consultations there. Again, if we can see those students progress to university, be able to go on and build their own firm—these are the types of things. Government investment, in particular working with the private sector and our universities, can help transform lives for the better not just for the people involved but for the people whose lives are touched by great Australian ideas and know-how.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the Minister for Industry and Science for his visit to the electorate of Reid, where he did meet with some amazing students at Burwood Girls High School. When we spoke to those students, so many of them were thinking about the big challenges that we all face: sustainability and climate change. They were ready for the challenge. In fact, they were embracing that and wanting to make sure that they have a good career in science and technology so that they could be part of the solution. It was great to have you in the electorate. I can't wait to show off the amazing work that Burwood Girls High School does.</para>
<para>Now onto the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023. There is a company with a share market value of more than US$100 billion. When it was initially listed on the NASDAQ in the US in 2015 it was trading at just US$21 a share, with a value of US$4.4 billion. In just eight years that company went from that valuation of US$4.4 billion to more than US$100 billion. It's a meteoric rise by any measure. The other numbers associated with this company are equally extraordinary. One of its products, Trello, has 50 million registered users. Another product, Confluence, has more than 60,000 corporate customers. That company is, of course, Atlassian, Australia's greatest tech success story. If Atlassian were listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, it would be among the top-20 most valuable companies on that exchange, up there with the likes of Transurban, Woodside and ResMed.</para>
<para>The <inline font-style="italic">New York Times</inline> has described it as a very boring software company because it, essentially, provides software that IT professionals use, but I think its origin story is anything but boring. Scott Farquhar and Mike Cannon-Brookes, the two founders of Atlassian, met at the University of New South Wales as undergraduates. Neither of them wanted a graduate job, nor did they want to wear a suit and work in a nine-to-five job. Using $10,000 on a credit card, they started Atlassian in 2002. Scott and Mike are Australia's first startup to IPO tech billionaires and are a perfect example of the potential of this bill. This bill is about investing in the entrepreneurs of the future, people like Scott and Mike.</para>
<para>Innovation is key to growing our economy and driving up productivity. We have to create a stronger, smarter and more innovative economy. The best way to do that is to invest in our people. Through this bill, we will support students to participate in accelerator programs at universities, because we know when it comes to innovation, when it comes to new ideas and when it comes to research, Australian universities are world-class. We know that nurturing the talent of every single Australian provides a dividend for the whole country. This bill seeks to create a new type of support for young entrepreneurs who will be the business leaders of the future.</para>
<para>This bill will add to the list of election commitments the Albanese Labor government is delivering in the higher education space, including delivering a university accord by the biggest and broadest review in the higher education space since the Bradley review 15 years ago. This review is being led by eminent Australian Mary O'Kane. Twenty-thousand new university places for students from typically under-represented backgrounds are targeted at areas of skill shortages, and, recently, a new agreement was struck between India and Australia to provide certainty of qualifications and provide greater opportunities for students. This bill is important for resetting relations with the sector that was neglected by the former government.</para>
<para>What does the bill do? It amends the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, to create a Startup Year loan. These Startup Year loans will support final-year undergraduate students', current postgraduate students' and recent graduates' participation in higher-education based accelerator programs. They will be capped at $11,800 in 2023 but can be received twice by students to fully cover the cost of participating in accelerator programs. Like other FEE-HELP and HECS-HELP programs, Startup Year will be made directly to higher education providers who run eligible accelerator programs.</para>
<para>Accelerator programs have sprung up across universities in Australia—some by deliberate design by the institution, whereas others have been more organic and led by students. Regardless of how they have arisen, there are now more than 100 accelerator programs spread throughout all 39 Australian universities to help grow Australian ideas into Australian businesses.</para>
<para>According to Universities Australia, the peak body representing the university sector, more then four in five Australian startup founders are university graduates. So, when it comes to startups and entrepreneurs, our universities are natural breeding grounds. You are in a space where you have access to great researchers and you are in a space where you have mentors and the equipment and infrastructure to help grow those ideas. They're like mini Silicon Valleys.</para>
<para>These university startup programs also help to set up graduates for the jobs of the future. The nature of work is changing. Gone are the days where you entered a job straight from high school and then stayed there until you retired. School leavers are expected to have on average 17 different jobs and up to five career changes over their lifetime. That means we need to fundamentally rethink the types of skills and training we provide to young people to ensure they are not only job ready for the career that they will step into upon graduation but for the career after that and the career after that.</para>
<para>University based startup accelerator programs provide dual benefits. They provide students with a broad range of skills they need for a changing economy. It also creates businesses and jobs. Startups are now the largest contributor of job creation in Australia. What does this look like? I'm really proud that I can draw on some examples from my old employer the University of Sydney, whose Incubate program has been allowing young student-entrepreneurs to develop their startup ideas into fully fledged businesses.</para>
<para>One example is Bioscout, a company that uses air-sampling, mapping and data analytics to track agricultural disease spread. The company is currently focused on wheat stripe rust, a disease that causes an estimated $80 billion worth of damage to the agricultural sector annually. Farmers spend $24 million a year on chemicals to control the disease. These treatments are chemically intensive and must be sprayed on a crop before the disease is able to infect it. This leads to wastage, chemical run-off and environmental degradation. Bioscout has come up with a novel way of using patented sensors to monitor the amount of disease present in the air across individual fields. Coupled with data from weather stations, it provides farmers with insights into treating this disease. It has shown evidence of being able to increase wheat yields by up to 18 per cent and reduce chemical costs by 15 per cent.</para>
<para>Great innovation by student-entrepreneurs at a university, Bioscout is a great example of how innovation cultivated by higher education institutions can create a new class of entrepreneurs whose benefits can be shared by the whole community, in this case the agricultural community. Their innovations are applicable to the world of agriculture, food waste and sustainability, but one can only imagine how many more of the world's greatest problems might be assisted by a broader rollout of this support for early innovation.</para>
<para>By encouraging more student-entrepreneurs to develop their ideas, we will help to encourage an innovation-driven Australia. We know that there is an appetite out there for these types of accelerator programs. They not only provide skills and opportunities to aspiring entrepreneurs but also generate valuable connections with communities and businesses, and these Startup Year loans will help to meet that demand. They will make sure that, regardless of your background, you can access the support you need to grow an idea into a startup and then into a business. And as we know from the story of Atlassian, once you start up, who knows how far you might be able to go?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank all members for their contributions to this debate on the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023. As I said in introducing this bill, it will support the development of skills needed to drive the businesses and technologies of the future. It will extend up to 2,000 income-contingent loans each year to eligible students participating in higher education based accelerator programs when it is fully implemented after a pilot program that would start on 1 July this year.</para>
<para>Accelerator programs are where our universities are nurturing startup ideas from concept to commercial application. The programs under this new loan type will build skills in entrepreneurship and connect students with the support, mentorship and facilities that they need to develop their startup ideas. Universities are ideas factories, and these measures will help support our bright young innovators to generate the game-changing ideas and jobs of the future. Places will be prioritised for courses which help under-represented groups to be part of our startup community, among them female entrepreneurs, Indigenous Australians, people with a disability and community-based startups that are working on regional and rural issues.</para>
<para>The bill also amends the Higher Education Support Act to list Avondale University as a table B provider, following its recent registration as an Australian university by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, or TEQSA. It also amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to apply current indexation rates to funding for the 2022-23, the 2023-24 and the 2024-25 financial years and inserts a new funding cap for the 2025-26 financial year, resulting in an additional appropriation to the ARC of just over $1 billion.</para>
<para>The member for Bradfield raised a few issues in his contribution to this debate on behalf of the opposition. Let me use this opportunity to respond to those. The member for Bradfield said that the underlying purpose of the Startup Year program was very vague. The bill and its explanatory memorandum make clear what the purpose of the Startup Year program is. Section 128B-25 sets out clearly that the Startup Year loans will be available for courses developed by higher education providers which develop a student's skills, capabilities and connections so that they can build and participate in startup businesses. The member for Bradfield said that it was unclear whether a student who participates in an accelerator course would receive any academic credentials. The bill also makes clear that a key requirement for a course to be eligible is that it must result in the award of a qualification. The member for Bradfield said that it was unclear who would receive the funding from a Startup Year loan. Section 128D-1 makes clear that payments are to higher education providers for providing these courses, as is the case for other HELP loans. It does not, of course, mean that students cannot accept capital investment from a university or another source alongside their accelerator course.</para>
<para>The bill provides for guidelines which will further detail course requirements and the application process for higher education providers. I referred to these during my second reading speech following the bill's introduction. In particular, as I have mentioned, the guidelines will prioritise course applications which support underrepresented groups. The guidelines will also include requirements for guidance around the management of intellectual property rights for students in eligible courses. As the explanatory memorandum states, the guidelines will be legislative instruments and, as such, will be subject to the usual scrutiny of parliament.</para>
<para>The member for Bradfield also said that it was important that this program be piloted first and that this was a recommendation of the consultation process which we had ignored. It was indeed a recommendation from the consultation process, but not one that we have ignored. As I said in my second reading speech, this will start as a pilot program in July of this year. This is an innovative policy, and it only makes sense if it commences with a pilot program. This will allow us to test aspects of the program design, monitor the success of the program and give universities time to develop their accelerator courses prior to a full rollout in July of 2024.</para>
<para>On the topic of consultation more broadly, this bill was introduced following a broad industry consultation process. An open submission process resulted in 38 submissions. Of those, 24 submitters have agreed for their submissions to be published on the Department of Education's website, and I directed the Department of Education today to publish those submissions on its website. This is something that the shadow minister for education has raised with me, and I think she is right that we need to make sure that all of this information is available to the Chamber and to the parliament to help us in our deliberations both in this Chamber but also in the Senate as it considers this bill over the course of the next few weeks. There are another 14 submissions where we don't have in-principle approval for publishing from the people we have consulted with, but I have asked my department to consult with them and seek their permission to publish their submissions as part of this process. All of that feedback informed the content and the development of this bill.</para>
<para>On the day this bill was introduced to the House, Universities Australia issued a media release welcoming it. This is what they said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Universities welcome the introduction of legislation to establish the government's Startup Year program, bringing much-needed financial support for university entrepreneurs a step closer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"Unfortunately, financial barriers sometimes hinder the progress of these innovations and their transformative flow-on effects, including the creation of new jobs and economic opportunities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"Universities support the Albanese Government's commitment to breaking down these barriers and supporting the commercialisation of new ideas and solutions to the challenges and opportunities facing our nation."</para></quote>
<para>I have also had a discussion with the shadow minister for education about the opposition's proposal that this bill be referred to a Senate committee for review, and I support that. I think that that would be a wise and prudent thing for us to do. It will give a further opportunity for us to pressure test this bill and see what further amendments might be recommended or suggested to the parliament that could improve this bill. I would hope that that process might occur in April while the parliament is not sitting so that, when we return for the budget sitting, we can consider the bill in the Senate and any amendments in the House, and that the legislation would be ready to commence in July of this year. The measures in this bill deliver on our election commitment and further the government's dedication to supporting our higher education sector. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Bradfield has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be disagreed to.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>149</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6990" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>149</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023. It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of this legislation. In Australia the vocational education and training, or VET, sector delivers outstanding education and training through a variety of institutions, through both public TAFE and private registered training organisations, or RTOs. This service is delivered within universities and also through schools.</para>
<para>In my first speech in this place I mentioned how important education is to me personally, and I quoted those immortal words of Nelson Mandela—that education is the most powerful weapon we have to change the world. At that time I said that we need a national curriculum that is relevant, is empowering and builds in our children a lifetime love of learning and that we need a TAFE and university system that is first-class, leads the world and provides students with job-readiness skills. That is why I'm always happy to support reform and improvement to our VET sector. The VET sector is a dynamic and responsive sector. It supports millions of students each year to obtain the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in an ever-changing economy. It provides flexible opportunities for individuals to engage in education and training as a starting point to a career pathway or as a solution to upskill or reskill.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Hughes we have an excellent public TAFE, located at Loftus, where courses on offer include remedial massage and massage therapy, commercial cookery, hospitality, English language, retail services, fitness, sport coaching, accounts administration and, very importantly, early childhood education and care. I also make mention of Gymea TAFE, which is in the electorate adjoining mine, but many students from my electorate attend Gymea TAFE.</para>
<para>As background to this legislation: these reforms commenced under the previous coalition government in order to better facilitate the ability of government to collect and report data extracted from the vocational education and training system. So, it's about how we collect that data. The reforms were an aspect of the heads of agreement for skills reform that was agreed to in July 2020 between the Commonwealth and the various state and territory governments. The bill's stated purpose is to improve data collection as part of the VET data streamlining reforms by imposing an obligation on RTOs to report data under that act. And it does seek to implement some of the recommendations outlined in what we call the Braithwaite review, which was a review of the national VET system. Commissioned by the previous coalition government, the review responded by supporting, in principle, recommendations that are relevant to this legislation. I'll just mention four of them here.</para>
<para>The first one, recommendation 11, is that the Australian government prioritise the improvement of policies and systems that allow for transfer of real-time data for timely use by other agencies with regulatory responsibilities for identifying and responding to emerging sectoral and provider based issues. That recommendation has made its way into this legislation. The next recommendation, which is known as recommendation 13, is that the legislative framework be amended to enable the National Centre for Vocational Education Research to make the RTO level data it holds publicly available and identifiable. Thirdly, it was recommended that changes be made to support the way VET activity data is collected and submitted by the various RTOs. Fourthly, to modernise the way that VET activity data can be accessed and used by authorised users. To that end, I note there are currently data lags of up to 20 months in national VET activity data collection which is published annually. Therefore, the current data lags make it difficult for government to respond effectively to emerging skills shortages or other policy and funding issues as they occur.</para>
<para>In terms of this legislation, it's anticipated that VET data streamlining will introduce more modern technology; an updated VET information standard; and updated regulatory, legislative and government settings that will support the stated objective of better data, faster. In all of these circumstances, I believe that these VET data reforms are important and they will, if enacted, enhance the transparency of changes and developments in the VET market; make VET student activity data reporting simpler; reduce reporting pathways for training providers; and reduce the time delay between the collection, availability and reporting of VET activity data.</para>
<para>To conclude, for all of these reasons I support the proposed legislation that is currently in this place. It was commenced under the former coalition government and has come about as a result of the Braithwaite review. It is uncontroversial, but it is a key step in modernising the collection and use of VET activity data. As I said in opening, I will always support any reforms that will help to improve our education system overall, whether it's VET, university, primary or preschool education. So for all of these reasons, I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to speak on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023. The purpose of this bill is to better support data collection and other related measures being implemented as part of the Vocational Education and Training Data Streamlining program. This will make it much more efficient to assess how effective our investment in VET will be. Our investment in VET is, of course, so critical to our communities and to the nation.</para>
<para>The VDS program will modernise the VET data system and reduce the time delay between the collection, availability and use of activity data, which under the current 25-year-old data system can be up to 20 months old when released. This will enhance the government's ability to assess the effectiveness of their investment in VET. It makes sure we are tracking data in a much more up-to-date fashion and modernises the systems we use. If we want our skills sector and our industries fit for the future our data regime needs to be too, and that's why it is so important that we introduce this bill to support the skills and workforce needs of the nation now and well into the future.</para>
<para>This bill will mean that Australia is more agile to respond to what we need for skills, jobs and industries for the future—again, another demonstration of the forward thinking, optimistic government that we have in this country. Currently, the information needs of students, training providers and decision-makers in much of the VET sector are not being met. We can do better than this and that's what this bill does. It commits to doing better for the entire VET sector. And as an extension, all of our communities across the nation who rely on skilled workforces and VET institutions will be better off.</para>
<para>In my own electorate of Chisholm we have several TAFE campuses, including Holmesglen—and many of my constituents attend the Box Hill Institute. The VET sector is incredibly important to me. TAFE is very important to me. I know I've raised this on several occasions, but I do so because it is a great source of honour to me that the first visit Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made to Melbourne after the election 10 months ago was to Chisholm. It was to a TAFE campus in my electorate. It was to the Holmesglen Drummond Street campus, which is home to the world-leading Victorian Tunnelling Centre. It is a vital institution ensuring that we have a local skilled workforce to do the incredibly important infrastructure work that is underway now in Victoria and that will continue thanks to the critical investment our government is making in the big projects that are truly transformative for our nation, such as the Suburban Rail Loop project. The first part of this project, the Suburban Rail Loop East, will in the most part be in my electorate. As a long-time resident and commuter across the south-eastern and eastern suburbs of Melbourne that this project will connect, I know just how valuable this project is.</para>
<para>A skilled workforce is central to ensuring this important job and many other jobs done across the nation. Labor's always invested in skills. We have always seen the value of vocational education and training and TAFE, and supporting the modernisation of data collection in the sector is another example of this. The care sector, of course, is very important to our nation. It was wonderful to be able to visit the Glen Waverley campus of Holmesglen and meet with early childhood education students who had already, while still studying, been snapped up with great, well-paying, secure jobs because the work that they do is in such high demand at the moment. Also on my visit to Holmesglen in Glen Waverley I visited some floristry students, who very kindly made me a lovely bouquet that really brightened up my office in Burwood.</para>
<para>I also visited the Box Hill Institute recently with Minister O'Connor and the state vocational education and training minister, Minister Tierney, to meet with culinary and electrical students. What was really interesting about our conversations with a number of the students was that they had started their education pathways post secondary school at university. They had then found that that wasn't quite for them so, instead, they decided to embark on an educational journey in the vocational education and training sector studying electrical engineering which, I think, is a really great story, demonstrating the importance of TAFE and of vocational education and training to progressing careers for so many in our communities.</para>
<para>Our government is delivering on our promise to elevate the sector, and TAFE is at the centre of the sector. We are determined for Australia to maintain our position as a global leader in VET. We are delivering 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places, upgrading essential TAFE infrastructure through the $50 million TAFE technology fund, and supporting new energy apprenticeships for a modern economy. For these innovations to succeed it is really critical that we can respond rapidly to emerging challenges, address skill gaps and take advantage of market opportunities. The ability to harness the power of information through modern systems and a new information standard will be key to achieving this goal. We can't track things properly if we don't have the best information and data. It is in the national interest that we modernise the way that we collect data, the way we use data and the way we make decisions about the kind of country and workforce that we are going to support in the future. I am really proud to be able to be part of the government to bring this bill to the House. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023, which the coalition supports in principle. However, before I do that I want to take a moment to tell the chamber about one education provider in my electorate who is doing extraordinary work in this space—that is, the Sunshine Coast Technical and Trade Training Centre based in Caloundra. This is a centre which partners with Caloundra State High School, Beerwah State High School, Kawana Waters State College and Meridan State College to deliver vocational education and training with high-quality industry based work experience. In 2022 alone, students completed a total of 11,500 hours of structured workplace learning, with the highest graduate apprenticeship and employment rate the centre has seen to date. In 2020 and 2021 they were named Fisher Education Provider of the Year at my annual Fisher Community Awards, and in 2019 construction trainer Rob Reid was awarded Fisher Educator of the Year for nearly 10 years of trade skills training. In 2020 and 2022 the centre was a finalist for the School Pathways to VET Award at the Australian Training Awards, and on five occasions the centre was named Construction School of the Year by Construction Skills Queensland.</para>
<para>This is a training institution that is getting it right. They offer programs in aviation that prepare students to operate drones and have partnered with CQUniversity to provide training in basic aeronautic knowledge and in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. They offer a program in built environment and design—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members, a quorum has been called for in the House.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to keep going. It's a quorum call.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're happy to keep going. Can we continue?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll keep going until I'm told otherwise.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Member for Fisher.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The trade training school offers a program in built environment and—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Member for Fisher—a quorum has been called for in the House. Proceedings are suspended in order for honourable members to attend the quorum. Proceedings will resume when the chair of the Federation Chamber is resumed at the conclusion of any quorum bells.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 17:16 to 17:20</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, the trade training college offers a program in built environment and design, covering residential construction, communication and building design. They deliver training in construction, automotive mechanics, electrotechnology, retail cosmetics, plumbing and beauty services. These are programs which students can directly articulate into further education, higher education and employment, and they prepare well-rounded graduates who have not been plunged through enormous class sizes or online webinars.</para>
<para>I think of Joshua Skogvold, who was named the 2022 Student of the Year. Josh completed his Certificate II in Electrotechnology whilst he was completing year 12 at Siena College. He is someone who has not only completed his secondary education but now has a career start as an electrical apprentice. Blaise, a 2022 graduate, says of his experience: 'I made great friends with the trainer and students and also got an apprenticeship with the help of my trainer. My work placement out with an employer also really helped as it gave me heaps of knowledge in the automotive industry.' Once again, there's a graduate who is engaged in formal training and equipped for meaningful employment. Shellie, one of the mums who's son Matthew also completed training at the centre, said: 'My husband and I are so grateful for the opportunities this year at Sunshine Coast Technical Trade Training Centre gave Matthew and know that it has set him up for his future. He had amazing support and guidance.'</para>
<para>The Sunshine Coast Technical Trade Training Centre is a phenomenal example of what can be achieved when industry and education partner together to engage and equip young people for a trades based career. It's not a university. It's not a school. It's not a TAFE. This is a collaborative industry-centred training facility which is changing young peoples' lives. That's why I was so disappointed—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 17:23 to 17:44</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is why I was so disappointed to see very little mention of industry-led and collaborative community-based training providers. Don't get me wrong: I absolutely support a strong and well-funded TAFE system. In fact, I'm a product of the TAFE system. The member for Chisholm was talking earlier about Holmesglen College of TAFE. That's where I went to TAFE. That's where I did the schooling component of my carpentry apprenticeship. I am a huge supporter of TAFE. TAFE is incredibly important. Often on this side of the House we get criticised as being unfriendly towards TAFE. But as someone who has actually been through the TAFE system and done an apprenticeship, I wonder how many of those opposite have actually gone through an apprenticeship.</para>
<para>Gone are the days of Labor of old, when you could say absolutely that the Labor Party was full of blue-collar workers. But that is no longer the case, unfortunately. The minister has this emphasis on TAFE, in my view incorrectly. It's not putting TAFE at the centre of our education system. It's not putting university at the centre of our education sector. It's not putting private providers at the centre. The centre of our education has got to be our students. Students must be the focus. If you go and enrol in a cert IV in training and assessment right now, that is what our vocational trainers and assessors are taught, because if we want a skilled workforce in the trades based sector then graduate outcome and employability must be the No. 1 focus.</para>
<para>One of the common criticisms I get and have heard over successive governments, whether it was me as a builder or when talking to colleagues who are solicitors, is that our current education system is not training people for the jobs of today or the future. When I've gone and spoken to groups, particularly university students who are just about to graduate, I congratulate them and say: 'Well done! You've worked hard for four years, and at the end of your four years you're going to get this little piece of paper, and this little piece of paper is what I call your licence to learn. After four hard years of slog, blood, sweat and tears at university, you can now take that piece of paper to an employer and say, Please can you now teach me; I have a licence to learn.'</para>
<para>That is what a degree gives you, and I can say that now, as someone who's been through the trades sector and as someone who's done a law degree. What you learn at law school and what you do as a practising lawyer are poles apart. That's what I hear in just about every other industry as well. So, we have to get a lot smarter in this country about how we teach our young people, particularly in the vocational education and training sector.</para>
<para>I'm calling on this government to change their language and change their approach. When Labor were in power in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, we had a fundamental change to the way vocational education and training was viewed, because every young person was encouraged to go to university. But do you know what? Not every young person is destined to go to university. Not every young person should go to university. The old Labor government, in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, particularly under Prime Minister Gillard, established this sort of culture that if you wanted to be someone in life you needed to go to university, you needed to get a higher education. As a parent, I sucked that up. I fell for it. I was a tradesman back then, and I wanted my kids to do better—so called—than I did. I wanted them to go to university. It's really funny. If you look at carpenters, electricians and plumbers now, they are laughing their heads off about what they earn compared to what lawyers earn. When I used to go to Master Builders nights in my days as a builder, you'd pull up at a local pub and the car yard would be full of utes and vans, and there might be one or two Mercedes from the lawyers coming to teach them. Then 15 or 20 years later, it was an absolute complete swap; it's the tradies that are now driving the Mercedes-Benzes and the lawyers that are driving the utes.</para>
<para>The fact is that we had this cultural shift in this country which denigrated—and I don't use that term lightly—trades. We denigrated trades. As someone who was in the trade, we denigrated trades. If you were a tradesman you were a second-class citizen. That was the story. That was the message that was being told, and it's fundamentally wrong. If you are a tradesman, the world is your oyster. The training that many trades receive in this country, particularly in years gone by, can take you just about anywhere in the world. There is a problem with that now; unfortunately we are not seeing the same sort of quality of trades coming through. I think there are a lot of reasons for that. But we have developed this culture, and what we are seeing is a lack of tradespeople now as a result. If your toilet gets blocked, ring a plumber. Try to get a carpenter. Try to get a bricklayer these days. There is an absolute dearth of trades, and that is because of the cultural shift that happened under that Labor government.</para>
<para>Let me tell you about when we were in government. The Liberals and Nationals cleaned up Labor's mess when it comes to vocational education. Since my first day in this role, I have bemoaned the fact that tradespeople were really denigrated by that lot over on the other side. This has impacted productivity, the availability of a skilled workforce, as I said, and industries that rely on skilled workers, including manufacturing, construction and technology. I'm pleased to have been part of a coalition government which invested record amounts into the Australian skills system, totalling $13 billion since 2020 alone.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Could the member for Fisher pause. We have hardly any members in the Chamber, so let's hear the member for Fisher in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We saw the highest number of apprentices on record thanks to policies like the Australian Apprenticeships Incentive System, a $2.4 billion program which focused on boosting apprenticeship completions. We were able to support businesses to employ and train apprentices and trainees with programs like the Skills and Training Boost, which supported small and family businesses with a fee deduction and a bonus deduction of 20 per cent in the cost of external training delivered by registered training providers. During the COVID-19 pandemic we protected those businesses and 530,000 apprentices with a crucial wage subsidy program, saving jobs, protecting employers and supporting Australia's productivity at a time at which it was most at risk. We supported jobseekers and young people with low-fee or fee-free training through the $2.1 billion JobTrainer Fund. This created 478,000 training places in crucial skilled sectors, including aged care, to which 10 per cent of places were directed. I could go on about our successes in government, but I am running out of time.</para>
<para>To the bill itself, there are a number of things the coalition will support. The coalition is in step with the government's commitment to resolving the situation in national VET activity data collection, which can see data lags of up to 20 months. Whilst in government, the coalition also sought to address the issues. Once again, this is a bill which continues important reforms that the coalition started. Specifically, the bill gives effect to some of the recommendations outlined in the Braithwaite review. This was a review commissioned by the coalition when in government, and, naturally, we support in principle those recommendations as laid out in this legislation. We do so in good faith and expect that the government will subject this bill to a thorough committee examination to ensure that the issues raised by the sector are aired and addressed. I'm pleased that the government has agreed to make that commitment.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank the member for Fisher for his speech. There were some things that I agree with and some things that I disagree with. My father is a fitter and turner, and, for the record, I studied AutoCAD at TAFE, so there you go!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wallace</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Good on you. Well done.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The thing that I'd also point out is that the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023 has bipartisan support, which is wonderful. I love it when the parliament can work hand in hand, improving our nation together. It's a shame that we can't talk about all the positive things that we're doing together and we had a bit of sledging just then.</para>
<para>I will say that I am proud and will take this opportunity to highlight the Albanese Labor government's strong track record in the vocational education sector. We are a party that recognises the importance of tradespeople—I note the use of the word 'tradesmen' in the previous speech, but I will say 'tradespeople', because there are lots of trades that people do where you could be any gender really. Some of the highlights include broadening our commitment to TAFE by introducing 480,000 fee-free TAFE places. For 2023, we introduced 180,000 fee-free TAFE places, including 18,800 fee-free TAFE places and VET places offered in my home state of Western Australia. These extra training places have been intentionally selected to be delivered in critical skill shortage areas. These include aged care, early childhood education, health care, disability care, technology and increasing digital skills, hospitality and tourism, and construction and agriculture, while also increasing our sovereign capability in areas like manufacturing and defence. We've also committed $2 million to a new commercial kitchen at South Metro TAFE in my home electorate o Swan. We've also committed $95.6 million over nine years to support 10,000 new energy apprentices. The program will see eligible apprentices receive up to $10,000 over the course of their apprenticeship to assist with the cost of living.</para>
<para>I want to see the vocational sector grow from strength to strength, and a part of this is around good data processes. Twenty-five years old sounds quite young for maybe a man or a woman, but for a data system it's very old. In fact, I would call it geriatric. Currently, the existing geriatric 25-year-old data system, which is associated with the VET sector, can take up to 20 months to upload the data before students, governments and regulators can actually get this information. It's archaic; it's clunky; the system is not fit for purpose for the year 2023. Good organisations have good data management systems. You know the old adage: if you're not measuring it, you can't manage it. So this is a part of improving the processes. This is the first step in broadening the VET data streamlining program, which is designed to speed up and modernise the collection and use of VET data. The truth is that we're looking at data in ways that we haven't in the past. We need to have good systems in place so we can start to have a look at the trends and see what's happening.</para>
<para>Under the existing data standard, which was developed 25 years ago, data on VET students and training activity took 20 months to update before it was available to students, governments and regulators. This data is crucial for program administration. It supports providers to deliver high-quality training and is key to implementing policy priorities effectively. That activity data is currently collected under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Provision Requirements) Instrument 2020. Currently, the act requires that any changes to the data provision requirements be agreed to by the ministerial council, which includes all the Commonwealth, state and territory skills ministers. This creates unnecessary administrative burden for skills ministers and makes the data standard less responsive than it should be.</para>
<para>This bill contains four important elements. It allows the ministerial council to agree to appoint another person—for example, a senior bureaucrat—from each jurisdiction. They can then agree to specific changes of the data provision requirements. Once these are passed, the ministerial council could make an agreement which includes stating the circumstances or procedures by which a specific person or body can agree to changes to the data provision requirements. This will allow changes to the data provision requirements to be made more rapidly and flexibly and will allow VET data streamlining to be implemented responsively. A reflective and responsive VET sector that can be efficient is one that will better meet the needs of Australian students in the long term. I will use COVID as an example. Organisations needed to be flexible and pivot, and this is something that we can't do with the current system.</para>
<para>It will allow the national VET sector regulator, ASQA, to make administrative decisions, primarily in relation to granting exemptions from certain data for registered training organisations. Currently, under separate policy, ASQA grants exceptions to RTOs from reporting data in specific circumstances—for example, when training relates to national security or where reporting related data would jeopardise security. This change will allow exemptions to be granted under the act rather than under a separate policy. In our changing strategic environment we will require decisions to be made quickly, and these changes acknowledge that.</para>
<para>It also allows the secretary of the Commonwealth department with responsibility for skills and training to release the data under the data collection provisions to the public when agreed to by the ministerial council. This removes an existing ambiguity in the act which treats the release of data provision requirements data differently to other data. It also permits the secretary to authorise ICT operators, by legislative instrument, to access and use VET data while contracted to build a new VET data system. In my previous role, I sat on the board of the South Metropolitan TAFE governing council, and data management and data governance were really important. This will be an important step to improving that. This will ensure that those involved in handling information collected under the data provision requirements are authorised to do so.</para>
<para>To ease the burden of the new requirements, the bill will insert a new schedule into the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Transitional Provisions) Act 2011 to support registered training organisations to transition across to new reporting arrangements over two years. It's important that we're also giving our registered training organisations time to adjust to the new regulatory system.</para>
<para>Our world is dramatically changing and the role of digital data systems in all that we do has grown drastically in the last three decades. CSIRO's <inline font-style="italic">Our</inline><inline font-style="italic"> future world</inline> megatrends report notes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The rapid adoption of digital and data technologies in recent times has meant that many sectors and organisations have experienced years' worth of digital transformation in the space of months. … While this progress has been significant, experts predict that this is just the tip of the iceberg, with the vast majority of digitisation yet to occur.</para></quote>
<para>This bill updates our data management processes in the VET sector to meet the changing ways in which society is using data for community benefit. When I worked at Energetics, big datasets and collection mechanisms were essential for carbon accounting, and we were doing this because we were responding to global market conditions which required decisions to be made quickly and accurately. This legislation is effectively about updating our 25-year-old data system processes. This will enable better decision-making and ensure a high-quality VET sector student experience. I welcome the support of the crossbench and the opposition in passing this legislation and I hope to see positive impacts of the change under this legislation soon.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would just like to add some brief remarks on this legislation, which of course we're supporting, as has been indicated. I think it's really just an opportunity for us to reflect on this bill. Obviously it's going to improve the ability for data to be captured and collected from RTOs and give more flexibility around how that occurs.</para>
<para>I can speak specifically to my home state of South Australia. There is an enormous amount of bureaucratic complexity around the way the VET sector is structured, and, frankly, I think that's crept in over decades. We've obviously got multiple levels of government that are involved in funding. We've even got local government, particularly in regional areas, that often is very engaged with the local TAFE campuses and the like. I think that this is obviously an opportunity to dramatically improve the data collection, and, hopefully, we also treat that better quality of data as an opportunity for more reform around VET.</para>
<para>In the coalition, we're very supportive, if not passionate, about as much flexibility in the VET sector and empowering RTOs, particularly industry led RTOs. We had a terrible situation in South Australia a few years ago—it was 2015, from memory—where the industry RTOs were cut out of the state government funding to support and hardwire that funding exclusively to TAFE. We lost a lot of really good industry led providers through that process. The AHA was significantly affected, and the MTA et cetera. So the flexibility that we get through that RTO system is really important. Good quality data is obviously going to drive an ability to look for reform. I certainly think with so many different hands of government engaged in this area—across workforce planning, across funding, across accreditation and the like—there's got to be further opportunities that this might bring about for us to streamline.</para>
<para>I also want to put on the record the opportunities specific to the AUKUS announcement last week in my home state of South Australia and how important the VET sector is going to be in making sure that we are training the workforce that we need. There's a big risk around not getting that right, because there are two other countries involved in this AUKUS opportunity and their businesses will gobble up the opportunities where they see them if we haven't properly trained a workforce for businesses in our country to take this opportunity, particularly in the supply chain.</para>
<para>I'm very passionate about supply chain opportunity. We won't struggle; we'll get it right where we train the workforce we need in the shipyards. That is a fairly straightforward mapping exercise to understand what the needs are. I'm not suggesting it's not a very significant body of work, but I'm paying a compliment to the people that will be engaged in that and know that we'll be able to identify what we need in the shipyards. But the more lucrative economic element of shipbuilding is through the supply chain. Whilst the shipyards are significant, that's really putting together the finished product. A lot of what is inside that pressure hull is not manufactured at the shipyard. It comes to the shipyard from other businesses, and the workforce element of that is going to be vitally important. It's an opportunity hopefully, for our businesses to supply into the UK supply chain for their AUKUS submarine build, and I hope that the government is very focused on achieving opportunities for Australian businesses to supply into the UK program. And, for all the investment we've committed to to go into the UK, I sincerely hope there is a significant economic dividend from that.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Rep</inline> <inline font-style="italic">resentatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 18:09 to 18:29</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Without repeating myself, I think I have articulated those important points about the naval shipbuilding opportunity in South Australia and how vital the VET sector will be to that. I hope this bill will provide an opportunity for the sector to strengthen and for the government to be in possession of information that is of higher quality and that can lead to future reform opportunities in the sector.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to thank all members for their contributions to this debate. I thank the members for Farrer, Hughes, Fisher, Chisholm, Swan and Sturt, who have spoken on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023.</para>
<para>The Australian vocational education and training sector delivers outstanding education training through a variety of institutions, public and private, and registered training organisations within universities and schools. It is a dynamic and responsive sector that supports millions of students to obtain the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in a modern economy. It provides flexible opportunities to engage in education and training as a starting point to a career pathway or as a solution to upskill or reskill.</para>
<para>The government understands the importance of the VET sector to the Australian economy, which is why it is delivering 180,000 fee-free TAFE places in 2023, upgrading essential TAFE infrastructure through the TAFE technology fund and supporting new energy apprenticeships for a modern economy, among other policies to uplift the VET sector. However, the needs of students, first and foremost, along with training providers and decision-makers in much of the VET sector, are not currently being met when it comes to information and data.</para>
<para>In order for the VET sector to be dynamic and responsive, the implementation of VET data reforms is crucial. The amendments in the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023 are required to help address these issues. The Australian government is working with the states and territories and the National Centre for Vocational Education Research to improve the availability and quality of VET data. The VET data streamlining program will implement measures to simplify reporting pathways, improve data quality and decrease reporting times across the VET sector, with a focus on improving outcomes at a national level. This will reduce the delay between the creation, collection and use of national VET activity data, which will enable governments and other VET data users to be more responsive to the needs of the VET sector.</para>
<para>The government, along with the states and territories, has consulted widely with stakeholders on data provision requirements in VET. Consultations with these stakeholders, including peak bodies, regulators and training providers, showed support for improving the timeliness and quality of VET data for all stakeholders. I'm happy to say that when I raised this matter as an agenda item at the last ministerial council it was unanimously supported by all ministers and all jurisdictions present, which really shows how much support there is for these reforms.</para>
<para>For Australia to maintain its position as a global leader in VET training it is critical that we can respond rapidly to emerging challenges, address skills gaps and take advantage of market opportunities. Our ability to harness the power of data through a strong governance framework, modern ICT capabilities and an updated fit-for-purpose VET information standard will be key to achieving this goal. Comprehensive and timely VET data is important. It supports a strong VET system that is relevant and responsive to employers and students. It instils confidence in the quality and value of VET, and it ensures that students and employers can access suitable information and training. In addition, VET activity reporting provides transparency to enable scrutiny of the competitive delivery of VET. This scrutiny stimulates research and provides evidence to inform governments on how best to invest public resources to get the best returns for the sector.</para>
<para>The amendments in this bill will support necessary VET data reforms to improve the timeliness and quality of VET data and deliver on the government's commitment to enhancing the quality and relevance of VET reforms, such as through fee-free TAFE, the TAFE technology fund and other pending reforms. Once again, I thank all members for their engagement with and contributions to the debate on this important bill. I appreciate the fact that the opposition have supported this bill. Some of the work on this bill commenced prior to the election, so I note the work that was undertaken by those opposite, and I acknowledge the work of the NCVER, state and territory governments, sector regulators and the VET sector more broadly in advancing these important VET data reforms.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Apology for Forced Adoptions: 10th Anniversary</title>
          <page.no>156</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to recognise this very important anniversary. It has been 10 years since the National Apology for Forced Adoptions. I was not yet elected on the day in 2013 when the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard apologised on behalf of the Australian government to people affected by forced adoptions and removal policies. I am humbled to stand here in the Australian parliament 10 years on to remember those impacted; those who are still grieving; those who have faced a lifetime of uncertainty, loss, trauma and struggle; and those who are sadly no longer with us.</para>
<para>From the 1940s, tens of thousands of babies were taken from their mothers by immoral and indeed often illegal acts. The national apology acknowledged the lifelong pain and suffering associated with forced adoption practices. Mothers were betrayed by a system that gave them no choice and subjected them to manipulation, mistreatment and malpractice, which left them dealing with that trauma, shame and grief and missing out on loving and caring for their babies. Some remain lost to another forever. Others struggle to reconnect and form relationships or continue to feel the impacts throughout their lives.</para>
<para>Ten years ago, Newcastle resident Therese Pearson was one of those mothers who travelled to Canberra to attend the apology by the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Therese was 19 when her baby boy was taken from her at a Catholic home for unmarried mothers. That was 1964. Sixty years on, she still struggles with that pain. She says, 'They ruined my life.'—that's what she says of the Catholic Church today. Therese was one of more than 400 submissions to the Senate inquiry into the Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices and also gave evidence at a public hearing on 29 April 2011. Therese told the inquiry: 'I did not want to adopt my baby out. I wanted to keep him.' Teresa said she was given drugs and forced to sign adoption papers. Her cousin was a nurse at the hospital and was in the labour ward when Therese gave birth. When Therese asked what sex her baby was, her cousin said she was not supposed to tell her but that she had had a boy. After her son was born, Therese returned to the home for unwed mothers, where she mopped floors and cleaned up after the nuns. She told the inquiry, 'Waitara being a home for adopted and fostered babies, I had to feed, dress, change and bath other babies, which was heart-wrenching since my own baby was taken from me.' I stand here in recognition of Therese, her son, all those mothers and children and all those Newcastle families whose lives have been torn apart by forced adoption.</para>
<para>Therese is involved in a support network, Origins, which was founded back in 1995 by a group of mothers who lost children to those past adoption practices. She was very pleased to know that the 10-year anniversary was being marked in the federal parliament today. This was something that she had called my office about many, many weeks ago. It was playing on her mind, as it does every year, and she wanted to know what the Australian parliament was preparing to do to mark this 10th anniversary. I know she will be pleased to receive a copy of the minister's speech from this morning, to mark this day.</para>
<para>Nothing can bring back those lost years between a mother and child. Nothing can repair the damage to fathers who were also profoundly impacted by these policies and practices. Nothing can assist those siblings, grandparents, partners and other family members who shared in that pain, suffering and unimaginable grief. But the Labor government will keep striving to help heal some of those wounds that families still carry.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government has today announced that $700,000 will be provided to deliver trauma-informed support services. We know just how critical trauma-informed practices are, and, if ever we are to try and deal with what is now intergenerational trauma for many of these families, having properly trained people working in accessible and affordable support services is critical. This funding will provide training for aged care, allied health and Forced Adoption Support Service providers to ensure that they can deliver that targeted trauma-informed care. It will mean people affected by forced adoption can access appropriate care that is tailored to their specific needs, whatever stage of life and grief they are in. The government continues to provide $1.8 million annually for the Forced Adoption Support Service, which offers support from the national helpline, casework and support and search services, as well as access to counselling for people across Australia. These are all important services and this government will absolutely honour its commitment to ensure that those services are available, are accessible, and have no fear for their funding going forward.</para>
<para>As Julia Gillard said, in this place on 21 March 2013, 'We resolve, as a nation, to do all in our power to make sure these practices are never repeated.' That's what each and every one of us needs to commit to. In my community of Newcastle there are, sadly, too many families that are impacted by these forced adoption practices, with too much sadness and too much grief. Whilst we will do everything we can to support people today, we on this side of the House—and, I expect, across the parliament as a whole—recommit ourselves on this 10th anniversary to ensuring that those despicable practices and policies are never allowed to see the light of day again in this nation. Of course, it's only by squarely facing the truth of that past that we get to move forward and ensure that it's not repeated. And that's why the apology was so important. That is why those inquiries beforehand were so important, as confronting as they were, as uncomfortable as it might make people feel from time to time. Many of the institutions that people like Therese turned to for some support at a time in her life when she was overwhelmed by being an unwed pregnant young woman at the age of 19 were the very institutions she should have been able to trust, but that trust was utterly betrayed. The Catholic Church, as do all other institutions involved in the forced removal and adoptions of babies, has a lot to answer for, a lot of atonement to make. To the credit of some, that is indeed happening, but it is a mission that they need to recommit themselves to each and every day. As the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard said 10 years ago now:</para>
<quote><para class="block">With profound sadness and remorse, we offer you all our unreserved apology.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too take the opportunity to make some remarks following on from the minister's marking of the historic 10th anniversary of this apology. We take the opportunity in this parliament to commemorate these important apologies that have occurred for things in our history that we are very much ashamed of, very much regretful of. It's so important that we take the opportunity to remind ourselves of those uncomfortable elements of our history because they do indeed ensure that we are always vigilant today and into the future so as to not risk any of these sorts of things being repeated, not that I have any fear that the awful attitudes that existed at a certain time in our history have any risk of being replicated again.</para>
<para>I had a constituent meet with me a few years ago who was in the situation of never knowing his biological mother because he was taken from her in a circumstance within the envelope of the topic that we are discussing. He missed the chance to ever meet her. She passed away before he was able to identify her and find out who she was. The impact and effect that regrettably still had on the gentleman, who was in his seventies, were that his life was absolutely ruined by both what he endured and by the fact he would never know the pain his biological mother endured having her young newborn baby taken away from her and, no doubt, being made to feel not only the trauma and devastation of that but also the implication that she had done something wrong by being an unwed pregnant young lady. On top of the trauma of the experience of having a small little baby taken away from her, she also, no doubt, endured some kind of additional, if that could be possible, awful emotional abuse of being treated as someone who ineffectively committed some kind of crime. His experience was very touching and one I reflect on today.</para>
<para>I very much acknowledge former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the fact that on this day 10 years ago she did something that was very significant and very important. Although the trauma for the victims of these horrendous practices endures for those who are still with us to this day, I know it makes a difference in trying to get some kind of comfort and solace for the horrendous trauma of that experience and that enduring suffering to at least know that a government 10 years ago was prepared to, unequivocally, completely acknowledge and take responsibility and issue an apology for those horrendous practices, which were collaborated in not just by governments but by other institutions.</para>
<para>The previous speaker indicated that some have been more forthcoming and taken a greater deal of responsibility perhaps than others about the role they played in that—the attitudes they were applying and therefore participating in this horrendous practice. Those attitudes hopefully are well and truly buried in the past, never to rear their ugly head again.</para>
<para>As someone who experienced a very happy childhood, sometimes on topics like this you think to yourself, I couldn't possibly understand the trauma and the pain of what people in this circumstance went through. I suppose all I'd conclude on is to say that, when I think of how grateful I am for the happy and loving childhood that I had, it does in some ways allow me to connect with the horror of being deprived of that. That's what happened to so many people—mothers, babies, families who never were able to be—and that's truly disgusting and appalling.</para>
<para>So I think we just need to, as a parliament, always take the opportunity to mark these milestones, to talk about these uncomfortable topics, because I do think it improves the way in which we will approach our decision-making as a parliament. It's important to remember and reflect on these nasty parts of our history. Hopefully the silver lining is that it improves the way in which we take into account and therefore apply our values and our morals to the decisions we make into the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Attorney-General for moving this motion on the anniversary of Prime Minister Gillard's historic apology to the nearly 250,000 Australians affected by the era of forced adoption. This of course occurred in the mid-20th century, but it extended right up until my time working as a medical student and then paediatric registrar in Sydney, and I saw it happen. I've never forgotten being at the delivery of a newborn baby, and a young girl, really, having her child removed from her and not ever being able to hold the child, not being able to put the baby to the breast, not being able to kiss it, not being able to hug it. I saw that happen in a Catholic hospital in Sydney. I saw the mother quickly being transported to the maternity ward, of course surrounded by other mothers who'd delivered babies and were able to hold and feed them, while she had her breasts strapped so that she couldn't lactate and was then removed from the hospital back to the home where she had been kept prior to having her baby. That happened in my time as a paediatric registrar.</para>
<para>I've seen also, even more recently, some people arguing about the need to have early adoption of children who are placed in foster care. So I don't think we should glibly think, even though it's 10 years since Julia Gillard apologised to those children and their families who had been forcibly removed, that it can't happen again. I know that there are some people who are advocating for a more relaxed policy towards adoption of children, and I think that's a bad thing. I think we should be very, very careful about allowing adoption of children who have been removed from their families.</para>
<para>As many survivors of this period would attest, they have struggled with the impact of this for all of their lives. I would go further; the effects of this are generational. To think that this is what we did in a civilised, developed country is absolutely shameful. It is something that we must continue to recognise, and we must continue to support the people involved. I find it difficult to stand here and think about the trauma that those kids and their families suffer from. As a father of six, I cannot imagine not being able to hug my newborn baby, or what my wife would go through not being able to cuddle and breastfeed her child. It is something that is beyond what an apology can do to repair that damage. It goes a long way, I admit. I know, having spoken to people who are victims of forced adoption—I say 'victims' because it is a major trauma.</para>
<para>I struggle to comprehend how they can deal with normal life after that. Of course, many of them do, and I want to pay tribute in this Chamber to Steve Irons, who was the member for Swan, who very strongly advocated for the national inquiry and national apology to those victims of forced adoption. He was a victim of forced adoption and he went on to become a very successful businessman and a very successful politician, although for those opposite rather than for Labor. It was a tribute to him and to others, including Julia Gillard and her government, that we did have this formal apology 10 years ago. From talking to Steve, the grief and torment of being removed from his family goes on, as I said, for many, many years—for life—and affects subsequent generations as well, knowing it is part of their family history.</para>
<para>The apology is the least that can be done for these men and women who were once just beautiful kids when they were taken from their mothers, the majority of whom may well have been very young women or even children themselves. They did not receive appropriate support. They did not receive government supports to which they were actually entitled. Some of these women were entitled to supports, but the medical system did not explain to them what supports could be provided to them. It is a national tragedy and it is a national trauma that we need to deal with. The grief and torment is shared by the women who were pressured into giving up their children and their children. It affected their whole lives—their learning, their work, their subsequent families—and it was a very, very lonely journey through many years of emotional and mental anguish that these people had to suffer.</para>
<para>I've spoken to many of the kids that I looked after that had been adopted—sometimes not forcibly adopted. What they all want is to know their birth family. They do. Many people who were subject to forced adoption did in fact have successful and happy lives, but the trauma stayed with them. As the Minister for Social Services has said, the mother-baby bond was broken in the most traumatic way. No support was given to these people. So many mothers were pressured into giving up their newborn babies or had their babies taken forcibly through immoral, unethical and illegal practices. Nothing was done to support them. It is hard to imagine the trauma they have suffered and continue to suffer. As a paediatrician it pains me to think of the anguish that these people have gone through. I have seen many children over my medical career, and they all have one thing in common: a strong will and intention to know their heritage, to know where they've come from, to meet their birth parents and to be able to resolve some of the difficulties that they have faced because of forced adoption. For many, that will never happen. Of course, many have died. But it is really important that, as an Australian government, we support those who survive to come to terms with the trauma and support them for the damage that we as a country have caused.</para>
<para>That's why the announcement by Minister Rishworth, that our government is strengthening the current supports provided to people affected by forced adoptions, with $700,000 of funding for training, aged care, allied health and forced adoption support service providers, is so important. It is important to ensure that everyone receives targeted and trauma-informed care. It is important that we make sure people are aware of the supports that are now available to them. There were supports for many of these mothers in the days when their babies were taken from them, but the medical system did not inform them of the supports that were available and did not support them to keep their children.</para>
<para>I know that sometimes families have huge stresses upon them, and there may well be other issues involved in children being placed in foster care. I have dealt with many of these kids. I do have concerns that some of the services we provide to children placed in foster care are still not adequate and concerns that supports for families to be able to keep their children with them are still not adequate. I think it is very important that we recognise that the best place for a child to be is with their birth family in the vast majority of cases. We have to make sure that children are not removed from their families wherever it's possible they can be kept together. That's something that, as a paediatrician, I feel very strongly about, with almost, now, 50 years of experience working in this field. The Gillard government did many wonderful things. The apology was part of that, but I look forward to making sure we provide support as we can to those removed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the honourable member for Macarthur, who just delivered one of the best speeches I've heard in this place. I stand today to speak about the recognition of 10 years since the National Apology for Forced Adoptions was made. In preparing for this speech I thought there are many others who have come before me who have said it perhaps more eloquently than I can. I start, first of all—in chronological order, because I'm still a lawyer at the end of the day—by acknowledging former prime minister Gillard, who, in many ways, has not been given the recognition that was deserved to her for bringing about this national apology. So I start by quoting Ms Gillard, because her words 10 years ago still resonate so much today. Ms Gillard said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We deplore the shameful practices that denied you, the mothers, your fundamental rights and responsibilities to love and care for your children. You were not legally or socially acknowledged as their mothers. And you were yourselves deprived of care and support.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To you, the mothers who were betrayed by a system that gave you no choice and subjected you to manipulation, mistreatment and malpractice, we apologise.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We say sorry to you, the mothers who were denied knowledge of your rights, which meant you could not provide informed consent. You were given false assurances. You were forced to endure the coercion and brutality of practices that were unethical, dishonest and in many cases illegal.</para></quote>
<para>The former Prime Minister then said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We know you have suffered enduring effects from these practices forced upon you by others. For the loss, the grief, the disempowerment, the stigmatisation and the guilt, we say sorry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To each of you who were adopted or removed, who were led to believe your mother had rejected you and who were denied the opportunity to grow up with your family and community of origin and to connect with your culture, we say sorry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We apologise to the sons and daughters who grew up not knowing how much you were wanted and loved.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To you, the fathers, who were excluded from the lives of your children and deprived of the dignity of recognition on your children's birth records, we say sorry. We acknowledge your loss and grief.</para></quote>
<para>I cannot imagine what the terror was like that a woman would have felt finding out she was pregnant in the 1950s or 1960s or 1970s, which was the period that I grew up in—the 1970s, not the 1950s. It should have been an occasion of immense joy. They were unwed, and the way that society at that stage dealt with unmarried mothers was to say, 'You are not fit to be a mother.' I am just so relieved that my generation has not had to deal with that stigma, and I'm very relieved that in my son's generation the girls whom they're friends with and whom they are growing up with also will not have to deal with that stigma and that trauma.</para>
<para>I've mentioned former prime minister Gillard. On the one-year anniversary of the apology, Prime Minister Tony Abbott had a couple of words to say as well. I will quote from former prime minister Abbott, who said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I cannot imagine a grief greater than that of a parent and a child parted from each other. I cannot imagine an ache greater than the fear that 'mum didn't want me', especially, since it was not true. But hundreds of thousands of Australians have been adopted, often because their mothers had no real choice or were denied any choice, and that means that there are hundreds of thousands of mothers who hardly knew their children and hundreds of thousands of children who hardly knew their mothers.</para></quote>
<para>It was one of the worst government policies ever in the history of our country. Thankfully, because of the apology, at least now, while we cannot right the wrongs of the past, we have come a lot of the way to obtaining forgiveness. So that the victims of these policies—the mothers, the fathers and also the children—can start to be able to continue with their lives, an apology is completely appropriate.</para>
<para>I also thank Minister Rishworth, the Minister for Social Services, for the speech that she gave today in our parliament on behalf of her government and on behalf of everybody in the federal parliament. I'll just pull out a few of the words that she said. First, she quoted our current Prime Minister, who had said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… this is not ancient history, not some distant tale from the vanished past. The Australians affected are with us still …</para></quote>
<para>She further quoted the Prime Minister, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… 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.</para></quote>
<para>I think in that vein it's important to acknowledge that many of these mothers did not even know whether they had given birth to a son or a daughter. The baby was taken away and they did not even get to see that baby. As a mother, I cannot imagine what they went through.</para>
<para>The minister said some other things this morning in the parliament:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Ten years ago all sides of politics came together in agreement with the apology.</para></quote>
<para>That was very important. It was the same today; it was very bipartisan. The minister also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Last night over a hundred mothers, adopted people, fathers, family members, advocates and support workers travelled to Canberra from all over the country to mark the occasion.</para></quote>
<para>That's the occasion of the apology. The minister continued:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It was a night of reunion, reflection, mourning and connection.</para></quote>
<para>Then she welcomed and acknowledged the many that we had in the gallery today. She also pointed out the fact that forced adoptions are a startling recent chapter in Australia's history and, as I've said, that is important to remember. This was not something that was occurring a hundred or 200 years ago. This was something that was still occurring during my childhood. That's probably the biggest takeaway for me.</para>
<para>A deep veil of silence is drawn across this shameful period in history. Unmarried pregnant women were made to feel shame because of this government practice of forced adoptions. The apology that was given 10 years ago in this place was only realised due to the ongoing advocacy and tremendous courage of people including many, as the minister said, who were there in the parliament today. Their courage to relive painful experiences over and over again to make sure that the impact were fully understood by the nation is very important.</para>
<para>Looking to the future, one of the biggest things that came out of the apology 10 years ago was that there was an inquiry, and there is now ongoing and established funding for forced adoption support services. The Australian government continues to provide around $1.8 million per annum for forced adoption support services, which comprise about seven organisations across Australia including services such as national helpline referrals, individual casework and support, assistance with family searching and record tracing, group activities, peer support and access to counselling. As a result of the apology of 10 years ago, there is support being provided to those victims, and that support has been bipartisan. I will always continue to support that ongoing service while I'm in this place.</para>
<para>It's an emotional issue for all of us, and all that I can say is: I thank again Prime Minister Gillard for giving the apology 10 years ago and I thank all of those who have spoken today on the occasion of the 10th commemoration of the apology.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to acknowledge all the speakers who have spoken so far about the 10-year anniversary of the apology for forced adoptions. I want to acknowledge Minister Rishworth, the member for Kingston, and her role. I also want to acknowledge your role, Deputy Speaker Claydon. This is one of many issues where you have been a shining light not only in our party but in the broader polity to make sure that there's justice—justice for victims of forced adoptions, justice for members of the Stolen Generation and justice for people who need champions. You've been a champion for them and you are a person of extraordinary integrity. I just wanted to let you know that.</para>
<para>I do also remember well when this happened. I was campaigning for the 2013 election. I remember when Julia, the former Prime Minister, offered that unconditional apology. It's been extremely heartening to hear all the tributes to former prime minister Gillard from all sides of politics. This awareness that some had for as long as Julia's been active in political life—and some who, through this anniversary, have cast a different view on her extraordinary leadership.</para>
<para>Standing in front of an audience of over 800 people in the Great Hall of Parliament House, Prime Minister Gillard officially apologised on behalf of the Australian people for the great and lasting harm that forced adoptions practised in the recent past inflicted on mothers, on the adopted people themselves, on fathers and wider families. The apology was addressed to the hundreds of thousands of Australians who were subject to forced adoptions, people like a forcibly adopted Darwin woman who I won't name but who I know was present at that apology in 2013. Derek Pedley's mother lived in the Northern Territory and has written a memoir on forced adoption. For hundreds of others with similar experiences from my electorate and from all our electorates across Australia who were affected by forced adoption and who were present that day, Prime Minister Gillard's apology was more than just words; it was a form of justice.</para>
<para>Through that speech the Australian Parliament took responsibility unreservedly and humbly apologised to mothers denied even that first precious moment with the child they brought into the world. We apologised to the children who are now adults who were denied identities and robbed of a sense of connection to family, to culture and to place. We apologised to the fathers and the ones who sought but were excluded from the births and the lives of their children, and to the wider families—siblings, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. This is an intergenerational trauma that runs deep and wide and it's important for all of us to realise that none of it is ancient history. This was commonplace across the country, growing more frequent during the forties and peaking between 1950 and 1975.</para>
<para>It is amazing. I was born in 1971, like the previous speaker, and grew up in the seventies. Perhaps on 17 September 1971 there was another child born in Melbourne, a child who was taken from their mum and did not experience that early, special, sacred bond like I and my mum have and did not have that unconditional love from their birth mother because they were simply denied that opportunity.</para>
<para>Forced adoptions are a recent truth and the legacy of hurt that they caused lives on in the present and will live on into the future. It is intergenerational. But that apology lessened it to some extent, I hope. These practices were driven by a social judgement in those years and decades that children must at all costs be raised by married parents, and by a mother and a father. Obviously, those beliefs of the day are now seen as unconscionable. As the Prime Minister said on the anniversary this week, forced adoptions were driven by a culture that enabled and facilitated a practice of denying mothers even a single moment with the baby they had brought into the world.</para>
<para>We have heard shocking tales but they are important to let those listening who may have not met anyone who was taken away from their mother at birth in a forced adoption that mothers were restrained. They were shackled to their beds while their children were taken away. They were tricked into signing adoption papers. They were blindfolded to prevent any eye contact with their newborn to stop the slightest connection from forming. Some, at least, were deceived, and the evidence is pretty strong that it was commonplace that many were deceived and coerced by the very social services that should have protected them. It is difficult to confirm with many records either lost or unreliable but it is estimated that the total number of forced adoptions could be as high as a quarter of a million. That is a quarter of a million of newborn babies taken from their mothers and families by means of shame, coercion, institutional abuse, drugging, physical restraint, forgery and fraud. It's just horrific, and the aftershocks are still reverberating through communities as the consequences of forced adoption are still coming to light. It took decades to begin to recognise it and to call out that it was wrong, but that's what Julia Gillard's government did. I don't say that as a partisan comment; I just say it as in there are a lot of good people on both sides of politics, some with lived experience like Steve Lyons who he knew that it was wrong and that we must apologise because that would be part of the journey of healing. Through this marking of the anniversary, I hope those who were up in the gallery today and yesterday got a sense of how deeply we are still committed, however we can in society, to preventing the unnecessary taking of children away from their parents.</para>
<para>By way of some quick background that I think is important to put on the record, on 15 November 2010, the Senate commenced an inquiry into the Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices. As we have done in the Northern Territory, which was administered by the Commonwealth, responsibility has been taken for the actions of the Commonwealth in terms of the Stolen Generation, so we have had experience in seeing that intergenerational trauma and the way it can play out. But many did not know that it wasn't just First Nations people who were taken from their families—it was also people from all walks of life if it was deemed that they weren't going to be a fit and proper carer for the child.</para>
<para>This 10-year anniversary is an important milestone to mark in the journey of healing that many of those who were victims of this process and their children have gone through, but hopefully there is some comfort. There is work for us to do, and there's work that our government is doing to provide support to the victims of forced adoptions over those decades. We remain committed to doing what we can to help those that should not have been taken away from their mothers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday we marked the 10th anniversary of the Australian government's official apology to victims of forced adoptions. Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard delivered the apology in this place, in the Great Hall of Parliament House, and, this morning, the Minister for the Social Services, Amanda Rishworth, made a statement to the House marking that anniversary. Ten years ago in delivering the apology, Prime Minister Gillard said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Parliament, on behalf of the Australian people, takes responsibility and apologises for the policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies, which created a lifelong legacy of pain and suffering.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   …   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We know you have suffered enduring effects from these practices forced upon you by others. For the loss, the grief, the disempowerment, the stigmatisation and the guilt, we say sorry.</para></quote>
<para>In making this heartfelt apology, Prime Minister Gillard remarks that as Australians we are rightly used to celebrating past glories and triumphs. We are used to celebrating the things that make Australia a wonderful place to live. But, as we well know, our triumphs are not the full story of Australia, and the full story is sometimes hard to face.</para>
<para>Our First Nations people know this all too well, and we continue to work to face our history, to make amends for the hurt and the suffering inflicted on their communities. And so it was, 15 years ago, when we as a country were inspired by the courage and bravery of those who told their stories of suffering and pain to apologise to the Stolen Generations. And then, 10 years ago, we were once again forced to face those hard truths of our past as the Senate Community Affairs Committee handed down its report of the Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices. We were forced to look at the shameful and distressing parts of our history and find the resolve to do something to ensure that it doesn't happen again.</para>
<para>It's truly shocking to read over parts of the report and to read some of the stories shared at the time—of mothers denied their rights and unable to provide informed consent to adoption; of mothers coerced and deceived into giving up their babies; of women physically shackled to beds and blindfolded; of women being told their baby had died; of consent being achieved only by forgery or fraud; of children growing up thinking they were not wanted and not loved; of babies removed at birth, denied the arms of mothers who had done nothing wrong; of the suffering in silence that went on for far too long for far too many; and of a paternalism that wreaked such great harm while claiming to know what was best for women and their children, ignoring their cries. For the approximately 250,000 mothers and 250,000 babies this happened to, it was between the 1940s and up to as recently as 1975. The apology was important to so many Australians: mothers who spent lives missing their children, hiding the shame that this system told them they should bear, wondering what had happened. Were they okay? Did they think about their birth mother?—and the children who grew up not knowing their birth identity, making assumptions or being told their mother had not wanted them.</para>
<para>I was privileged to hear of just one of these women from her daughter. The woman's mother became pregnant to her partner, an older man, in the mid-sixties, when she was 16. She had hoped to marry him but instead was abandoned. Her family, in shame, sent her away to give birth in secret, away from the small town where she lived. She gave birth to a baby boy, who was taken at birth and adopted. She never saw him. She never held him. Some years later, she married and had three more children, but she never forgot the baby boy she gave up. While her new husband knew of the baby, the rest of the family did not. Not even her children knew there was an older brother somewhere. The pain of the loss coloured her parenting and made her fear losing her children again. Her daughter said that she always felt her mother was holding something back—in retrospect, perhaps the fear of being hurt again or the fear of being too attached because it made her vulnerable to the pain of loss again.</para>
<para>Many years later, when he was in his 40s, her baby boy made contact with her through a tracing service. It turned out he lived a couple of suburbs away from where her eldest daughter lived and, while they had never met, they actually had friends in common.</para>
<para>This story has a happy ending. The woman in question now has an ongoing relationship with her firstborn, the son who was taken away from her, and regularly stays with him and his wife and babysits their child—her grandchild. While you can never make up for the lost years, the misunderstandings and feelings of abandonment and loss, they now have a relationship that they both value and she has a relationship with her grandchild. But so many other stories do not have that happy ending—children and mothers who could never overcome the feelings of loss and abandonment to reach out; children who were not sent to loving homes but instead experienced abuse, neglect or institutionalised living; mothers and children who died before they could reconnect.</para>
<para>This is a shameful part of our shared history that caused very real harm to so many. The apology was well overdue. At the time of the apology, the Gillard government sought to match important words of sorrow and regret with concrete action to help survivors of forced adoptions. Today the government continues to provide $1.8 million annually to forced adoption services, which includes a national helpline, case work and assistance and counselling for those assisted. Minister Rishworth announced this morning that the government is committing an extra $700,000 to ensure that aged-care providers and forced adoption support service providers can offer trauma informed care that is targeted to people who have experienced forced adoption as mothers or as children. This will see the delivery of training packages for allied health, aged-care services and support services to help them deliver the trauma informed care as people age.</para>
<para>I'll finish as I started, with some words from former prime minister Julia Gillard. In delivering the apology, she spoke directly to those who had suffered from forced adoptions. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We can declare that these mothers did nothing wrong.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That you loved your children and you always will.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And to the children of forced adoption, we can say that you deserved so much better.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">You deserved the chance to know, and love, your mother and father.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We can promise you all that no generation of Australians will suffer the same pain and trauma that you did.</para></quote>
<para>We must always remember what happened so that we can ensure that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Boothby and indeed all members for their contribution to the debate this evening.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>