2023-03-27 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 27 March 2023

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 1 Report 1 10:01 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I present the eighth report of the Petitions Committee for the 47th Parliament. The report read as follows— HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PETITIONS COMMITTEE REPORT No. 8 Petitions and Ministerial Responses MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Chair Ms Susan Templeman MP Deputy Chair Mr Ross Vasta MP Mr Sam Birrell MP Ms Alison Byrnes MP Ms Lisa Chesters MP Mr Garth Hamilton MP Ms Tracy Roberts MP Ms Meryl Swanson MP Report summarising the petitions and ministerial responses being presented. T he committee met in private session in the 47th Parliament on 15 February 2023, 8 March 2023 and 22 March 2023. 1. The committee resolved to present the following 9 petitions in accordance with standing order 207: From 18 petitioners—regarding funding for Trove (EN4791) From 2627 petitioners—regarding the processing time of Parent Visaapplications (EN4798) From 15 petitioners—regarding the access to Australia of vaccinated people without health insurance (EN4799) From 748 petitioners—regarding the housing crisis action, regulation of rental increases and vacancy tax (EN4800) From 26 petitioners—requesting to bring the Australian Rail Track Corporation under direct government control (EN4802) From 23 petitioners—requesting routine screening for sepsis in Australia (EN4805) From 117 petitioners—regarding Santos Gas Fracking and protecting the Surat Artesian Basin (EN4806) From 65 petitioners—requesting to lower the cost of diesel (EN4807) From 1 petitioner—regarding tick-borne infection testing, treatment and record-keeping in Australia (PN0556) 2. The following 22 ministerial responses to petitions were received by the Committee on 22 March 2023: From the Attorney-General regarding nationally consistent coercive control laws (EN1948) From the Minister for Home Affairs to a petition regarding asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru (EN3490) From the Minister for Communications to a petition regarding Telstra's commitment to the Universal Service Obligation (EN3609) From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding citizenship for children born in Australia (EN3934) From the Minister for Communications to a petition requesting to make the legal age of owning a mobile phone 18 (EN4495) From the Minister for Social Services to a petition requesting the addition of Gymnastics Australia to the National Redress Scheme (EN4498) From the Attorney-General to a petition regarding false allegations in court (EN4506) From the Special Minister of State to a petition regarding voting in Australia (EN4539) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding the extradition of Julian Assange (EN4577) From the Minister for Social Services to a petition requesting the regulation of disability parking in Australia (EN4583) From the Minister for Social Services to a petition requesting the introduction of a universal basic income (EN4584) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding the situation in Jammu and Kasmir (EN4592) From the Minister for Social Services to a petition regarding the social security partner income test (EN4606) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding the conflict in Tigray, northern Ethiopia (EN4617) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding the conflict in Tigray, northern Ethiopia (EN4619) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding the restriction of chemicals used in e-cigarettes (EN4624) From the Assistant Minister for the Republic regarding a transition into a republic government (EN4626) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding the inclusion of autoimmune conditions under COVID 19 vaccine claims scheme (EN4631) From the Minister of Social Services to a petition requesting Jobseeker payments for Masters of Teaching students (EN4637) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting to legalise, regulate and tax all drugs (EN4642) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding Medicare subsidised psychology sessions (EN4643) From the Minster for Foreign Affairs to petitions regarding support from Australia to the people of Iran (PN0549, PN0550, EN4572, EN4567, EN4590, EN4632) Correction to previous presentation In Report No. 7 presented on 20 March 2023— Chan ge: The committee met in private session in the 47th Parliament on 8 March 2023. To: The committee met in private session in the 47th Parliament on 8 February 2023, 15 February 2023 and 8 March 2023. Ms Susan Templeman MP Chair—Petitions Committee PETITIONS 2 PETITIONS Presentation 2 10:01 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I present the following 9 petitions: Tick-Borne Diseases 2 National Library of Australia: Trove 2 Parent Visa 2 COVID-19: Vaccination 3 Housing 3 Australian Rail Track Corporation 3 Sepsis 3 Gas Industry 4 Diesel 4 PETITIONS 4 PETITIONS Responses 4 10:01 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I present the following 22 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented: Domestic and Family Violence 4 Asylum Seekers 5 Telecommunications 5 Citizenship 6 Telecommunications 7 Gymnastics Australia 7 Family Law 7 Australian Democracy 8 Assange, Mr Julian Paul 8 Disability Services 9 Pensions and Benefits 9 Jammu and Kashmir 10 Pensions and Benefits 10 Human Rights: Eritrea and Tigray 11 Human Rights: Eritrea and Tigray 11 Nicotine Vaping Products 12 Australian Constitution 12 Medicare 13 Pensions and Benefits 14 Illicit Drugs 15 Medicare: Mental Health 15 Human Rights: Iran 15 PETITIONS 16 PETITIONS Statements 16 10:01 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie The referral of petitions to ministers is a valuable part of the petitioning process. Most petitions presented to the House are referred to the minister responsible for the matters raised in the petition for a written response. Under the standing orders, ministers are expected to provide a response within 90 days of the petition's presentation. For some petitions, it can be difficult to determine which minister is best placed to provide a response. For others, the issues raised can relate to more than one portfolio area. For these reasons, there can be some back and forth between the secretariat and departments throughout the referral process. Unfortunately, the Petitions Committee was recently made aware that a petition had not received a response because it had been referred to the wrong minister. On behalf of the committee, I'd like to apologise to the petitioners for the delay. I note that the petition has now been referred to the correct minister and I look forward to presenting a response in due course. The committee has taken this as an opportunity to review its procedures for the referral of petitions to ministers, particularly in cases where a petition could potentially be referred to more than one minister. When referring a petition, the committee will now ask the minister to advise the committee if a petition should be redirected. The committee will also track the transfer of petitions between ministers more closely. The committee will continue to work to ensure that Australian citizens and residents who petition the House receive a thoughtful response within a reasonable timeframe. I'd like to highlight the role that really key petitions have played in the history of Australia. One of those was in this parliament just last week: a copy and some of the original of the Larrakia petition. It was here as part of a showcase of our national collecting institutions. The Larrakia petition begins this way: The British settlers took our land. No treaties were signed with the tribes. It goes on to contrast that with: The British Crown signed treaties with the Maoris in New Zealand and the Indians in North America. This petition was an appeal to the Queen for help. It was created by the Larrakia people in 1972. They are the traditional owners of the Darwin region in the Northern Territory. At the time of the petition, they were fighting for their ownership of a stretch of coastal land near Darwin to be acknowledged. As I said, the Larrakia people addressed this petition to Queen Elizabeth II. To create it, they organised for papers to be circulated to Aboriginal communities across mainland Australia. In these communities, supporters of the petition signed the paper with either their signature or a thumbprint. Over a thousand signatures and thumbprints were collected. The papers were then returned to Darwin, where the finished petition was pasted together in a more-than-three-metre-long scroll. In 1972, when there was a royal visit to Darwin planned by Princess Margaret, Queen Elizabeth's sister, the Larrakia people camped outside Government House, where she was staying, in the hope that they could present the petition. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, and the Larrakia people then patched the petition, which had become torn during that process, with sticky tape, and they mailed it to Buckingham Palace. When Buckingham Palace received the petition, they forwarded it to the Australian government via the Governor-General. It was placed on file in the Department of Aboriginal affairs in 1972, and that's how it became part of the collection of the National Archives. And the National Archives, as I say, brought a facsimile of that petition to the parliament last week, and I know many in this chamber visited the national collection showcase and saw it. They also brought some of the original pages with them. The Larrakia petition is one of the most significant documents created by First Nations activists in the 1970s. The calls for change made by the petition, including land rights, treaty and political representation, clearly continue to have significance for all of us today. The other very significant petition that originated in the Northern Territory is the Yirrkala bark petitions, which now the National Museum of Australia holds, and I believe parts of it are displayed in this place. In August 1963, two bark petitions were presented to the parliament, to the House of Representatives. It was the Yolngu's first formal attempt to have their land rights recognised. This is how significant these petitions are. It was also the first time documents incorporating First Nations ways of representing relationships to land were recognised by the parliament. It was on the back of bauxite being found and moves by the Menzies government to establish a mine and processing of bauxite in north-east Arnhem Land near Yirrkala. Anyone who's been to the Garma Festival, which is held just outside Yirrkala, will know this part of the world—an incredibly special part of the world. Kim Beazley Sr, having visited that part of the world, suggested the Yolngu send a petition to federal parliament in a form that expressed their culture. They had assistance to help draft the text, and it was then typed in two languages: English and Gumatj. Eight similar copies of the text were made, and four were pasted onto bark. It was then painted with designs in ochre, charcoal and pipeclay around the edges, and it remains an extraordinary piece of work and demonstrates why it is so important to have this cultural preservation given the role it has played historically. On 14 August 1963, one bark and one paper petition were tabled in the House of Representatives. The petitions directly led to the establishment of the Select Committee on Grievances of Yirrkala Aborigines, Arnhem Land Reserve. They were the first petitions in Australian history to instigate such an immediate parliamentary response. The committee then travelled to Darwin and Yirrkala to hear evidence from the Yolngu and Northern Territory officials. This is one of the significant roles this Petitions Committee plays. People across every electorate can go online and create a petition. Of course, the process has changed, but it is still possible to present paper petitions to the parliament. In the last few weeks, we have provided to every member of parliament and senator a one-page fact sheet so that their constituents are all able to do something that meets the criteria. There are strict rules around how petitions are formed, and I want to thank my fellow committee members, including the deputy chair, the member for Bonner, for the work that they do in helping to determine whether petitions are in order or out of order. This is something we do regularly so that the volume of petitions is moved through the process and then referred to ministers so that ministers can then respond. I think it is really important that people appreciate that these petitions can play an extremely significant part in our parliamentary process and I encourage you to talk to your constituents—through you, Speaker—in order to ensure we continue to have a high standard of petitions to this parliament. The SPEAKER 53517 The time for petitions has concluded. BILLS 18 BILLS Australia Day Bill 2023 18

Australia Day Bill 2023

First Reading 18 Second Reading 18 10:10 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman I move: That this bill be now read a second time. At the heart of this bill is a simple principle: that Australia's national day belongs to the Australian people, not Australian governments. Australia Day is a date of such monumental national significance, and means so much to so many, that it should never be able to be cancelled or changed at the whim of the Government of the day. This bill seeks to ensure that no politician, no political party and no special interest group can change our national day, without the approval of the majority of Australians voting in a national plebiscite. Story Australia Day, of course, is recognised as a public holiday on 26 January in all of our States and Territories. Although it has never been officially so designated by this parliament, Australia Day is widely regarded by Australians as their 'national day'. It is a day that marks the arrival of the First Fleet at Port Jackson in 1788. 26 January 1788 was the day when the course of this continent's history changed forever. Records of celebrations on 26 January date back to 1808, with New South Wales becoming the first jurisdiction to officially gazette the date as a public holiday in 1818. In fact, Australia Day is the oldest of Australia's national symbols. The celebration of January 26 was well established as a tradition nearly a century before the existence of the national flag or the landing at Gallipoli. For many Australians, Australia Day is a time to reflect on the nation's history, and to celebrate its achievements and progress. It provides an opportunity to come together as a community, to celebrate what it means to be Australian and to recognise all those who contribute to our great nation. The day is also a time for Australians to embrace the cultural diversity that makes our country unique and to welcome new Australian citizens in ceremonies across the nation. Indeed, 26 January was the day that this parliament chose to set as the date on which the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 came into effect. So it was Australia Day 1949 when Australian citizenship was born. Debate Of course, there's been debate about the appropriateness of 26 January as a national day. Every January we see the same arguments put forward from those who feel we should only mourn our history. Nobody can deny that our nation's history is full of tragedy. 26 January would have been a day of great shock and concern to the Eora people. 26 January would have also been another day of great misery and heartache to the nearly 1,400 aboard the First Fleet. But out of that inauspicious start—and out of the countless human tragedies that followed—we have somehow, against the odds, created the greatest nation on earth. And that is something to celebrate. I contend that we are mature enough as a nation to both celebrate and commemorate on our national day. We do not have to cancel our history to move forward as a nation. In fact, nothing would be more damaging to our future national identity than attempting to discredit or put shade upon our nation's past. The story of the First Fleet is one of the greatest stories of human endurance that history has ever seen. As is the story of Bennelong. As is the story of Pemulwuy's resistance to colonisation. A forward-looking modern Australia should be free to learn the lessons from all these early chapters in our national history. Let's continue to celebrate where we've come from and let's continue to celebrate where we are going. Specifics This bill will enshrine Australia's national day in federal law. To achieve this, this bill utilises the same provisions used to enshrine ANZAC Day as a 'National Day of Commemoration' through the ANZAC Day Act 1983. This would mean that the date of Australia Day would be formally established as 26 January in federal law. This legislative protection ensures that Australia Day must remain as a national day and cannot be abolished by the actions of this or any future government. While we can't guarantee that a future parliament wouldn't repeal this protection, it would be a brave government indeed who tried to pass a law to repeal the celebration of our national day. The remainder of the bill provides an avenue through which the date of Australia Day could be changed in the future. This process would be the same prescribed in the Flags Act 1953 for changing the design of Australia's national flag, namely through a national plebiscite. How a national plebiscite on Australia Day would be formed and conducted would be at the discretion of the parliament, just as we have recently debated the way in which we will be conducting the upcoming referendum. However, the bill provides that any alternative proposals must include 26 January as an option that can be selected by voters in any future plebiscite. All those qualified to vote in federal elections would be qualified to vote on any proposal for an alternative date for Australia's national day. These subsections are a reflection of the same protections for Australia's national flag that are contained within the Flags Act 1953. These protections were instituted through an amendment to the Flags Act back in 1998 by the Howard government. I went back and looked at the Hansard to see how the then Labor opposition reacted to these amendments. In 1998 the Labor Party supported the introduction of these protections—although I note that many of the Labor speakers spoke about their desire to change our flag while supporting these amendments. Fast forward a quarter of a century—our national flag still flies unchanged above this building and in this chamber. I contend that the protections in the Flags Act have contributed to this outcome. Many parliamentarians have come to this place, and achieved high office, while harbouring a desire to change our national flag, but these ambitions have been thwarted by the knowledge that changing the flag would require the endorsement of the people. While it might be relatively easy to achieve a majority of the cabinet or a majority of your fellow travellers in a caucus room, it is an exponentially greater challenge to achieve a majority of the Australian people. The Labor Party of the 1990s, of which the now Prime Minister was then a new member, acknowledged that it was entirely appropriate for the Australian people to be the arbiters of what should be our national flag then and into the future. I challenge them to adapt that same principle to legislate that it must be the Australian people who are the arbiters of our national day. It shouldn't be a radical principle that Australians should be asked to decide on areas central to our national identity. In fact, it was through a national plebiscite that Australians made the decision to change our national anthem back in 1977. If it is good enough for the Australian people to have ownership over their own anthem and their own flag, why shouldn't the same principle be held for ownership of our national day? Sadly, I can foresee a time when a federal government may bow to pressure groups on this issue. I can anticipate political leaders putting their own ideological preoccupations above the overwhelming opinion of Australian citizens. I predict this because I've seen this pattern repeated across so many aspects of public policy. I now simply come to expect that vocal minorities in the commentariat will win the argument against the silent majority of Australians. Every year we get the same old debate, but public opinion remains steadfastly in favour of maintaining our national day on 26 January. This has been demonstrated by too many opinion polls to outline here today. I hold that this bill can help put this perennial debate to bed and let the national conversation move on to celebrate what Australia has achieved, reflecting on the lessons of the past and determine how we are going to reach our fullest potential. By setting the bar high to change our national day, we can turn the temperature down on the perennial chorus who think the louder they shout the more likely they will be listened to. This morning I present this bill as a challenge to the Prime Minister and his government. If they are serious about their commitment to keeping Australia Day on 26 January—they should support this bill. If they harbour a desire to change our national day without a mandate from the people at some point in the future, they should leave this bill off future programs. I challenge the government to put this on the program. Let's have this debate. It's a debate being had outside of this chamber. Why not inside it as well? In closing, I say to my colleagues in this parliament—let us recognise Australia Day through this bill and delegate its future to the Australian people. I'm asking members to trust the Australian people. Trust them to get the call right, both now and into the future. Let's entrust Australia Day to the Australian people. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? Mr Hamilton 291387 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The SPEAKER 53517 The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Online Safety Amendment (Breaking Online Notoriety) Bill 2023 20

Online Safety Amendment (Breaking Online Notoriety) Bill 2023

First Reading 20 Second Reading 20 10:21 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I love my home town of Toowoomba. It's a wonderful place to live, to work, to raise a family. It's a great place in and of itself—a wonderful city, a wonderful lifestyle—and it's been a hub for so much of south-west Queensland and northern New South Wales for years. Growing up, this is where we came to—and for good reason; it's got fantastic health care, great educational facilities and, today, wonderful work opportunities. We're growing. There is excitement as to what the future of our region holds. Housing, I would say, is affordable, certainly in comparison to what can be found in Brisbane or on the Gold Coast or the Sunshine Coast. I absolutely love my home city and it's been a choice of ours to be there, to invest in it. I joined with many people across the state in making that choice. Sadly, one day the Queensland state government made changes to the Youth Justice Act that deeply impacted my beautiful city of Toowoomba. Specifically, the changes they made to breach of bail as an offence and to making detention a last resort for magistrates had a profound impact on our city. We didn't know how much they would change us. It's terrible to be standing here and seeming like I'm talking my city down, but, I have to admit, we have a crime problem. It is right across Queensland and it is hurting Toowoomba. We're seeing not just antisocial behaviour; this has escalated to break-ins, car theft and, more recently, terrible assaults. There is footage of young offenders brandishing machetes as they walk in to commit an offence in broad daylight in a place like Toowoomba. It is something we would never ever have thought possible. I was doorknocking in Centenary Heights not long ago, and I came across a young policeman. He invited me into his kitchen and he sat me down. He is of Italian heritage; he fed me a cannoli he'd made himself. He said, 'You're going to need time to listen to this story.' For eight years he'd been working with a young youth and watching him spiral further and further downhill into a life of crime. He'd gone from stealing from shops to breaking into cars and committing assaults. The reason he invited me in and wanted to talk to me, with tears in his eyes, was that this kid had been involved in a terrible and high-profile car accident in our community. This policeman sat there looking at me, saying: 'Mate, I just didn't have the tools to do anything about it. For eight years I've intervened. I've picked up. I've taken him home. I've tried to get this guy on the right track, and I couldn't. He just kept getting pulled back into a life of crime.' I can tell another story, of a young mother who came to see me in Rangeville. She had been broken into multiple times. Their children had witnessed two of the break-ins and they now could only sleep on mattresses in their parent's bedroom—this was six months in at that stage—with furniture barricading the door. That's how this mother had to get her children to sleep. What made it worse was that the kids had not only seen the break-in, they then saw footage of the break-in online subsequent to this. And the last story to tell is that of Mr Robert Brown, a 75-year-old man who died in a violent assault outside Grand Central Shopping Centre. A young perpetrator, well known to our local police, pushed him over and he never recovered: he died subsequent to his impact with the ground. This was just so the guy could steal his backpack—which he did, from his lifeless body, by the way. That just adds to the impact this has had on our beautiful city. This is happening too much. The people of Toowoomba, the people of Groom, have had enough. I commend the Chronicle on their excellent campaign, 'Enough is Enough'. They did a fantastic job in bringing the Premier up to Toowoomba. She didn't come to the forum we had with the people of Groom. She came afterwards and stood in the car park with the police. This is but one example of Toowoomba's voice rising up. We've had enough of this. I want to talk about two other groups: one is Voices of Victims. These are people who have got together after being victims of the crime wave and, for too long, wanting action. I thank Helen Bell for her excellent advocacy on behalf of them. And there's Jo Noble's Toowoomba Crime Alerts Facebook page, reaching out and giving us examples. The people of Groom expect every level of government to do everything they can to address this crime wave. Very clearly, this is the result and the fault of the state Labor government; this crime wave is entirely of their making. People expect us to do everything we can and, in this House, the Federal government has responsibility for internet carriage services. This was brought to me from the ground up, from these groups—the Voices of Victims and from the Facebook page: we are responsible for this. This is a very important point when we come to this youth crime crisis: these kids are being recruited online by videos taken of these crimes. What astounds me when I speak to victims of these crimes is that the perpetrator will hold up their phone and record them whilst they're committing these crimes. Or they have their friend do it, to make it even better. One of the worst ones is a picture online of a young 'gentleman', to be very loose with the term, standing next to an elderly female victim who he is robbing from beside her bed, taking a photo while she sleeps and posting this online. What happens with these is that they post them and glamourise them. These videos aren't just there by themselves; they're up with pumping soundtracks and modern music—great graphics. You can see everything if you go online right now, on Instagram in particular. There are dozens of these pages just representing the postcode 4350 in my electorate. You can see drug use, you can see car theft, you can see speeding through the streets and you can see assault and battery. Mr Thompson 281826 It's the same in Townsville. Mr HAMILTON 291387 The member for Herbert is right—it's the same in Townsville. This is across the state. These kids are being drawn into it. These are vulnerable kids. I have seen them; I have met them out at the PCYC at Oakey, helping them do their boxing classes, which are a way to try to pull them towards the righteous and the good. But these are vulnerable kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, and these glamorous videos show a lifestyle that seems like it might be something better than what they currently have to look forward to. I don't want to see more of these kids in detention. I want to see fewer of them committing these barbaric crimes. To bring down the posts is very difficult and, apparently, it's a very inefficient process. I have tried myself, and members of the Toowoomba Crime Alerts page have tried. You get an inefficient response. Sometimes I have seen them taken down—that's true, and I admit that. But most of the time, requests to take these down are not responded to at all and certainly not actioned. On this front, Meta is failing its own standards—the standards it puts on its own website to say what it's doing. So this is the time that we need some interaction. That is why this bill is needed. The Online Safety Amendment (Breaking Online Notoriety) Bill 2023 amends the Online Safety Act 2021 to empower the eSafety Commissioner to explicitly handle online content of criminal activity material in a similar way to how cyberbullying and cyberabuse material is treated. The previous government created the eSafety Commissioner, and it was right and it was worthy that we focused on the cyberbullying and cyber abuse that we saw prevalent at that time. What we didn't have at that time was the youth crime wave that is crippling Queensland and that is absolutely devastating my home town. That has changed, and with it comes a community expectation that we will act on that. What this does is explicitly include criminal activity material in the eSafety Commissioner's scope. What are others saying about the bill? This bill has received very good support. Griffith University criminologist Ross Homel said, 'Use of platforms for notoriety was a "crime facilitator" similar to weapons,' noting an example of a child posting a picture from a stolen car with the speedometer showing 191km/h. 'These kids are getting additional amplification of their other activities within the peer group that matters to them.' (Courier Mail, 23 Feb 2023) Child and Family Wellbeing Association of Australia vice president Deb Tsorbaris said there was a 'huge opportunity' to expand the eSafety commissioners' powers. I'm very happy to see an effective endorsement of this bill by the Queensland Police Service when they announced 25 new officers specifically to deal with this issue. So since the issue was raised with me and tabling it here today, we're now playing catch-up. What this bill does is bring the eSafety Commissioner in line not just with community expectation but with the powers of the QPS. I want my city back. I want Toowoomba to be the place that it was, a beautiful place where you could raise a family, that people saw great value in, that had a wonderful community—the sort of place where kids would walk and play down the street without concern, the sort of place where an elderly gentleman could go into the centre of town and do his grocery shopping without having to look over his shoulder. I want my city back. I say this to this to the state premier: you need to do a lot to act, but I'll make sure that we do everything we can in this place to support the people of Queensland. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? Mr Pike 300120 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The SPEAKER 53517 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit Card Ban and Acknowledgement of Losses) Bill 2023 22

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit Card Ban and Acknowledgement of Losses) Bill 2023

First Reading 22 Second Reading 22 10:33 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I introduce the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit Card Ban and Acknowledgement of Losses) Bill 2023. Last week Parliamentary Friends of Gambling Harm Reductionheard from Harry, a 25-year-old carpenter severely impacted by gambling harm during the last seven years. Harry told us he has lost $400,000 to gambling. With the support of family he is getting his life back on track. He is incredibly brave but he and his family have experienced firsthand the devastation caused by gambling harm. Now he can't even watch a game of footy with them due to constant bombardment by gambling advertisements. In Harry's words: I've borrowed money I haven't paid back, I've stolen money and made upstories of things I need to buy to get funds to feed my addiction after spending every cent I earnt from working. I've withdrawn on my loan numerous times. I've had to borrow money to pay back credit cards that I only got to punt with. Gambling costs Australians—people like Harry and many others—dearly. Jason manages an addiction support service. He emailed me and said: Addiction is such a big problem and gambling companies are just like drug dealers. I work with youth and we also need to bring education and I love to see a Levy or system that gambling companies have to give % for education programs. Our young kids and teens need us more than ever before in history. Good idea, Jason; I'm working on that next. Patrick said: Hi Rebekha, I'm not in your electorate and I've never written to a member of parliament before. I want to re-affirm something that you already know. Reform in gambling is essential and I encourage you to keep pushing for as much as possible. My family has suffered the effects of gambling (Father) and I still witness the effects today (Friends). The cyclical nature of this problem is terrifying. And a gentleman from New South Wales said to me: 'As a kid in the 1950s Dad would pull up outside the Golden Sheaf Hotel on a Saturday morning. He would come out with a lemonade for me and go back inside. Then we would buy meat pies and go back home and listen to the races on the day, a ubiquitous suburban Saturday sound. Sometimes he would get back in the car and not be seen again until evening. He also bought lottery tickets. In those days it was from barbershops. Then there were tips from business acquaintances, people he would play golf with, for company shares. By the age of eight I knew the horses and jockeys, the odds, the state of the track, as well as the price fluctuations on the stock market. My father died when I was 11. He left a wife and a child in a rented flat with no assets—a life insurance salesman without a policy of his own. I fully support any measures you and your colleagues take to eradicate this pernicious curse from our land.' Per capita we are the world's biggest losers. Those figures are from 2018-19. We lose $25 billion every year. I think, with online gambling, since that time those figures have increased. We can gamble away our home when we're sitting in our home thanks to online gambling and thanks to credit card use. People suffering gambling are four times more likely to be using credit cards to gamble. That is why my bill will ban the use of credit for regulated interactive wagering services. This was a recommendation of the Labor chaired Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services in the last parliament. After hearing ample evidence that the use of credit for online wagering contributes to increasing gambling harm there is no excuse for us to delay. My bill will stop people spending money they don't have on interactive wagering, like online and telephone betting. It will also require licensed interactive wagering services to share with any customer the total amount they've lost during the current financial year on that service every time they open up the app, and an acknowledgement of those losses from the customer before they are allowed to proceed and make further bets. If one person pauses to reflect on their gambling behaviour based on this information this bill would be worth it. Importantly, my bill does exclude lotteries and the like, consistent with the parliamentary joint committee's recommendations. The ban on credit will also bring online interactive gambling in line with long-standing restrictions for licensed premises, racetracks and TAB outlets. This is strongly backed by the Alliance for Gambling Reform, whom I would like to thank for their great work in this space. This is just one of several gambling reforms I will be taking to this parliament and pushing for this government to act on. We need to combat to the predatory practises of many gambling companies. I would like to acknowledge that the efforts from the member for Clark on reducing gambling harm and of my former Centre Alliance colleague Senator Stirling Griff, who introduced a private members' bill to ban the use of credit for online wagering in the last parliament. I say now to members in this place: now is the time to act. We have way too many young people being caught in this scourge. I asked the Minister for Communications last week when the government will ban the use of credit cards for online gambling. As I said, we have already heard the recommendations from the previous parliamentary joint committee this topic. Why are we waiting any longer? Every day we wait to act is a day where there is another young person like Harry who falls victim to these predatory practices. How many more Australians must experience the devastating gambling harm before we decisively act and we back them instead of backing the gambling companies? I would like to give my remaining time to the member for Macarthur, who is seconding this bill. 10:38 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I second the motion. I thank the member for Mayo and also her colleague the member for Clark for their advocacy as part of the Parliamentary Friends of Gambling Harm Reduction, of which I am a member. I'm pleased to second this bill, because we live in a world of problematic online gambling that is ruining the financial and social stability of our country. This bill aims to lessen the impact of this harm on individuals, their families, their friends and our communities. In my community of Macarthur I certainly see extreme problems caused by online gambling where people are losing businesses, losing their families and losing their livelihoods because of the access to credit cards and their use in online gambling. We must remember that these companies, such as Ladbrokes, Sportsbet et cetera, are highly sophisticated marketers. They spend millions of dollars on marketing. They are experts in this and they are attacking our young people. It is destroying lives and destroying livelihoods. It's long past time for action. Indeed, I fully support and commend Ministers Rishworth and Rowland for putting in place actions to reduce the harm caused by online gambling. In particular, Minister Rowland has set up, under the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, an inquiry into online gambling, and we look forward to its report. But, as the member for Mayo has mentioned, it's long past time for action. This is something that has occurred over a number of years, and our young people are being assailed day and night, 24 hours a day, by advertising and manipulative behaviour by these online gambling companies. Things like 'bet with a friend', 'bet with your community' and 'bet with mates' are done for a reason. It's very clever marketing and it leads to the destruction of livelihoods, and we must stop it. I'm very grateful to the member for Mayo for bringing this bill to parliament, but I know that the Albanese government will be taking action against online gambling in the not-too-distant future. We look forward to the committee's report. I commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to further action by the Albanese government. The SPEAKER 53517 The time allocated for this debate has now expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Cheaper Home Batteries) Bill 2023 24

Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Cheaper Home Batteries) Bill 2023

First Reading 24 Second Reading 24 10:42 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Introduction I'm excited today to reintroduce this bill which is directly aimed at reducing household energy costs by making home batteries cheaper. This has never been more relevant than it is today. While we debate the safeguard mechanism bill aimed at reducing the emissions of our biggest national polluters, everyday Australians are looking hard for ways to reduce their emissions at home. Households are experiencing significant cost-of-living challenges right now. Groceries, petrol, energy, rent and mortgage costs are all rising. Power bills are set to rise 30 per cent by this winter. I hear about it daily in my electorate of Indi. This bill will help households purchase a home battery. This means lower power bills, and huge savings for households. Outline of the b ill At the federal level, the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme has been key to accelerating the deployment of rooftop solar and driving down the price. This scheme, introduced by the Howard government, has helped millions of Australians buy solar. But now we need to store that solar—and batteries are the answer. In short, my bill adds home batteries as an eligible technology to create certificates under the scheme. This means that, when you install a home battery, you earn certificates which you can then onsell to electricity retailers, who are required to purchase them. This in turn drives down the installation costs of a home battery. Right now, a home battery will set you back around $14,500 all in. My bill could drive that price down by $3,000. Under my bill, as under the existing scheme, the precise amount you'll save will depend on how big your battery is and how you use it. The size and quality of a battery, and whether it's connected to the grid or to solar, are all important parts of the scheme which will be covered by regulations, following consultations with industry experts. But the fundamental point here is this: to unlock massive savings for Australian households, to bring power security to regional households and to accelerate our transition to renewable energy, we need to make home batteries cheaper. My bill will get it done. What it would mean Around a third of Australian homes have rooftop solar, but only 1.4 per cent of households have a battery. This means millions of houses have untapped potential when it comes to storing solar power. Only last week, energy retailer Nectr reported a spike in inquiries for their solar and storage bundles. They say this is in direct response to rising energy costs. Households have had enough. They want to take back control of their power bills, and batteries are critical to achieve this. Unfortunately they are still too expensive. But we know that if households are given some help, the uptake could improve. Local councils like Indigo Shire in my electorate were part of Project EDGE, aimed at looking at how consumers can participate in the energy market. With financial support provided under the project, about 130 households in towns like Beechworth, Wooragee and Yackandandah have taken up batteries. It's clear that with financial help, households are keen to buy batteries. If we can fix this, the savings for households are huge. Analysis by engineers and energy entrepreneur Dr Saul Griffith shows that a fully electric household would save around $5,000 a year in petrol costs, in power bills, in heating bills. And we know that getting batteries into Australian homes is the biggest barrier to capturing those savings. It's not just improving household savings that would be achieved under this bill. Batteries provide a reliable energy source during times of emergencies like bushfires and storms when our powerlines fail us. In places like Corryong and the Alpine areas. They are also a critical part of reducing our national emissions. If 500,000 batteries are installed, that's the equivalent of taking 500,000 cars off the road each and every year. Batteries will reduce our power bills, secure our energy supply and reduce our emissions. It should be a no-brainer for the Government to provide that extra help so households can afford them. This Bill gets this done. More needs to be done We must make solar and batteries affordable to all Australians. Late last year, the government agreed to develop a package for the next budget that will assist low-income households move towards electrification. This was a welcome announcement, but with minimal detail there is ample opportunity for the government to get this right. I want my constituents to use cheap solar, choose electric appliances that are more efficient, and save money in the long term. This package should include no-interest loans for home electrification, and incentives for landlords so that renters can access cheap power too. We are seeing similar programs at home in Victoria and overseas in the USA. It's time for this Government to really get a move on and deliver affordable, clean energy to all Australian households, regardless of income. Conclusion The government has set a target of having renewable energy account for more than 80 per cent of the grid by 2030, but analysts warn we won't reach this if we don't back up our power for when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. We must put batteries within reach of many more households to take pressure off the grid, cut bills, and reduce emissions. This bill gets it done. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 10000 Is the motion seconded? Ms Spender 286042 I am delighted to second this motion and to speak in support of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Cheaper Home Batteries) Bill 2023. I would like to commend the member for Indi for introducing this bill and for being a champion across this parliament and the previous government for home batteries, not only for the impact they can have on climate but also for the impact they can have on households in reducing energy costs. This bill will reduce the cost of installing household batteries by making them eligible for technology certificates under the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme. This may seem like a small change but it is crucial to unlocking the much bigger economic and emissions reductions opportunity of electrifying Australian households and powering them with rooftop solar, subsequently helping households reduce their energy bills. While fossil fuel prices remain high following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Australians' rooftop solar remains the cheapest home energy in the world, able to deliver electricity prices as low as 3c per kilowatt. The low cost of solar means that, if we can power our lives with Australian sunshine and switch out expensive gas appliances for more efficient electrical alternatives, the average household could permanently reduce their power bills by over $3,000 per year. At the same time as saving money, families would also be going zero emissions for their energy use. When we add up across Australia's 10 million households, Rewiring Australia estimates that we could cut over 40 per cent of our emissions in the domestic economy and save more than $300 billion between now and 2035. That's cost-of-living relief, and it's great climate policy. Household batteries are crucial to seizing the electrification opportunity. By enabling families to store cheap energy and use it when the sun isn't shining, it helps families manage rising energy costs. It increases security of our energy supply, and it takes pressure off the rest of the electricity grid. So making batteries cheaper is important for people across Australia. It's important for people in rural Victoria, where energy storage can also be life-saving if you're cut off the grid by a bushfire. It's a important for renters in Wentworth, where combining a battery with a shared solar solution can reduce reliance on expensive coal and gas. And it's important to remote Aboriginal communities, where a household battery can mean people have access to cheap solar 24/7. Cheaper home batteries are a climate and cost-of-living imperative for all Australia, but without a helping hand from government we won't achieve the pace of uptake we need. Although home batteries are coming down in price all the time, the upfront costs of between $7,000 and $15,000 remain a significant barrier to many. This is why only 35,000 households installed a battery in 2021, but it's less than a tenth of the people who were installing solar in the same year. And it's a far cry from the hundreds of thousands we need to install each year if we're going to electrify Australia's 10 million households over the next decade. Australia is the household solar capital of the world. This bill has the opportunity to catalyse Australia being the household battery capital of the world, along with the impact that could have on our broader emissions and also household bills. But government support is crucial, as it was for catalysing the uptake of solar. When it's provided, we get the results—more batteries, lower power prices, low emissions—that we want to see. If the government is serious about cost-of-living relief and if it's serious about climate action, this is the legislation it should support. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 26 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Economy 26 10:52 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke I move: That this House: (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 (2) notes that in the first ten months, the Government has: (a) successfully argued for a minimum wage increase and passed legislation to get wages moving again; (b) legislated cheaper child care and cheaper medicines; (c) legislated emissions reductions targets and invested in cleaner and cheaper energy; (d) invested in fee-free TAFE and more university places; and (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 (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. Ten months ago the Australian people made an important decision. It wasn't a hard one, thanks to the member for Cook, but it was nevertheless a very, very important one. As we return to parliament for the final sitting week of the session and the last week before the budget, I think it's appropriate to reflect on the progress that the Albanese Labor government has made in repairing the Australian economy after almost a decade of failure at the hands of the former Liberal government. The nine years of Liberal economic mismanagement not only saw Australia squander economic opportunity but also left us with negative real wage growth; broken supply chains, which drive inflation; and a trillion dollars of debt without any economic dividend to show for it. That's a trillion dollars of debt—public debt, public money, taxpayer money—that those opposite blew on rorts and indulgences to serve their various mates in the small business sector and whatnot, perhaps their local communities, where they offered multiple car parks that weren't needed. Mr RAE 300122 They weren't able to build any of them. The member opposite intervenes. These guys opposite, particularly the blokes, like to carry on about their business acumen, about what great businessmen they are. You all worked in your family businesses; your dads gave you your jobs. You never earned a job. You never did any hard work. And then finally, once they realised you were the dud son, they put you into parliament, where all good Liberals put the dud son. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order! Mr RAE 300122 These guys have left us with a trillion dollars of debt and the worst decade for productivity in half a century. Despite occupying the opposition benches for 10 months, those opposite are still doing everything they can to protect their terrible and disgraceful legacy. After deliberately hiding power price increases from Australians before the election—a cover-up—they voted against direct energy bill relief for families and small businesses across our country. They voted against the National Reconstruction Fund, the fund that helps us rebuild our supply chains. They voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund, which ensures that we have a future supply of housing for vulnerable people in our community. And they voted, at every opportunity, against cleaner and cheaper energy. The coalition, whenever the opportunity has presented, has voted against Labor's efforts to clean up the mess. But the Albanese Labor government are not letting the obstructionist vandalism of the Liberals stop us from getting on with the job. Whilst there are economic challenges thrust upon us from around the world, we remain optimistic about Australia's economic future. The first six months of the Albanese government saw the strongest jobs growth of any new government on record. The wage growth in that period was the strongest in nearly a decade. Unemployment is low and the prices of Australian exports are high. Amongst these positive signs, however, inflation remains the most significant challenge. Let's remember that this inflation challenge began under the Liberals. It is largely due to pressures beyond the control of any single Australian government: war in Europe, collapsing international supply chains, climate change and exacerbated weather disasters. But, through their mismanagement of the budget and the economy, the Liberals poured fuel on the inflation fire. Their irresponsible and profligate spending of Australian taxpayers' money supercharged the inflation problem and drove the Reserve Bank to begin dealing with the challenge through interest rate rises. Of course, those interest rate rises, as those opposite sometimes like to forget, began under their watch as well. Australians understand that we, the Labor government, didn't create these challenges, but they elected us to take responsibility for addressing them, and we are. The Albanese government has a three-point plan for addressing the inflation challenge in our economy. It's about relief, repair and restraint. We're providing responsible cost-of-living relief where it delivers an economic dividend without adding to inflation, including through cheaper medicines, direct energy bill relief and cheaper child care for families, including the 7,000 in my electorate of Hawke. In the last 10 months we've seen that, with a focus on relief, repair and restraint, our government's plan to combat the economic challenges left behind by the Liberals opposite is working. We've got a long way to go, but the May budget will see the government build on this strong progress and further strengthen our position in the face of challenging economic circumstances. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Is the motion seconded? Dr Garland 295588 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 10:58 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt That was an extraordinary attack on the small business sector of this nation and on the family business sector of this nation, which, regrettably, doesn't come as a surprise to those of us on this side of the House. It's good to have it very clearly on the record, particularly for future television commercials and the like, that the Labor Party believe that supporting the small business sector is some kind of rort and some kind of coalition support for our mates. It really says it all that the small business sector and the family business sector are regarded by the government as sectors, when they are supported by the coalition, where there is some kind of rort. It's also interesting to hear that the government are now completely against all of the economic stimulus measures that we put in place through the COVID period. That is absolutely remarkable. Again, I appreciate having that on the record. It's good to know that the Labor Party are against JobKeeper. They're against supporting the small business sector and the family business sector—that's one great big 'rort'! It's excellent to have that on the record, because we look forward to making that point to the millions of small businesses and the millions of family businesses in the country. They have just been told by the speaker for the government that supporting them in tough economic times and tough health times was some kind of rort, and that the support and stimulus is not something that the now government, the Labor Party, supported and would have done at the time. I appreciate having that on the record. Secondly, I say to the people of Australia that it is a difficult time for them, and we on this side understand it. This motion seems to be proud of the fact that real wages are going backwards. In fact, in his contribution, the previous speaker said that we've got record wages growth. Wages growth is at 3.3 per cent and inflation is at 7.8 per cent. The ABS says that, in fact, real wages are going backwards—that the cost of meeting household bills is growing at double the rate that your wages are. The poor average family in this country is going backwards, and the government is bragging about it and saying that they're proud of it. They're proud of the fact that real wages are going backwards. This motion even talks about wages growth as if they weren't aware of that fact. They aren't aware of the fact that to get real wages growth you have to compare wages growth to inflationary growth, and, when wages are growing at a lower amount than inflation, the real purchasing power of the average family is going backwards. Mr Rae 300122 When did you guys work that out? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Member for Hawke! This is not a two-way conversation. Mr STEVENS 176304 That means families in this country at the moment are having to make really difficult decisions to reduce their household budget, because their wages are growing at a slower rate than the costs to their family are increasing. That is an indisputable reality. I'd be shocked if we now have a government that doesn't believe the Australian Bureau of Statistics anymore and rejects the indisputable reality of the situation of real wage decline in this economy under the Labor Party. Mortgages are going up; power prices are going up. People are having to make difficult decisions, like maybe cancelling a family holiday they take every year because they just can't afford to do that right now, and they can't undertake that kind of discretionary expenditure because the rest of their costs are going up under Labor. In the budget that Labor handed down in October they confirmed electricity and gas prices were going up by 56 per cent and 42 per cent in those two cases. That makes life so much more difficult, not just for the people that are struggling now but for those that are going to have to meet these increased costs into the future. Those projections of electricity and gas prices going up in double digits haven't hit households yet. While their real wages are going backwards and inflation is currently at 7.8 per cent, you have utility costs going up at an even higher rate. That means for the average family in this country right now it is only going to get worse, and that is the reality of the statistics that the government themselves have put out in their own budget. So it is a very difficult time for families. Cost of living is exploding in this country while real wages are going backwards. That is not something to celebrate or to come into this chamber to brag about. It is something to be ashamed of, and it is something that needs a plan to address. Rather than bragging about the deteriorating wealth of the average Australian, come up with a plan to do something about it. At least, when we get elected in a few years time, we'll have that plan, and the people of this country will again see their economic future is something to look forward to rather than something to be frightened of under this government. 11:03 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm It's always quite exasperating when we debate issues on the economy to hear what those opposite have to say. I wish that they had discovered their concern for workers during the last decade instead of now, only after having been voted out of government, quite rightly, by the Australian people. I wish that we could really take this new-found concern seriously, because, frankly, I would like nothing more than for this country than to have a parliament in which all of its members think that workers should have decent wages to spend in their community and that we should initiate projects that will act as an economic stimulus, such as the National Reconstruction Fund. But unfortunately, I don't believe there is any genuine concern from those opposite about the plight facing these communities, because, if it were real, they would vote for the very sensible measures we have put forward in this parliament. We know that the Labor government inherited an economy defined by a decade of stagnant wages, flatlining productivity, weak business investment, skills shortages and energy policy chaos. It is up to us, as a Labor government, to fix the mess that those opposite left behind. I remember very distinctly standing with the Prime Minister in Box Hill during the election campaign when he was asked whether he supported a wage increase for the lowest paid workers in our country, and he said absolutely— Mr Rae 300122 One dollar. Dr GARLAND 295588 One dollar an hour—and he said he absolutely supported that. Oh, was he mocked by those who are now, quite rightly, sitting in opposition! That they were absent when it came to backing workers is something that we on this side of the House will never forget; in fact, we'll remind people at every opportunity, because it's important that Australians know who actually has their back, especially at a time when so many households are doing it tough. We've legislated for cheaper medicines. We will see cheaper child care come into effect from 1 July. In my own electorate, Chisholm, that is going to make a really profound contribution to relieving the cost-of-living pressures that families are experiencing. Over 7,200 families are set to benefit from those changes. In fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is one of the largest numbers of families in Victoria to benefit. I know my colleague here, the member for Lalor, also has a large number of families in her electorate who will benefit from this very significant policy. We know that the cost of medicines and the cost of health care increased under the watch of those opposite. In my own electorate, the out-of-pocket costs just to see a GP have increased by 38 per cent over the last decade, which is absolutely shameful. Since we introduced cheaper medicines we've changed lives and improved household budgets. In my electorate in the first two months of this year alone 22,700 scripts were filled, which means our changes have saved people in my electorate over $256,000. That is significant. Instead of walking into this chamber and being disingenuous about what we believe, we are making sure that our actions speak louder than words ever could by implementing these important policies. We're investing in more skills, with fee-free TAFE places and more university places. We're doing the things that need to be done to make sure our economy is strong again after the wreckage that we witnessed from those opposite for nine years. It is not too late for this parliament to come together to stimulate the economy and improve our nation's wealth by supporting the National Reconstruction Fund. It is not too late for this parliament to do the right thing together, in a bipartisan fashion, and vote on more housing stock being built. I urge those opposite, if they really do believe the words that they say every time they walk into this chamber and debate the economy, to vote for these really sensible measures. That is how we can assess whether or not what they claim to be deeply felt concerns are just more lies that they're spinning to trick the Australian people. 11:08 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Wow! Mr Deputy Speaker, have you ever known a government more full of itself than this Albanese one? Labor love to talk. They love the big talk and to talk about how great they are. I'm sure they've have all given themselves a slap on the back. 'What a great 10 months it's been under Labor,' they say. But Australians know it hasn't been a great 10 months. It hasn't even been an average 10 months, Mr Deputy Speaker. It's actually been a train wreck. We've now seen nine interest rate increases in a row. We've watched electricity and gas prices skyrocket. We've watched Australians across our great nation struggle to keep a roof over their head and to feed their families. It has been 10 months of watching Labor and their union mates ruin the economy. I know I've got only five minutes to speak, but there is so much misinformation in this motion that I have to laugh. Let's start with the claim that they handed down a budget that 'delivered cost-of-living relief'. That is clearly misleading this chamber, because that is one big, fat Labor lie, if I've ever heard one from those opposite. What cost-of-living relief? You've delivered nothing for Australian families but more and more hardship. Families are struggling. They're trying to decide if they heat or if they eat. Small businesses are struggling to stay afloat. Claims from this government that they're delivering cost-of-living relief are just false. While we're talking about misleading this chamber, can the member for Hawke tell families in his electorate that their electricity prices will come down by $275? Can Labor promise families that their energy prices will come down? Oh wait, they did that—97 times. Yet, here we are, 10 months later and nothing—no plans to make your electricity prices cheaper. It's another Labor lie and another broken promise from the Albanese government. They've got a few of those broken promises. They promised cheaper mortgages, no changes to super and lower inflation. There's silence from the other side; they know it is all true. They promised no changes to franking credits, no changes to industry-wide bargaining, no increase to taxes, increases to real wages—the list goes on. It's more Labor lies and broken promises. Then they promised cheaper child care. I don't know if the member for Hawke reads the news, but the cost of early learning has already increased on your watch. The latest CPI data— Opposition members interjecting— Ms BELL 282981 Again, they are arguing—arguing with the fact that the latest CPI data shows costs increased by a whopping 4.5 per cent in December 2022. That's the largest increase outside the COVID measures since 2007. It's expected, given the last time Labor was in government fees skyrocketed by 53 per cent in just three years. The only thing that will happen on 1 July is further burnout for educators, higher fees and more families struggling to find a place for their children. For some families in regional, rural and remote Australia, living in a thin market or a childcare desert, nothing will change from 1 July, because they still won't be able to access care and this government has no plans to fix that. There's $4.7 billion, and not $1 will go to delivering more access for families. In contrast, the coalition has a strong record when it comes to delivering for Australian families. We doubled our investment in ECCE and locked in ongoing preschool funding. That was the coalition government. We increased access for more than 280,000 children, brought costs down and increased women's workforce participation. But that's not all we did in government; we protected our country and economy during COVID, growing our economy and maintaining our AAA credit rating. Unemployment fell to 3.9 per cent, its lowest level in 48 years, in April 2022. We reduced the tax rate for small businesses 25 per cent, the lowest rate in 50 years. We signed agreements with Japan, Korea, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Peru and many more countries to improve trade opportunities for Australian exporters. We doubled hospital funding to $27.2 billion, listed more than 2,900 medicines on the PBS, delivered telehealth and improved access to private health and Medicare. We more than doubled school funding to $25 billion. That's the coalition record. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Can I just remind the members, particularly the member for Barker and the member for Hawke, that this is not a two-way conversation. People are entitled to be heard in silence. 11:14 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor It's a pleasure to rise on the motion from my friend the member for Hawke about the Albanese government's economic plans for this country. In 2023, we should be optimistic about the future but realistic about the challenges coming at us from around the world. This chamber has been talking about this for 10 months. We have a lot going for us. We have low unemployment and the beginnings of wages growth. We have high prices for the things we sell to the world. There is no denying the fact that the cost of living and inflation are a challenge, but when the Albanese Labor government sees a challenge it sees an opportunity. We have already completed the first budget under the Albanese Labor government and we've seen stronger jobs growth than any other new government on record. Wages growth in our first six months was the strongest in nearly a decade. It is a pleasure to hear the member for Sturt suddenly notice that there has been a problem with wages growth. He might also like to note that these problems were baked in for 10 years under a Liberal and National government. It was fascinating to hear the member for Moncrieff. Admittedly the member for Moncrieff wasn't part of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government and so missed the 2014 budget. But in my electorate we wonder how a Labor government can take office, show restraint in its first budget, and plan for more restraint, and see 99 per cent of revenue upgrades returned to the budget over the next two years while, under those opposite, just 40 per cent was returned of any savings we made. So they left us with $1 trillion of debt, most of which was accrued before the pandemic, and then, rather than address that issue, they went on a spending spree. People in my electorate wonder what it was they spent money on. We all know where they lifted money from, but what did they spend it on? They spent it on, as the member for Hawke rightly pointed out, car parks for train stations that don't exist. They made commitments for car parks in electorates that didn't need car parks at train stations and that couldn't be built and didn't get built. They made commitments around the country but ignored electorates like mine and ignored the people in my electorate and their needs. The member for Sturt is decrying the fact that people may not be able to go on a holiday. Well, Member for Sturt, in my electorate people might lose their houses. I think that's just about the difference between those opposite and this government. We are clearly focused on budget repair, on relief for households and on spending restraint. Australians understand—and in my electorate they clearly understand—that we didn't create these challenges, but they have elected us to take responsibility for addressing them, and we are. Our economic plan is a direct and deliberate response to the challenges facing the economy, including the rising cost of living. One of the very first acts of the Albanese government was to successfully argue for the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, an outcome which helped around 2.7 million Australians. That's 2.7 million Australians who were assisted by our first act. Our budget focused on responsible cost-of-living relief that didn't put extra pressure on inflation, and that is the most important thing—through cheaper child care, expanding Paid Parental Leave, cheaper medicines, more affordable housing and getting wages moving again. In my electorate, people know that the ratings agencies have affirmed our AAA credit rating and pointed to the fact that our budget didn't add to inflation as a factor in their decisions. This is critical. I am really looking forward to Labor's next budget because I have absolute faith that that theme around relief, repair and restraint will continue. It's important to note that, with all of this in front of us, those opposite cannot bring themselves to walk in here and vote yes on any of it. They decry the situation for people in electorates like mine but refuse to come in here and support them with their votes. They refuse to support members of my community, the community the member for Hawke represents, the people of Chisholm or the people in their own electorates. Instead, this opposition has now labelled itself. We have seen their behaviour. This opposition behaves like a junkyard dog looking for a fight while the people of this country need it to come in here and support our government getting things done. 11:19 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on the motion put by the member for Hawke. I do not support the motion moved by the member for Hawke, but I do commend him for having the courage to bring to this place's attention the dismal record of his government to date on the economy. As the Prime Minister has recently reminded us, it has now been 10 months since the Albanese government came to power. In the lead-up to the election in May last year, Labor made many promises. The Prime Minister recently said that Australia has had 'a very good 10 months'. I am yet to meet any Australian who has said to me that the last 10 months have been good. I also note that, despite us asking the Prime Minister these questions, the Prime Minister and indeed his whole team have been unable to find one single Australian who has come forward to say that they have had a very good 10 months. To that end, in the last 10 months, we've seen nine consecutive interest rate rises under this government—a rate of rises that we have not seen in 30 years. The cash rate now sits at 3.6 per cent. Inflation has reached levels not seen since 1990 and, as at the end of December, the inflation rate was sitting at 7.8 per cent. Power prices have continued to rise under this government, not fall. We've had increased taxes, and charities are now reporting seeing people on double incomes asking for help to put food on the table. People are being forced to take on a second job to pay the bills. This is of course eating into their family time and recreation time. A record number of Australians are turning to Lifeline, and this has been recently reported by Lifeline. The average Australian mortgage holder is now paying close to $2,000 per month for that mortgage. They're paying an extra $20,000 per year. In my electorate of Hughes, over 30 per cent of the electorate are mortgage holders and, on average, they are now spending more than $1,700 a month on their mortgage than they were before this government came to power. I am yet to hear any Australian say—and particularly nobody from my electorate has said this to me—that they have had a good 10 months. If we look at some of the promises that were made by Labor leading up to the election, both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer made many, many promises. There was a promise to cut electricity bills by $275. That promise has been broken. There was a promise of cheaper mortgages. That promise has been broken. There were promises of no changes to super. Those promises have been broken. There were promises of lower inflation—again, broken promises. There was a promise of, 'We're not touching your franking credits.' That promise has been broken. Franking credits are important. Franking credits were first brought in by a Labor government. At the time, Paul Keating said, 'This is a double tax, and I am relieving Australians of this burden.' Now that is being reversed. We also had the promise that there would be no industry-wide bargaining. 'That's not part of our policy,' we were told. It is part of the policy. Now, after 10 months, it is time that the Labor government stopped rewarding union mates and instead focused on the real issues in the economy. We look first of all at electricity. On 97 separate occasions before the election, the Prime Minister said electricity prices would decrease by $275 under a government that he would lead. The opposite has occurred. Electricity prices continue to increase. In my home state of New South Wales, we are now $564 a year on average worse off than we were under the former coalition government. This has had a massive impact on more than 280,000 small businesses. I was speaking on the weekend to one of my local café owners. He's now paying $50,000 a year on electricity. This is unsustainable. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Retirement Villages 31 11:24 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I move: That this House: (1) recognises that the regulation of retirement villages in Australia is highly complex and varies significantly between states and territories; (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; (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; (4) expresses concern that: (a) negotiating and understanding a lengthy and complex retirement village contract can be difficult for some prospective residents; and (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; (5) calls on the Government to recognise that many retirement village contracts represent a financial product, and therefore warrant federal oversight and regulation; and (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: (a) improved consumer protections and increased transparency and consistency are provided for all Australians entering retirement villages; and (b) consideration is given to: (i) regulation of retirement village contracts as financial products by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission; and (ii) improved consumer protections and regulation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. I call on the government to give Australians living in retirement villages greater financial and consumer protections, and to take the lead in ensuring consistency and transparency across state and territory legislative regimes. While retirement villages are largely regulated under state and territory laws, elder law specialists and senior advocates have called for national reform and a harmonisation in the past. Many Australians enjoy retirement village living and it suits their lifestyle well. Unfortunately, I'm also approached by many others who are appalled at the excess fees applied to retirement village living. One couple from the south coast in my electorate say that, after perceived changes to their retirement village rules, they have been told they will receive only $259,000 of an estimated selling refund of their property—the property they're living in, the property they don't own—of $417,000. This represents a loss of around $160,000, largely for the privilege of leaving. Another gentleman advises that, after paying $187,000 for his unit, his mother will be charged over $121,000—around two-thirds of the original incoming amount paid—when she leaves. She has also been told she will potentially be charged fees for up to six months after leaving if the property has not been resold to another person. A couple from a retirement village in the Adelaide Hills are concerned that fellow former residents have paid exit fees of between $80,000 and $100,000. They're calling for legislative reform so these fees are required to be fair and reasonable. For many, the total fees for upfront incoming payments, ongoing service charges and exit or debit deferred management fees are eye-watering. Exit fees alone can be anywhere between 25 per cent and 40 per cent of a person's ingoing contribution. Residents have very little insight into or control of how some retirement villages calculate their exit costs—including the complete refurbishment of the unit, which may be demanded even if a resident is only there for a year. Many residents don't have any control over how the unit is marketed or when it's going to be put to market. This is all done in-house by the retirement village owners, and often at far higher rates, with commission that a real estate agent would charge, leaving exiting residents feeling powerless and out-of-pocket. Once fees are deducted, remaining funds leave some residents ill-equipped to pay for high-care-level needs. This is particularly worrying for many of them who are then moving on to aged care. How can we listen to our constituents' stories and not take action in this place? This needs fairness and transparency. We have an uneven playing field of regulations in each state and territory, and often a power imbalance with respect to negotiations between prospective residents and the owners and managers of the villages. I urge government to look at the nature of retirement village agreements. These contracts are lengthy and confusing. If an agreement looks like a financial product and behaves like a financial product, it should be regulated like one and should have the strong regulatory oversight role that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission does. This call for action is supported by National Seniors Australia, who have been calling for nationally consistent and strengthened retirement village legislation for years due to growing complaints from older Australians. Ian Henschke, their chief advocate, tells me people are confused and frustrated by the complexity of contracts and lack of protection when they are entering a retirement village, and are dismayed by the delays and egregious charges they're charged when they exit. Nationally consistent retirement village legislation is needed, and it needs federal government leadership. The South Australian Retirement Villages Residents Association, which represents 7,000 residents just in South Australia, believes we need to have greater consumer protection and transparency, and a balance of rights between operators and residents. Retirement villages, for many, are a safe and welcoming place to live. As I said earlier, if an agreement looks like a financial product and behaves like a financial product it should be regulated like one, and we need Commonwealth oversight with respect to the ASIC and the ACCC. We can't continue to allow people who are living in retirement villages to be rorted and to feel completely powerless when they are buying what is essentially often their last financial product in life. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the motion seconded? Mr Broadbent MT4 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:29 Ms 296272 Boothby MILLER-FROST () (): I thank the member for Mayo for this private member's motion and recognise her concern with practices in the retirement village sector. I certainly share her concerns and recognise that with our ageing population—and, specifically, with the baby boomer cohort continuing to move into retirement age—retirement villages are going to be increasingly under pressure, and that the practices of the retirement villages will be affecting more and more of our community. In Boothby, we currently have around 38,000 people of retirement age, which is 21 per cent of the population, and, obviously, we expect that to increase over time. As the member notes in her motion, retirement villages are currently regulated through various arrangements of the state and territory governments. The federal government does not regulate retirement homes. Under the Aged Care Act 1997, the federal aged-care regulator, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, is only responsible for approved providers, being those aged-care facilities that receive Commonwealth subsidies. We do, however, recognise that many people living in retirement villages often access Commonwealth funded home-care packages and other supports, and this can be a very important part of enabling them to continue to live independently and safely for as long as possible. To this end, the government is committed to implementing the aged-care royal commission recommendations. Within our first six months in office we addressed 37 royal commission recommendations, almost four times as many as the previous government managed and in about a third of the time. This has included introducing caps for home-care fees, to stop rorts; banning exit fees from home-care packages; and budget measures to introduce an aged-care complaints commissioner to give older people and their families a voice. We've also supported aged-care workers' fight for fairer wages at the Fair Work Commission, resulting in a 15 per cent pay rise for this dedicated workforce from 1 July this year. This much-needed pay rise for workers will be crucial in making sure that we have the workforce we need to continue to care for older Australians, both through home care and in residential aged-care homes. With more than five million Australians either approaching or in retirement now, and with many of them having more financial resources than previous retirees, thanks to superannuation, it is important that retirees get good information and advice before entering into agreements with retirement villages, which can be very complex agreements. Many of these retirement villages are excellent and do the right thing, but, as with everything, there are those that leave a lot to be desired. As I understand it, there is a legal definition of what is or is not a financial product and therefore falls into the purview of ASIC and what they are able to regulate. Retirement village contracts do not meet the definition of financial products and there are likely to be legal barriers to this, given existing regulation by states and territories. As retirement villages are the responsibility of state and territory governments, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission cannot have oversight of these entities. However, I have raised these matters with the Assistant Treasurer, who was very encouraging, and I would encourage the member for Mayo to do the same. The Assistant Treasurer reiterated that improved consumer protections and transparency are key priorities of the Albanese government, and we are actively working to protect consumers in all sections of our economy. The Albanese Labor government cares deeply about the aged-care sector, including retirement villages. We care deeply about the older Australians who rely on it, and about their families and loved ones. Every Australian deserves a safe and comfortable retirement, and retirement villages play an important role in the options available to Australian retirees. This government is on a mission to clean up the mess left by the previous government and to deliver the foundations of a world-class system that delivers the care that older people in this country deserve. This government will not stop, and I will not stop, until we've achieved this. I thank the member for her motion. 11:34 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I thank the member for Mayo for bringing this motion before the House. For all of us who have been serving in this place for a long time, there's not one of us who hasn't come across somebody who has had a difficulty with a retirement village or the stages that they're going through in their lives. I note that the member for Boothby just said there are some five million people moving into this category of the Australian community, and they've served this nation very, very well. They also provided for themselves well. In doing so, they go to another stage of life, another opportunity. I always see it as another opportunity, whether it be going into a retirement village or associated body like retirement villages—lifestyle villages. Some people are going into lifestyle villages when they're over 50 years of age, because they choose to do it, especially if they're single women. It gives them a community around them, it gives them activities to do and it gives them interaction with other people without having to go outside of their village. It gives them the protection and care that is surrounded in that process. There are also, as has been stated today, financial arrangements entered into for people going into lifestyle villages—selling their own home or moving from a rental into a lifestyle village, for the financial benefit of that—and then perhaps others moving into retirement villages. We've all got them in our community. They are large. There are a lot of people who have chosen that lifestyle now. However, I had one experience the other day whereby a gentleman and his wife—and his wife was considerably unwell—moved into a lifestyle village but that lifestyle village was too loud for his wife. It would be normal for us but her particular needs were quietness and that lifestyle village couldn't provide it so he couldn't stay there. He had to go into an aged-care facility. The problem with going from one situation into another into another is the loss of funds that you have entered into. It was a product in one way. In one way it may not meet the state definition or the federal definition of a financial product but it actually is a financial product. You are entering into an agreement. And if you don't stay for very long, for whatever reason—be it morbidity or whatever the situation is—you're still responsible to pay what you agreed to pay when you left the village. Whether it be three weeks, six months, two years, five years it doesn't matter. So if you are only there for a brief time and you need to go to another one you're going to have to pay. There are consequences for that and they are financial consequences. We were all trained in our secondary years—in accounting anyway—about caveat emptor: let the buyer beware. Why do they go to a particular retirement village? Because their friends recommend it. They say, 'It's wonderful and we are having a beautiful time here. We love what we're going et cetera.' So the input into what the financial arrangements might be might not be as rigorous as you would expect. I don't think many of them ring their solicitor, if they have a solicitor, and say, 'Would you look at this agreement I'm entering into and give me some recommendations that I should highlight here so I fully understand it?' In another situation, I spoke to a man whose wife was going into an aged-care facility. He was wanting information from the provider that the provider clearly wasn't prepared to give, or wasn't able to give, or didn't want to give—I don't know. He was a highly articulate, highly intelligent older person and he was asking questions that he needed to know answers to before he signed up. He was getting accounts that he thought he shouldn't have been getting and what was I to do about it? As a local member you're not necessarily on top of every financial contract that somebody has entered into. You expect that's for the experts—for the solicitors and the accountants—not Russel Broadbent, MP for Monash. But we're quite prepared to go back to myGov. MyGov is interesting. I don't know how to explain that. It is sometimes not the exact place to go. Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this motion. 11:39 Dr 265979 Macarthur FREELANDER () (): I thank the member for Mayo for moving this motion regarding retirement villages and the need for greater supports and oversight of this industry, an industry that was neglected for far too long under the previous government and one that was severely affected during the pandemic. I'm speaking on this motion not because a One Nation voter told me during the New South Wales election on Saturday that I belong in a retirement village but because this is very important. Mr Pa 240756 That's a bit harsh. Not even I'd say that! Dr FREELANDER 265979 Very good—I thank the member for Barker. Retirement villages are springing up around my electorate very, very quickly. My electorate is a rapidly growing one. In areas where previously there were farms, we're now getting aged-care homes, retirement villages and new buildings. Very frequently, my office is being contacted by people from the retirement villages with a number of complaints. The retirement villages that I have seen and been into my electorate seem to me to be very, very good. But the legislation around their management, which is predominantly state legislation, is unclear, and questions often arise as to people's obligations; the obligations of the owners of the retirement villages; and things like maintenance costs, increases in levies, what happens when the accommodation is sold, for whatever reason, and what happens to the assets. I think the Minister for Aged Care is doing a wonderful job addressing the negligent attitude of the previous government regarding retirement villages, particularly after COVID and the effects that have happened. It is important that the Commonwealth government has national oversight of this industry, as it will be a more harmonious coalition between aged-care residents and Commonwealth funded programs compared to the states and the different packages they offer and in terms of legislation. I am proud to be part of a government that cares deeply about the aged-care sector and about the retirement living sector. Elderly people rely on proper management and proper legislation to make sure these homes are adequately oversighted and appropriately managed. We are an ageing population, and more people are going to require support as they enter into retirement living. Things like aged care et cetera are very important in providing services into the retirement living space. This government has introduced budget measures to put in place a number of complaints processes in the aged-care sector, and the same could be done in the retirement living sector. With an ageing population, we're all living longer, and we're seeing that the retirement living sector is booming. However, I think legislation has been quite slow in coming to terms with the implications for the aged-care sector and also transitioning from retirement living into aged care. More must be done, and it is being done by the Albanese government, and I congratulate the minister. It is important that we know that our retirement living sector is adequately managed and that people feel that they are supported whilst they are in retirement living places. There's more to be done in terms of health care in retirement living, and design is very important. Again, this is important in Commonwealth legislation. We need to be looking at things like air quality, facilities for exercise, facilities for entertainment and support for people as they get older so that they can stay independent in their own homes for longer. This is going to require quite significant review by government, and the Commonwealth government must get involved with this. We can't leave it to the states to continue managing the retirement living sector, as they had done with many of the aged-care facilities, and we saw what happened to residential aged care. So it's very important the same thing doesn't happen in retirement living spaces. Much more needs to be done. There needs to be more oversight. The government is aware of that and is putting in place measures to deal with all of those issues, and I'm sure that better outcomes will happen because of that. I thank the Member for Mayo for moving this motion. I know she cares very deeply about this issue, and I thank her for her support. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Live Animal Exports 35 11:44 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) Australia's live sheep export industry employs more than 3,000 people in Western Australia and is worth $85 million; (b) since 2018, this industry has delivered extensive and comprehensive reforms which have significantly improved animal welfare outcomes; (c) Australia has the highest standards of animal welfare in the world; (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 (e) if the trade is banned, alternatives will be sourced from countries that do not have Australia's high animal welfare or quality standards; (2) condemns the Government for its reckless and ideological decision to forcibly shut down Australia's live sheep export industry; (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; (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 (5) urges the Government to immediately reverse its decision to forcibly shut down this industry. I come to this chamber to speak on the live export sheep industry, one which I can speak about with some authority because I was the agriculture minister in 2018, when we were confronted with some challenges over which the industry put their hands up and took ownership. From that, the industry showed maturity that you would expect. They engaged in a process to reform the industry to make sure that we, as Australians, as exporters, have the best animal welfare standards in the world—and we do. We moved from a mortality methodology of assessing the success of sheep boats to one of animal welfare, one which is predicated upon science. Tragically, this new government has walked away from this industry, predicated on the fact that, apparently, the science doesn't add up. Let me explain the science of the live sheep industry on a boat and how it happens. We actually measure the number of pants per minute of a sheep on those boats. We measure the airflow through those vessels to make sure we make the stocking densities that are appropriate to ensure there is no heat stress and, in fact, that animals are putting on weight. But we go even further than that: before they even get on a boat, to the millimetre we will extend how much wool the sheep can have on them and the weight of the animals. No other country does this. In fact, we are leading the world in an area that I think we should be damn proud of instead of the cutting and running this government is undertaking. There are 3,000 families in Western Australia who will no longer have a job in an industry that the government will shut down, predicated on one incident that the industry themselves acknowledged and move forward from. I cast the minds of those opposite back to 2011, when the cattle industry had an incident in Indonesia. They shut down overnight, and you, the Australian taxpayer, are now paying probably close to $2 billion in compensation, but the cattle industry were given the opportunity to reform, and reform they did. Why is it that the cattle industry was given an opportunity to reform and prove their animal welfare credentials but sheep producers and exporters in Western Australia are not provided that same opportunity when, in fact, the methodology and the science which they have adopted themselves is the most advanced in export industries not only in Australia but around the world? For all of the moral virtues of those opposite in shutting down this industry, they are exporting the animal welfare standards to other countries—other countries that don't have our standards. In fact, they are still working on a mortality methodology. Let me tell you: they don't count the number of sheep that go on; they put as many as they can on these boats. They're not measuring the airflow through these boats. They're not measuring the pants per minute of the sheep on these boats. They're not measuring the length of wool or the weight. They simply get paid on what's left when they get the boat to dock. We are saying we are going to export the animal welfare standards to countries that have less than ours. Where is the moral compass of animal activists? Where is the moral compass of this government? The welfare of a sheep in Australia should be no different from anywhere else in the world. We have a responsibility to stay, get it right and make sure that it's done properly. There are those who say, 'Let's have this notion where we'll process them all here in Australia.' That is folly. That is nonsense. Let me tell you, because I have lived experience in this, particularly in the Middle East. I have met with the ministers. In fact, the Prime Minister of Qatar made it very clear to us that, unless we sent them our live sheep, they would not accept our processed sheep. Again, you export those standards to other countries that do not have our animal welfare standards. That is a perverse outcome. That is not common sense. This government, in going over to the Middle East to try to articulate to them that they are going to phase out this industry, in only what can be described as an international incident, sent the department to the wrong ministry in Kuwait to notify them that they were going to take away their food security. That is not just incompetence; that's appalling. So I say to those opposite: please. The 3,000 families in Western Australia deserve a second opportunity like the cattle industry was given and has taken up. Western Australian farming families deserve that opportunity too. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the motion seconded? Mr Rick Wilson 198084 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:50 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I rise to speak on this motion on the live sheep export industry. In the history of this place, people would know of my opposition to live animal exports from Australia. Animal cruelty in any circumstance, in any way, is unacceptable. We went to the last election—in fact, the last two elections—and promised that we would phase out live sheep exports. The government was committed to phasing it out. It was a promise that we made, and we'll live up to that promise. We'll see a phase-out of those live sheep exports by sea. Members of the community have expressed a concern about the conditions that sheep experience during the export by sea and on arrival. At the last election Labor listened, and we're delivering. As I said, in my electorate, I'm contacted continually about the live sheep trade and how people want to see a phase-out or the banning of this unacceptable trade. The cruel trade of live sheep exports needs our attention. I know that the member for Maranoa and others have concerns, but let me just say that we've seen New Zealand ban live exports from later on this year, through legislation that was passed in their parliament. We made a commitment to phase out live sheep exports, and we're sticking to that commitment. The commitment was endorsed by the Australian public at the last federal election. We hear about industries being decimated, but that is not the concern. The concern is that the industry will not be decimated. Deputy Speaker, let me just refresh your memory, and especially the memory of the South Australian MPs that are in here. Back in the seventies and eighties, we had 3,000 people working at the Gepps Cross slaughterhouse. Where are those 3,000 people today? If you want to talk about an industry that has been put out of business, where was the outcry then? We have a great opportunity to value-add to this industry. Our meat industry is a great industry, and we can slaughter meat here in Australia, box it and export it. It is a great opportunity to value-add, to bring more money into the country and to help with our exports. We've seen in Kuwait one of the largest slaughterhouses built anywhere in the world. And yet, what happens is that we send our live trade over to Kuwait, and it gets boxed—a lot of it—and sent to other parts of the Middle East. They are the ones that are value-adding and making money from it when we could be doing that. As I said earlier, the department of agriculture recognises the huge implications of heat stress on the animals. There's clear evidence showing that recklessly subjecting sheep to prolonged periods of heat in trade is unacceptable. No matter what science you look at, the science is unanimous, and we cannot ignore it. The cries from the Australian people are loud and clear. It's time to stop measuring the rates of animal welfare based on mortality. We need to make the welfare of animals a priority. There is a great opportunity here to value-add to this industry, which will assist our farmers, who do a great job. It will assist the economy of this nation and create jobs. As I said, there were meatworks all over Australia before the eighties—before we started exporting live animals. Those jobs have all gone, but we can rebuild those jobs. We can value-add to the product, we can box the meat and we can send it overseas, just like New Zealand will be doing. We need to be serious about actively implementing change, and that's why it's a phase-out period. We should be gradually, slowly bringing the industry with us and looking for markets where we can export boxed meat. From my electorate, I've heard the message loud and clear. We went to the last election, we made the promise, and we're now committed to that promise. We're bringing it in. Enough is enough with this trade. Live sheep export is cruel and unsustainable. No matter which way you package it, no matter which way you box it or which way you put ribbons on it, it is cruel. It is not only cruel for the animals; it's also cruel to the economy. We can value-add to this area, create jobs here in Australia and export the meat. We understand farmers and exporters and local communities will be concerned. Of course they'll be concerned, but it's time we phased this out. 11:55 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to support this motion moved by the shadow minister for Agriculture. I thank him, and also the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, who travelled to Western Australia recently to reiterate his support and the coalition's support for the industry. There is also the Premier of Western Australia, who supports the industry. The Western Australian minister for agriculture, Jackie Jarvis, also supports the industry. I note that the member for Fremantle will be speaking next. I am interested to hear what the member for Fremantle will say, because this is a particularly Western Australian industry: 97 per cent of the sheep exported out of this country come out of Western Australia. That is because we have a geographical advantage. Comparisons with New Zealand are complete and utter nonsense. We have a geographical advantage, and we have the product that our Middle Eastern customers absolutely want. It's the premium product. I'll explain why it is so important to the Western Australian industry. For those in the chamber and those more broadly who don't understand—and I wouldn't expect many to—a merino self-replacing flock produces what is called a wether, the castrated male, who really has no value going forward, other than as a slaughter animal. A crossbred sheep, a British bred sheep or an exotic ship from Africa, is bred to produce meat. They are that nice, rounded little sheep that you will see—the roast lamb in the shop—for those of you who aren't vegans. But for those who do enjoy a lamb roast, what you would see in the shop would come from a British breed sheep. The merino wether is not bred to produce meat; it is bred to produce wool. It's not bred to become a fat animal that is suitable for slaughter here, locally. The local processors don't want that sheep, and that is why we are so desperate to retain the live export trade. Minister Watt announced a panel that will be tasked with phasing out the live export trade, chaired by Philip Glyde, who apparently was part of the Murray-Darling Basin back in the day. The Hon. Warren Snowdon is on the panel, and I wanted to mention that because I give credit to Warren, who was in the House last week. He came to see me to discuss this issue. I certainly gave him my view on how difficult it would be to be to phase the industry out. Interestingly, the timing of that announcement—3 March—was a few days before the Wagin Woolorama, which is the premier sheep and wool show in Western Australia. About 20,000 people visited. The Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, came along to hear from farmers. What he heard was absolute dismay and fear for the future of the wool industry in Western Australia. As I said, the merino wether is not suitable for domestic slaughter. No matter what the local processors say about, 'We can slaughter all the sheep,' that is complete nonsense. They will not buy those merino sheep if they have alternative British breed sheep available. We saw sheep in the Katanning saleyards the other day, in my hometown. The member for Fremantle has been there. We saw merino wethers with about an inch of wool on them, which is worth about $10 to $20, selling for a dollar a head the other day. The farmers of Western Australia are desperately worried about their future. If you take this leg out of the merino sheep operation, it then becomes unviable to produce the wool and that ewes that are the other components of that operation. I'll be meeting with sheep producers straight after this. They are very concerned about the future of those 13 million sheep in Western Australia, those 13 million merinos that constitute a very significant wool industry. Why is that important? It's because in the small country towns across my electorate, you have shearing teams. They make up a big part of the population in some of those small towns. One thing about shearers: they earn a lot of money and work bloody hard, but at the end of the day they go to the local pub and have a few beers—and they've earned those beers, I can tell you. But without those shearing teams in those towns you lose the pub, you lose the shearers, you lose the kids from the school, you lose the school. This is what is going to be the final result of this policy, which is anti-Western Australian, anti-farmer and anti-common sense. As the shadow minister said, we have the best animal welfare standards in the world which we export to these other importing countries. If we take away the Australian presence in the live export trade, those standards are going to drop away dramatically. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. BILLS 37 BILLS National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023 37

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

Returned from Senate 37 COMMITTEES 38 COMMITTEES Northern Australia Joint Select Committee 38 Report 38 12:00 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Inquiry into the cyclone reinsurance pool: first report on the cyclone reinsurance pool. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr NEUMANN HVO by leave—This is the first report of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia this term. It's the first report into the cyclone reinsurance pool this term. The cyclone reinsurance pool, CRP, has had a long history, and there have been many parliamentary and governmental inquiries and reports going back more than a decade. Indeed, I've been part of one or two myself. This committee itself, and others, has focused on the issue of the limited market provision and the high cost of insurance in northern Australia. This report documents that history. This report focuses specifically on the implementation and operation of the CRP and its effectiveness. The report discusses the fundamental question: how can we expand or develop northern Australia without insurance coverage? Without coverage, it's very difficult to see northern Australia flourish. Tropical cyclones, storm surges, freshwater flooding, significant landfalls and soil movement are all, sadly, experienced by our fellow Australians north of the Tropic of Capricorn. The CRP commenced operation on 1 July 2022, backed by a $10 billion Australian government guarantee intended to cover any shortfalls from the pool. That pool relates to cyclone and related flood damage arising during a cyclone event that lasts from the time the cyclone begins until 48 hours after the cyclone ends, above policyholder excesses. The main object of the CRP is to lower insurance premiums for householders and small businesses by allowing insurers to reinsure for cyclone risk at a lower cost than would be the case if those insurers purchased reinsurance from the private market. The ACCC has noted in its first report following the introduction of the CRP the disparity in insurance costs between those in the north and those in the rest of Australia. At this stage there are only a few insurers who have signed up to the CRP, like Allianz Australia. Evidence at the inquiry was that other insurers intended to join the CRP shortly. The committee, in the report, expressed its concern about the implementation and operation of the CRP, and intends to monitor its continuing operation once again, once the CRP is fully operational. There will be further opportunity to determine whether the pool is working properly through a scheduled review of the legislation, due to report after 1 July 2025 and every five years thereafter. However, this committee intends to reconsider the CRP in 2024 once major insurers have joined the scheme. I commend the first report of this select committee and its recommendations to the House. 12:04 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt by leave—I rise to speak on the report of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia inquiry into the cyclone reinsurance pool. My community of Leichhardt and Far North Queensland has long grappled with the challenges of high insurance premiums and a continued diminishing lack of coverage particularly in relation to strata. I've dedicated more than the last decade to advocating for insurance affordability in northern Australia. In fact, my first proposal for a reinsurance pool was back in 2011. However, it's only been more recently that I've been successful in being able to prove market failure in northern Australia, so the fact that we now have a legislated reinsurance pool for cyclones is certainly a major step in the right direction. Given that this is a whole new policy direction for government, it is understandable that there will be teething problems in ensuring that we have the right legislative process to effect the changes that we need for accessible and affordable insurance cover. I think the aspiration is reflected in recommendation 6, where the objective is to move for parity of cost across Australia. That's because, when we're talking about access and affordability for northern Australia, it's fair to argue that incomes are no greater and the cost of living is no lower than for the rest of Australia. I think the review is very timely, but it is clear that we will require additional reviews. At the time of the inquiry, no insurers had signed up for the pool. Presently we have two: Allianz was the first and then Sure Insurance. But to measure the real impact, we have to wait for the rest of the major insurers to come on board. I'm pleased to see that this commitment has been made by all of the major insurers, and we will see a lot more participation over the next few months. This will give us a far better insight into the effectiveness of the pool and what we need to change. This is quoting from the review: In view of the evidence given during the inquiry, the committee considers it premature to recommend significant changes to the pool now or to commit additional resources to its development, until such time as all the necessary insurers have joined the pool. I think this is a very smart way of dealing with this. With regard to strata, I'm eager to see how the reinsurance pool will impact on prices, but it's clear to me there are further opportunities that we must pursue at a state level. For instance, we need to encourage the Queensland state government to abolish stamp duty on insurance renewals and to review their compulsion of strata body corporates to ensure full replacement value rather than market value. In my view, if the option were available to both it would see an additional significant reduction in premiums. The 48-hour limitation on floods associated with cyclones is problematic. The international standard for reinsurance pools is 168 hours. I think it is critical that we bring the pool into alignment with these standards. It's very clear that cyclone related flooding occurs well after that 48-hour period, and it's critical that we extend the time frame. I appreciate that this has created some hesitancy by insurers because of the additional coverage requirement to bridge the gap between 48 hours and 168 hours. This may well be reflected in additional costs to consumers. There are some additional concerns that I believe we need to pay close attention to, whether we're looking at insurance for farms and agribusinesses or, in particular, marine insurance. We also have to ensure the timely release of modelling data to insurers to allow for more informed and accurate decisions. The reality is that everybody agrees the reinsurance pool is the way to go. There is no doubt that this will require additional work, but we cannot simply sit back and do nothing. I must say I found it unnecessary to target the previous government in the report, especially given the complexity associated with what was a first-of-its-kind type of policy. I'd just like to remind the government that, when it was in opposition, it supported the legislation without amendments. With something so important, I think it's absolutely critical that we take the politics out of it and focus on finding a workable solution for the challenges. If we can get it right with the cyclone reinsurance pool, there may very well be an opportunity to pave the way for providing a much broader natural disaster pool, covering all of Australia. Finally, I'd like to take the opportunity to congratulate the new chair, the member for Lingiari, for her first report, and for the fact that she's been able to follow the tradition of the Northern Australian committee to put forward a fully consenting report—something we've been able to do since the inception of the committee. Congratulations, once again, to the committee and to all the participants. I certainly look forward to working with her and the rest of the committee. I commend the report and I look forward to subsequent reviews once the majority of insurers have signed up. Hopefully, we can do that towards the end of this year. 12:09 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 39 12:09 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 39 BILLS Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 39

Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 39 12:10 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Today the chamber can take an important step forward to net zero. The changes in front of us might be complicated but they are simple in their intent: Australia's biggest emitters doing their fair share and making a proportionate contribution to emission reduction goals in our country while at the same time using the tools and levers to remain competitive and productive in a rapidly decarbonising world. These changes are good for the economy and good for the environment. They will see emissions reductions and support increased productivity. They'll ensure that we're acting domestically and remaining competitive internationally. They get the balance right and are a significant step forward for climate change policy in our nation. We know that renewables alone won't deliver our 2030 and 2050 targets. As important as they are, we need an economy-wide response. In fact, the industrial sector is projected to overtake electricity as Australia's largest source of emissions unless we act. That's why one of the key planks of our election policy was the reform of the safeguard mechanism so that it works to drive down emissions. The safeguard mechanism was designed under the former government, but then they applied settings so weak that emissions actually increased under their own mechanism. They also proposed the creation of safeguard mechanism credits to provide credits to those large industrial facilities which come in under their baseline. We supported that from opposition and we're implementing it in government. You would think this legislation would be bipartisan. It's consistent with the opposition's policy when they were in government. It's consistent with their suggestions. They should be able to support it easily. But, as has become their signature, they've opposed it without engaging in it, rendering themselves irrelevant to the conversation. In contrast, we've welcomed the constructive engagement from a number of members from the broader parliament in this House and in the Senate. The government's consultation on the safeguard mechanism has been extensive. There have been three rounds of consultations over eight months with hundreds of submissions. There have been consultations with facilities, peak groups, climate groups and interested stakeholders. There have been round tables and many, many meetings, with consultation across the board. In the package that I've announced today we've further refined the scheme to strengthen protections for manufacturers and strategic industries. As well, we're increasing transparency in the scheme. The reformed safeguard mechanism will require Australia's largest industrial facilities to reduce their emissions gradually and predictably, in line with their national targets. The Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 enables the safeguard facilities that reduce their emissions faster than required to be issued tradable credits. Other facilities with fewer options to reduce emissions can then buy those credits. The beauty of the safeguard policy architecture is that it enables and encourages innovation. That is what it will mean in practice. If a facility is close to its baseline and that baseline declines by a small percentage a year, the facility has the choice of buying offsets or making big capital investments that could halve its emissions. Without crediting, those capital investments are not rewarded and will inevitably be deferred. Industries not like the electricity sector—the safeguard mechanism covers aluminium smelters, coalmines, gas plants, airlines and many more—have different technologies available and different potentials for reducing emissions at different times. This bill implements sensible reforms to the safeguard mechanism to help it become a building block for putting industry on a path to net zero, maintaining flexibility and recognition that each facility will have its own path. A number of members have put forth amendments to be considered in this chamber. The government thanks them for their engagement and I've met with them many times. We won't be supporting those amendments in this House because we are moving our own amendments, both in this chamber and in the other place, which in many instances will do similar things. Members in this chamber will of course be able to examine those amendments moved in the upper house when they come back to this House. In this House, I will move amendments to action recommendations from the Independent Review of the Australian Carbon Credit Units, the Chubb review, implementing our commitments to ensure that Australian carbon credit units have high integrity. In the Senate, the government will move further amendments to amend the objects of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act to specify that net carbon emissions from safeguard facilities decline consistently with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets; that carbon emissions decline over time; that each facility has a material incentive to reduce emissions; and that the competitiveness of trade-exposed industries is supported appropriately as Australia and the regions seize the opportunities to move to a global net zero economy. These amendments will also require public advice from the Climate Change Authority on how emissions are tracking against the carbon budget and, importantly, add a requirement to make sure that changes are made to subordinate legislation if the budget is not on track. To inform this advice, the environment minister would be required to provide information about emissions from proposed actions that are likely to result in a new facility being covered by the safeguard mechanism, or in a safeguard facility increasing its emissions after proving the action under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This advice will be provided to the Climate Change Authority and to the minister responsible for the Climate Change Act. In coming weeks, I will release the associated rules which are required to enable these changes. I often say that politics is about choices, and the responsibility that comes with those choices. The year 2030 is 82 months away. The choices we make in this parliament today will determine where we are in 2030 and, also, where our children are in future years. The changes enabled by this bill will enable 205 million tonnes of abatement, the equivalent of two-thirds of the cars on Australia's roads, from our atmosphere between now and 2030. But, beyond numbers, they will deliver policy certainty, support international competitiveness, support our industry in the transition to a decarbonising world and be a significant step on our path to net zero in Australia. I welcome the support for these reforms recently announced by the Greens party, I look forward to the passage of this bill through the House today and I look forward to further engagement on the passage of this most important bill through the Senate this week. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to. Question agreed to. The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that this bill be read a second time.  

The House divided. [12:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Mr Dick)

89 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 55 NOES Andrews, K. L. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

 Consideration in Detail 42 12:27 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I present a supplementary memorandum to the bill and—by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (6) as circulated together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table, substitute: Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this Act. (2) Schedule 4, page 49 (after line 1), after the heading, insert: Part 1 — Amendments commencing day after Royal Assent (3) Schedule 4, page 49 (after line 3), before item 1, insert: 1A Section 5 Insert: carbon estimation area, in relation to an area-based offsets project, has the meaning given by the applicable methodology determination for the project. (4) Schedule 4, page 49 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add: 6 After subsection 106(4) Insert: (4AA) The Minister must not make a methodology determination unless the Minister is satisfied that the determination complies with the offsets integrity standards. 7 After subsection 114(2) Insert: (2AA) The Minister must not vary a methodology determination unless the Minister is satisfied that the varied determination complies with the offsets integrity standards. (5) Schedule 4, page 49, at the end of the Schedule (after proposed item 7), add: 8 After Divis ion 4 of Part 12 Insert: Division 4A — Information about Australia's international obligations 166A Information about Australia's international obligations (1) The Regulator must publish on the Regulator's website any information that is: (a) held by the Regulator; and (b) specified in the legislative rules for the purposes of subsection (2). (2) The legislative rules may specify information that is relevant to Australia meeting its obligations under any or all of the following: (a) the Climate Change Convention; (b) the Kyoto Protocol; (c) the Paris Agreement; (d) any other international agreement. 9 Paragraph 168(1)(b) Omit "the project area or project areas; and", substitute: the following: (i) the project area or project areas; (ii) the carbon estimation area, or carbon estimation areas, for the project; and 10 Subsection 168(2) Repeal the subsection. 11 Subsection 168(2A) Omit "of this section". 12 Section 169 Repeal the section. 13 Section 240 (table item 21) Repeal the item. 14 Application and transitional provisions Definitions (1) In this item: Act means the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011. commencement means the commencement of this item. existing project means an area-based offsets project that, at commencement, is an eligible offsets project because of a declaration made before commencement. grace period means the 30-day period beginning at commencement. grace period request, in relation to a carbon estimation area, means a request made within the grace period in relation to the carbon estimation area under subsection 169(1) of the Act as continued in force and modified by subitem (6) of this item. Register not to set out certain project areas (2) Despite the repeal of section 169 of the Act made by this Schedule, the Emissions Reduction Fund Register must not set out the project area or project areas for an area-based offsets project if: (a) immediately before commencement, the Emissions Reduction Fund Register did not set out the project area or project areas because the Regulator had granted a request under that section in relation to the project area or project areas; or (b) the Regulator grants a request of a kind referred to in subitem (3) or (4) of this item in relation to the project area or project areas. Pending requests relating to project areas (3) Despite the repeal of section 169 of the Act made by this Schedule, that section (as in force immediately before commencement) continues to apply, after commencement, in relation to a request under that section that has not been finally determined at commencement. Requests relating to project areas made within grace period (4) Despite the repeal of section 169 of the Act made by this Schedule, the project proponent for an existing project may, within the grace period, make a request under subsection 169(1) (as in force immediately before commencement) in relation to the project area or project areas for the project. Register not to set out certain carbon estimation areas (5) Despite the amendment of section 168 of the Act made by this Schedule, the Emissions Reduction Fund Register must not set out the carbon estimation area or carbon estimation areas for an existing project if: (a) the grace period has not ended; or (b) the project proponent for the project makes a grace period request in relation to the carbon estimation area or carbon estimation areas and the request has not been finally determined; or (c) the project proponent for the project makes a grace period request in relation to the carbon estimation area or carbon estimation areas and the Regulator grants the request. Grace period requests in relation to carbon estimation areas (6) Despite the repeal of section 169 of the Act made by this Schedule, that section (as in force immediately before commencement) continues to apply, during the grace period, in relation to an existing project as if a reference in that section to the project area or project areas for the project were also a reference to the carbon estimation area or carbon estimation areas for the project. (7) A decision of the Regulator to refuse a grace period request in relation to the carbon estimation area or carbon estimation areas for a project is taken to be a reviewable decision for the purposes of the Act. Extension of time f or considering requests made within grace period (8) If the project proponent for an existing project makes a request that is: (a) a request of a kind referred to in subitem (4) in relation to the project area or project areas for the project; or (b) a grace period request in relation the carbon estimation area or carbon estimation areas for the project; subsection 169(3) of the Act (as continued in force by subitems (4) and (6) of this item) has effect, in relation to the request, as if the reference in that subsection to 30 days were instead a reference to 60 days. (6) Schedule 4, page 49, at the end of the Schedule (after proposed item 14), add: Part 2 — Amendments commencing later Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 15 Section 5 Insert: paid work means work for financial gain or reward (whether as an employee, a self-employed person or otherwise). 16 Subsections 257(3) and (4) Repeal the subsections. 17 After subsection 257(6) Insert: (6A) The Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee holds office on a full-time basis. 18 Subsection 257(7) After "member", insert "(other than the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee)". 19 Section 263 (after the heading) Insert: (1) The Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee must not engage in paid work outside the duties of the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee without the Minister's approval. 20 Section 263 Before "An", insert "(2)". 21 Section 263 After "member", insert "(other than the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee)". 22 Subsection 265(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) The Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee has the recreation leave entitlements that are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (1A) The Minister may grant the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on the terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise that the Minister determines. 23 Paragraph 267( 2)(c) Repeal the paragraph. 24 Subsection 267(3) Repeal the subsection. 25 At the end of section 267 Add: (5) The Minister may terminate the appointment of the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee if the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee engages, except with the Minister's approval, in paid work outside the duties of the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee's office (see subsection 263(1)). (6) The Minister may terminate the appointment of an Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee member (other than the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee) if the member engages in paid employment that conflicts or may conflict with the proper performance of the member's duties (see subsection 263(2)). The ACCU scheme has an important role to play in Australia's pathway to net zero emissions by 2050. It incentivises emissions reductions and sequestration that otherwise wouldn't occur. The government commissioned the independent review of ACCUs to ensure ACCUs are and are seen to be of the highest integrity. The independent panel concluded that ACCU scheme arrangements are sound and that there are appropriate checks and balances at the scheme, method and project level to protect the integrity of the scheme and the credits created under it. The panel recommended some sensible changes to align with evolving best practice and increase public confidence in the scheme, supporting more participation and increased abatement. Key recommendations include separating the key functions of integrity assurance, regulation and administration; maximising transparency of scheme information to increase trust; fostering innovation in methods and project implementation; and supporting greater participation, including by First Nations communities. The government has accepted in principle all 16 recommendations and is working to implement immediately key recommendations which don't require further consultation with stakeholders. I've already revoked the avoided deforestation method so that no new projects can be registered under that method, implementing recommendation 9 of the review. Today I'm introducing government amendments to the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 which will enact some of the recommendations of the ACCU review. These are legislative changes to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 that will increase transparency and robustness of the scheme while we continue to consult on the implementation of other recommendations. These recommendations will: require publication of carbon estimation area information and other information prescribed by the rules, recommendation 4.1; require the minister to be satisfied that a methodology determination or a varied methodology determination complies with the offsets integrity standards before the minister can make or vary the determination, recommendation 5.22; and change the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, ERAC, chair's position from part time to full time, recommendation 2.1—consistent with the recommendations of the review. I will appoint a full-time chair and a First Nations member of ERAC through an open and transparent process. The government will also establish an independent secretariat, reporting directly to the chair once they're appointed. These amendments will strengthen the integrity of the ACCU scheme, increasing transparency by requiring additional information to be published. It will assure integrity by clarifying my considerations, or those of the minister of the day, when approving methods and it will improve the capacity of the integrity committee to scrutinise methods while we consult on broader changes to the governance arrangements. The government will work with stakeholders on implementation of other recommendations that have implications for a wide range of the scheme, market participants, government agencies and other stakeholders. An implementation plan which sets out the time frames and approach to implementation will soon be released. This is just the first part of the legislative changes required to implement the ACCU review. We plan to introduce a more substantial package of amendments later in 2023 following consultation with stakeholders, who call for further consultation and opportunities to analyse the key positions and outcomes of the review. I commend the amendments to the House. 12:31 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy In the election campaign, we were very appreciative of the Prime Minister saying that there would be no power stations closing and there would be no coalmines closing. It's alright for everybody here, who have nice warm jobs and their $250,000 a year, but not for those people that have climbed off horses or left cane fields to work in the mines because they've got no money. There are some 200,000 jobs in coalmining in Australia, and I sure would like some of our so-called trade union leaders to stand up here, because it seems to me that I'm one of the very few that's standing up. You want to go and destroy, cold-bloodedly, the jobs of 200,000 people. I have a case before me at the present moment—a terrible shooting up in my electorate. The tensions that arise in a family who has no income are brought out graphically by this case. People have got to have a decent living. China is buying the coal, and India is buying the coal. If you think a tiny little European country that's not as big as most of their cities is going to tell them that they can't have cheap electricity, you believe in the tooth fairy. In India they have no ability to put in solar—and I'm not going to give the reasons why; I think everyone should know that. They get very little hydro, and what they have they've already developed. In China they're laughing at us. They're producing the solar panels and sending them to Australia whilst they're building 200 coal-fired power stations. People will look back on this era and say the same as me. When I went to university, everyone was running around with Mao Zedong's 'Little Red Book'. I suppose I've got to be fair and say that if they asked me about him, I would say, 'He's a nationalist. I thought he was alright. Well, he murdered 48 million people. We get carried away on some idealistic journey. In the bush there's a saying: 'When your neighbour starts preaching religion, reach for your branding iron. When your neighbour starts preaching morality, reach for your shooting iron.' This is a case where I'd be reaching for my shooting iron! If anything is ideologically driven, is not coming from reality and is not coming from the pain of the people and the needs of the people, there is something badly wrong—and 'badly wrong' means that people hate politicians. I have never in my life seen this level of hatred towards politicians. When I was young, the attitude towards politicians was 'Geez, this is really important.' Now, mostly, they don't even want to meet you. So keep going the way you're going, but 200,000 Australians depend on this industry. Just remember that you're sacking them and there's nowhere else to go because we've got no industry left in this country and there's not one single thing being done by this government or the last government to create industry in this country—nothing. There's nothing on the scoreboard. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy be agreed to.    

The House divided. [12:39]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

89 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 55 NOES Andrews, K. L. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 12:44 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 14), at the end of subsection 3(2), add: ; and (c) aggregate covered emissions from the operation of designated large facilities decline. (2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (before line 5), before subsection 10(4), insert: (3A) A determination under subsection (3) must require: (a) the measurement of methane emissions from oil and gas facilities to comply with the latest standards developed by the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership, as existing from time to time; and (b) direct methane emissions measurement and modelling at both the source and site levels for all fossil fuel facilities on and after the following date: (i) if the facility commences operation on or after 1 July 2023 and Part 3H applies to it—1 July 2024; (ii) if the facility commences operation before 1 July 2023 and Part 3H applies to it—1 July 2026. (3B) A determination that includes the requirements mentioned in subsection (3A) must take effect no later than 1 November 2023. (3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 18), after item 29, insert: 29A Subsections 22XL(1) and (2) Omit "The", substitute "Subject to subsection (4), the". 29B At the end of section 22XL Add: Methane emissions targets (4) The baseline emissions number for a facility mentioned in column 1 of an item of the following table for a financial year mentioned in column 2 of the item must be calculated so as to ensure that the facility does not exceed the emissions target mentioned in column 3 of the item. (4) Schedule 1, item 31, page 8 (after line 29), after paragraph 22XN(1)(a), insert: (aa) the surrender does not reduce the net emissions number for the facility for the period by: (i) in the first year of operation of Division 4A of Part 3H—more than 90%; and (ii) in each subsequent year of operation of that Division—more than 90% minus 10% per year of operation; and (5) Schedule 1, item 31, page 8 (after line 33), after subsection 22XN(1), insert: (1AA) An Australian carbon credit unit may only be surrendered by a person under subsection (1) for the purpose of reducing the net emissions number for a facility for a period if the person has no, or has no more, safeguard mechanism credit units that could be surrendered for that purpose. As a guiding principle, the safeguard mechanism must ensure that emissions from the biggest emitters in the country have peaked. My amendments insert that into the objects of the act, identifying that aggregate covered emissions from the operations of designated large facilities decline. It's really important, when we know where we are at in terms of global emissions and Australian emissions, that we make clear that it is time for emissions to reduce. We have had warning after warning, including the latest report from the UN IPCC relating to global temperature estimates and where we are tracking, and we need to make sure that those large facilities understand that from here on in their emissions must reduce. There is understanding and there is flexibility in this system, but there is a line in the sand as well to say that it is time to reduce. For too long they have been left with this wide, broad discretion to continue with business as usual despite all the warnings. So it is incredibly important that, as this amendment makes very clear, now in practice gross emissions must decline to 2030 for large facilities. Any increases in production must be done more efficiently, so this is not a cap on productivity, but this is a cap on wasteful productivity or productivity ignoring all of the issues and the warnings around emissions and global warming. This is saying that productivity must be done at best practice. It must be done more efficiently. Any new entrants must display lower-emitting facilities or come in at net-zero. Amendment (1) inserts a new object that aggregate covered emissions—that is, gross emissions—must decline. Complementing that is amendment (5), which prioritises the use of safeguard mechanism credits before the use of Australian carbon credit units. The safeguard mechanism credits are generated within the safeguard mechanism. These will be real abatement. These are important. If there is a hierarchy and priority around abatement, it must be first on-site, real abatement and then turn towards credits. We know safeguard mechanism credits are generated within the safeguard mechanism. They represent facilities reducing emissions by more than the mandated emissions reductions set by the government. This is good. We want to incentivise this. They represent genuine abatement of emissions from within the safeguard facilities and they should be used first before other offsets through the Australian carbon credit market. Australian carbon credit units are generated outside the safeguard facilities, and these represent a greater diversity of reductions or sequestration techniques that are less directly attributable to these facilities covered under the mechanism and that make it harder for all facilities to demonstrate a reduction in gross emissions. We also need to have the discussion about caps on offsets. I believe that, for existing facilities, there should be a cap on the use of Australian carbon credit units to offset emissions. Amendment (4) limits the use of offsets to a maximum of 90 per cent in the first year of the scheme, decreasing by 10 per cent per year thereafter. Again, this is consistent with the goal of reducing gross emissions for facilities covered, forcing investment in improving the carbon efficiency of production and genuine abatement. We need to think about carbon from a circular economy standpoint, manage the impact of carbon currently in the system and keep the carbon stored deep underground and fossil fuels in place. My second tranche of amendments are with respect to methane. We must deal with methane. It is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas, being some 26 to 28 times more effective at trapping heat over the life of the methane, and up to 80 times more dangerous in the first 20 years. To that end, the safeguard mechanism must enact global best practice in understanding our methane emissions, be more transparent in reporting them and set limits on the amount of methane that can be emitted by facilities. The amendments seek to implement current global best practice on monitoring, reporting and verifying methane emissions. They also establish best practice standards for methane emissions from gas and coalmines, specifically requiring new oil and gas facilities entering the safeguard scheme to meet a methane intensity target of at least 0.2 per cent within two years and requiring new coal facilities entering the scheme to keep emissions very low. I urge the minister to consider these amendments. 12:50 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon As I indicated when I closed the debate, the government won't be accepting or supporting any crossbench amendments at this time. I thank all honourable members on the crossbench for their engagement and their many meetings with me over recent weeks. Several of the things that the honourable member for Warringah has put forward will be covered by very similar amendments in the Senate. Not all of them will be covered, but several will be. In the interest of clarity, we'll process those through the other house and not this House. Accordingly, we won't be supporting any amendments moved by the crossbench today. I do respect the integrity and the intent behind many of them. Not all of them we would agree with, but many are reflected in amendments that will be moved in the Senate. I understand my office has already offered honourable members on the crossbench a briefing this afternoon, which I look forward to facilitating for honourable members. The government will be proceeding on that basis. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments be disagreed to. Question agreed to. 12:52 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth By leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 30), after item 21, insert: 21A Before section 22XE Insert: 22XDA Emissions target (1) During the period beginning on 1 July 2020 and ending on 30 June 2030, the total net emissions from the operation of all facilities to which this Part applies must be no more than 1,233 million tonnes CO2-e. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the net emissions from the operation of a facility during a period is the amount of covered emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of the facility during the period reduced by the amount by which those emissions have been offset (by the surrender of prescribed carbon units) under this Part. (2) Schedule 4, page 49 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add: 6 Aft er section 150A Insert: 150B Price of Australian carbon credit units not to be capped Despite anything in this Act, or in any other law of the Commonwealth, there is no cap on the price at which Australian carbon credit units may be purchased by a person who is the operator of a facility to which Part 3H of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 applies. Thank you to the minister for the very constructive conversation that we have had over a number of weeks and months around the safeguard mechanism, and for the reports that we have had in terms of the stronger amendments that are likely to be passed in the other place. However, if we want strong action on climate change, getting the safeguard mechanism reforms right is imperative. My job is to ensure that those changes necessary to the legislation are put forward. This scheme covers only 215 facilities in a country of nearly 26 million people. But, combined, these polluters account for nearly a third of our carbon emissions, and around 40 per cent of this comes from just 12 fossil fuel companies. These facilities have been told they must do a proportional share of the national emissions reduction task. That is only fair. Our biggest polluters must pull their weight in helping us achieve a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. But the path to even this modest target is a narrow one. Modelling released by RepuTex earlier this month showed that even relatively small changes in the production of fossil fuels could blow out the proposed emissions budget for the safeguard. If the government's estimates of emissions from just 16 well-advanced new coal and gas projects are even slightly out, we could see the budget blown by 35 million tonnes. That's equivalent to the annual emissions of 1.6 million Australians. We cannot take this risk, and so we need a legislative guardrail. That's why I am moving my amendment No.1 to legislate the emissions budget at a maximum of 1,233 million tonnes over the next decade of net emissions. This will lock in at least 205 million tonnes of abatement in line with the government's target. My amendment will provide legislative certainty of our decarbonisation path, in the very same way that this House provided legislative certainty for our 2030 and 2050 targets when we passed the Climate Change Bill 2022. It is consistent with the intention of the scheme, it is consistent with the government's policy, and it is consistent with stronger action on climate. I urge the government to accept this amendment. My second amendment also covers the government's current decision to allow safeguard facilities to have unlimited access to offsets and to cap the price of these offsets at $75 in the first year. Nobody is saying that offsets do not have a role to play in climate policy, but the science is clear: they are no substitute for genuine emissions reduction. So they must be used as a last resort at least to accommodate the small number of sectors where it's particularly hard to reduce emissions in the short term, as the price of offsets must reflect the true cost of carbon and not some discounted rate that has been agreed with the mining lobby. The government's $75 price cap is well below the carbon price in Europe, which is currently around $150. And it's well below estimates of the carbon price needed for a 1.5 degree world, which exceed $150. It's even below the carbon price that the New South Wales Treasury recommends be used for evaluating the costs and benefits of different projects in my home state. By capping the price at $75, the government may have significantly weakened incentives for decarbonisation when instead we need to encourage businesses to invest in the technologies of the future. They may have also created a future liability for the taxpayer, who will need to subsidise safeguard facilities, purchasers of offsets, if the market price in future exceeds the government cap. I understand that both major parties have been resistant to putting a price on carbon, and that this has been the key reason for a decade of climate policy failure. The government has raised with me several justifications for a price cap, including the need to provide certainty to business and to ensure that ACCU markets are not subject to speculation. But on closer inspection, these explanations don't stack up. Over the past few months, I have spoken to people from across the business and investor communities, many of whom have internal carbon prices in place and all of whom have access to projections of its future trajectory. I have also spoken with many participants in the carbon market, none of whom have raised major concerns about speculation. The real risk is not speculation; it's that this price cap slows the pace of carbon emission reduction. And so we need to see change; my amendments remove the price caps on offsets so that the true cost of carbon is reflected in investment decision-making and so that our biggest emitters can't just continue to pollute on the cheap. We can't offset our way out of this climate crisis, and so I urge the government to adopt these amendments. Finally, I would like to wrap up by thanking the government for its very constructive engagement on this. I hope very much that the reports of what will be passed in the other place about where the safeguard mechanism is going to go are accurate, because this is absolutely critical legislation and we have to get it right—both to reduce emissions and also to ensure that those facilities which are not coal or gas and which can't reduce their emissions in the same way are protected and able to build their businesses for the future. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments be disagreed to. Question agreed to. 12:57 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney by leave—I move together: (1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 15), after item 26, insert: 26A At the end of paragraph 22XJ(1)(b) Add: but does not exceed: (i) for the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023—100,000 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalence; or (ii) for a later financial year—such lower number specified in the safeguard rules for the year, which must decrease over time to no more than 25,000 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalence by 2035. (2) Schedule 1, page 7 (before line 16), before item 27, insert: 26B At the end of section 22XJ Add: (3) Despite subsection (1), if a facility is a designated large facility for the financial year beginning on 1 July 2022, the facility is a designated large facility for all later financial years, regardless of the total amount of covered emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of the facility during the later financial years. (3) Schedule 1, page 7 (before line 16), before item 27, insert: 26C At the end of section 22XJ Add: (4) For the purposes of this Act, a facility is also a designated large facility if the Regulator declares the facility to be a designated large facility under section 55B. (4) Schedule 1, page 24 (after line 16), after item 46, insert: 46A At the end of Division 2 of Part 6 Add: 55B Regulator may declare facility to be designated lar ge facility (1) The Regulator may declare that a facility is a designated large facility on application by the registered corporation that has operational control of the facility. (2) An application must: (a) identify the facility for which a declaration is sought; and (b) include any other information required by the regulations; and (c) be given in a manner and form approved by the Regulator. (3) The Regulator must notify, in writing, an applicant under subsection (1) of a decision under subsection (1) to declare that a facility is a designated large facility or to refuse the application. (5) Schedule 1, page 24 (after line 27), after item 48, insert: 48A After paragraph 56(ib) Insert: (ic) refuse an application under section 55B; (6) Schedule 4, item 1, page 49 (before line 6), before subsection 20C(3), insert: (2A) The Regulator must not enter into a carbon abatement contract under section 20B if the carbon abatement contractor for the contract is a project proponent for an eligible offsets project that involves carbon abatement of emissions from a fossil fuel facility (including, but not limited to, a coal, oil or gas facility) that: (a) commences operations on or after 1 July 2023; or (b) is expanded or extended on or after 1 July 2023. The amendments I'm moving today to the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 do two things to address some of the shortfalls in the bill. Whilst I'm grateful for the engagement with the minister and his staff to improve this bill, I need to be really clear that, in its current form, the safeguard mechanism bill continues to leave my community unconvinced that this government is truly prepared to do what we must to transition our economy rapidly. This bill is not bold enough and, as it leaves this House, it is not ambitious enough. And, while this House has been given assurances that positive changes will be made in the Senate, that leaves us here with no clear line of sight on the final shape of this legislation when it returns to the House from the other place. Never has a government had such a clear mandate to take faster action on climate. The truth is that this government and this parliament can reshape our country's future but the government must be prepared to do that in both houses of parliament. To do that, we must be prepared to lead ambitiously and bravely, and to break a cycle that has seen many climate and energy decisions over the past three decades made just on the basis of legislating for the term rather than fundamentally investing in and shifting our economy. The amendments I'm moving today would do two things to drive climate ambition. Firstly, they would prevent new or expanding fossil fuel projects from accessing government funding to pursue abatement, and, secondly, they would bring more polluters into the mechanism over time. On my proposal for an amendment to the Powering the Regions Fund: the government has announced it will support the decarbonisation of existing industries and create a new clean energy industry through the $1.9 billion Powering the Regions Fund. While there are many examples of industries that will undoubtedly need this support and are much wanted in our economy, including green cement and green steel, there are also emissions-intensive trade exposed facilities, including many fossil fuel extraction projects, that arguably will be less desirable in our future economy. The safeguard transformation stream within the Powering the Regions Fund should explicitly state that it is not available to new fossil fuel projects or the expansion of existing licences, with this legislation instead doing everything it can to ensure these projects all find their way to net zero as soon as possible. Secondly, to my amendments on expanding the coverage of the scheme: I note that, whilst there has been a lot of discussion around overall emissions reduction targets, the pathway to achieving the net zero goal remains unarticulated. To address this, and in line with previous recommendations by the Climate Change Authority, I propose the government legislate to progressively lower the coverage threshold for the safeguard mechanism from the current 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions to 25,000 tonnes. The ratcheting down over time would send a strong investment signal and set a clear trajectory to net zero for industry. Working alongside the reduction in the threshold, the bill should also incentivise a broader section of the industry to reduce their direct emissions, by allowing them to opt in to the scheme and, thus, opt in to generating safeguard mechanism credits. This opt-in stream would have the dual benefits of increasing the number of polluters who will reduce their pollution whilst also increasing the supply of SMCs so those in the harder to abate sectors will have access to a larger number of higher quality SMCs from within the safeguard mechanism. Then, to enhance the anti-avoidance measures outlined by the minister, the bill should be amended to stipulate that facilities which are covered by the mechanism at the commencement of the act will remain covered even if they reduce their emissions below 10,000 tonnes. Together, these measures would ensure genuine emissions abatement and reduction by the broader section of large emitters. Mr Speaker, the fact remains that, as legislation moves through this House, we need to be assured that when it returns it will come in a form such that we can stand and say we proudly represented our communities' voices in its creation. I am very mindful that as this legislation leaves the House of Representatives my community's ambitions are not being met. That puts me in a very difficult situation. I am grateful for the engagement with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and his team, but the reality is that this legislation could be stronger. I urge the government to ensure that any piece of legislation that leaves this House is as strong as it can possibly be before it even gets to the Senate, rather than asking us in this House to continue to rely on amendments which we have no line of sight on or control over being moved in the Senate. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments be disagreed to. Question agreed to. 13:03 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 10), after the definition of issue, insert: new fossil fuel facility has the meaning given by section 22XJA. (2) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 30), after item 21, insert: 21A After subsection 22XE(2) Insert: (2A) An exemption declaration must not be made in relation to a new fossil fuel facility. (3) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 15), after item 26, insert: 26A At the end of Division 2 of Part 3H Add: 22X FA Limit on net emissions for new fossil fuel facilities If: (a) a person is or was the responsible emitter for a facility; and (b) the facility is a new fossil fuel facility for all, or part, of a financial year; the person must ensure that the net amount of covered emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of the facility during the financial year does not exceed zero. Civil penalty: The number of penalty units that is equal to the amount (in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence) by which the net amount of covered emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of the facility during the financial year exceeds zero. 26B Af ter section 22XJ Insert: 22XJA New fossil fuel facility (1) For the purposes of this Act, a facility is a new fossil fuel facility for a financial year (the current financial year) if: (a) during the current financial year, the facility conducts an activity, or a series of activities, for the purpose of extracting, processing, supplying or exporting coal, oil or natural gas; and (b) either: (i) as at 1 July 2023,a calculated-emissions baseline determination has never been made in relation to the facility under the safeguard rules; or (ii) on 1 July 2023 the facility is an existing facility and during all, or part, of the current financial year the facility undertakes new operations of a kind specified in subsection (2). (2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), the following kinds of new operations are specified: (a) new operations that increase the annual production of the facility; (b) new operations that extend the number of years of production of the facility; (c) new operations that involve the development of new reserves that were not already under production by the facility on 1 July 2023. (4) Schedule 1, item 67, page 30 (after line 16), after subitem (3), insert: (3A) Section 22XFA of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, as added by Part 1 of this Schedule, applies in relation to the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023 and later financial years. (3B) Section 22XJA of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, as inserted by Part 1 of this Schedule, applies in relation to the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023 and later financial years. (5) Schedule 4, page 49 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add: 6 After section 259 Insert: 259A Appointment process (1) This section applies to the following appointments: (a) the appointment of a person to be an Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee member under section 257; (b) the appointment of a person to act as the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, or as an Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee member, under section 259 if: (i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or (ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more. (2) An appointment must not be made unless: (a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes: (i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and (ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and (iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and (b) the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates. (3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed to be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or (b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House. (4) In this section: former judge means: (a) a former Justice of the High Court; or (b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or (c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. Clean Energy Regulator Act 2011 7 At the end of Division 2 of Part 2 Add: 20A Appointment process (1) This section applies to the following appointments: (a) the appointment of a person to be a member of the Regulator under section 18; (b) the appointment of a person to act as the Chair of the Regulator, or as a member of the Regulator, under section 20 if: (i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or (ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more. (2) An appointment must not be made unless: (a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes: (i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and (ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and (iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and (b) the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates. (3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed to be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or (b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House. (4) In this section: former judge means: (a) a former Justice of the High Court; or (b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or (c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. Climate Change Authority Act 2011 8 Before section 57 Insert: 56 Appointment process (1) This section applies to the following appointments: (a) the appointment of a person to be an Authority member under section 18; (b) the appointment of a person to act as the Chair of the Authority, or as an Authority member, under section 20 if: (i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or (ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more; (c) the appointment of a person to be an associate Authority member under section 22; (d) the appointment of a person to act as an associate Authority member under section 24 if: (i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or (ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more; (e) the appointment of a person to be the CEO under section 43; (f) the appointment of a person to act as the CEO under section 44 if: (i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or (ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more. (2) An appointment must not be made unless: (a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes: (i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and (ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and (iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and (b) the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates. (3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Climate Change Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed to be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or (b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House. (4) In this section: former judge means: (a) a former Justice of the High Court; or (b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or (c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. 9 Application provision The amendments made by items 6, 7 and 8 of this Schedule apply in relation to an appointment that is made on or after the commencement of this item. I would also like to thank the Minister for Climate Change and Energy for his very constructive engagement and communication about this bill. My first amendment aims to introduce integrity into the selection process for major appointments to climate related Commonwealth bodies. Earlier this month I introduced a private member's bill called the Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2023—my 'ending jobs for mates' bill. That bill is currently before the House and is about restoring integrity and trust in politics. Australians deserve to be able to trust the institutions which underpin our democracy, so it is crucial that the appointment process for important public positions be not only based on expertise but also transparent and free from undue political interference. My bill sets out a process to achieve just that. The climate sector has not been immune from questionable appointments to major positions, not by a long shot. The current chair of the Climate Change Authority—the authority tasked with providing expert advice to the Australian government on our response to climate change—is a former fossil fuel executive. How can such an appointment not inherently bias the advice of that authority? So in line with my campaign to end the jobs for mates culture in Canberra I am moving amendments to this safeguarding mechanism legislation to introduce a straightforward and independent selection process for appointments to the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Regulator and the currently called emissions reduction assurance committee. We must be able to trust decisions and the advice flowing from these critical bodies on this most critical of issues at this most critical of times. Currently, the ties between the government and the fossil fuel industry and their donors and lobbyists and carbon credit training bodies is all a little bit too close. The process I am proposing is simple and will be familiar to all Australians who have ever applied for a job. First is the public advertising of the selection criteria for the position. This is to be followed by an assessment of the applications by an independent selection panel and then the shortlisting of at least three people for the appointment, following which the minister is required to choose a person from that list and only that list. We need experts on these bodies who will provide frank and fearless advice. The appointment process such as this, which is at arm's length from the minister but which also maintains their final discretion, is the only way we can have confidence that the right people with the right expertise are being appointed, not more party-friendly appointments who are more likely to do the bidding of the party or feel obliged to return their favours. But it is my second amendment which is more important and more urgent. It is urgent and necessary because this safeguard mechanism in its current form does almost nothing to address this country's addiction to fossil fuels, an addiction which the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, has described as a mutually assured destruction, an addiction which the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly told us over the last few years must end. This warning was reiterated loud and clear as recently as last week in its latest report, and the message is simple: there must be no new oil, gas or coal projects or expansions if we are to leave a planet that is liveable for future generations. The UN, the International Energy Agency agrees and even the Pope agree. It is clear what needs to be done. However, there are more than 100 new coal and gas projects in the approvals pipeline. The government has already approved an extension to one of the world's worst polluting project on the planet, the Scarborough gas fields in WA. If all these projects proceed, the government will be doing a major disservice to people of Australia, who voted overwhelmingly at the last election for strong action and leadership on climate change. My second amendment is this: that all new expanded or extended fossil fuel projects or facilities must be net zero carbon from day one and throughout the life of the facility. Australia's future and the planet's future depend upon us ending our addiction to fossil fuels, so I urge everyone in this House to support these constructive and common-sense amendments. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The question is that the amendments be disagreed to. Question agreed to. 13:09 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 21), after item 30, insert: 30A After subsection 22XM(1) Insert: (1A) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an Australia carbon credit unit is not a prescribed carbon unit if the Australian carbon credit unit is issued (whether before, on or after the commencement of this subsection) in relation to the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in living biomass, dead organic matter or soils on land that: (a) was included in an eligible offsets project that was covered by the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) (Human-Induced Regeneration of a Permanent Even-Aged Native Forest—1.1) Methodology Determination 2013 on 1 March 2023; and (b) does not meet the following requirements: (i) the land sustained forest in the past, which has since been lost as a result of clearing or another event; (ii) regeneration of forest on the land was prevented by clearing or grazing pressure for at least 10 years before an application under section 22 of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 was made in relation to the project; (iii) the cessation of clearing or reduction of grazing pressure is necessary for forest to regenerate on the land; (iv) the land did not have any mature trees or shrubs on it at the time the project commenced. (1B) For the purposes of paragraph (1A)(b), a reference to forest is a reference to an area of land covering at least 0.2 of a hectare that contains trees that are 2 metres or more in height and provide crown cover of at least 20% of the land, when defined at 0.2 of a hectare scale. (2) Schedule 1, page 8 (before line 22), before item 31, insert: 30B Before subsection 22XM(2) Insert: (1C) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an Australia carbon credit unit is not a prescribed carbon unit if the Australian carbon credit unit is issued (whether before, on or after the commencement of this subsection) in relation to an eligible offsets project involving the destruction of methane using an electricity generator: (a) that was covered by the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Electricity Generation from Landfill Gas) Methodology Determination 2021, or the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Landfill Gas) Methodology Determination 2015, on 1 March 2023; and (b) whose baseline abatement proportion is: (i) for projects that were transitioned from the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme or Greenhouse Friendly schemes—less than 50%; and (ii) for all other projects—less than 40%. (1D) For the purposes of paragraph (1C)(b), a reference to the baseline abatement proportion is a reference to the proportion of the methane combusted that would have been combusted without the project and that is deducted when calculating the net abatement amount for the project in accordance with the applicable method. (3) Schedule 1, page 27 (after line 29), after item 61, insert: 61A After section 76B Insert: 76C Review of operation of safeguard mechanism (1) The Climate Change Authority must conduct a review of the operation of: (a) the safeguard provisions; and (b) legislative instruments under those provisions. Note: Safeguard provisions is defined in section 7. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the following: (a) whether the safeguard mechanism is on target to achieve the 28% emissions reduction sought by 2030; (b) the initial impacts of resetting and declining baselines, including the costs and availability of domestic offsets; (c) the appropriate treatment of international units; (d) the suitability of arrangements for emissions intensive, trade-exposed activities; (e) whether the cost containment measure is sufficient; (f) the treatment of flexibility mechanisms (such as banking and borrowing and multi-year monitoring) beyond 2030. Public consultation (3) A review under subsection (1) must make provision for public consultation. Report (4) The Climate Change Authority must: (a) give the Minister a report of the review; and (b) as soon as practicable after giving the report to the Minister, publish the report on the Climate Change Authority's website. (5) The Minister must cause copies of a report under subsection (4) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the review is completed. Timing (6) The review must be completed during the 2025 calendar year. (7) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6), the review is completed when the report of the review is given to the Minister under subsection (4). Recommendations (8) The report of the review may set out recommendations to the Commonwealth Government. (9) In formulating a recommendation that the Commonwealth Government should take particular action, the Climate Change Authority must analyse the costs and benefits of that action. (10) Subsection (9) does not prevent the Climate Change Authority from taking other matters into account in formulating a recommendation. (11) If the report of the review sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government, the report must set out the Climate Change Authority's reasons for those recommendations. Government response to recommendations (12) If the report of the review sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government: (a) as soon as practicable after receiving the report, the Minister must cause to be prepared a statement setting out the Commonwealth Government's response to each of the recommendations; and (b) within 6 months after receiving the report, the Minister must cause copies of the statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament. (13) The Commonwealth Government's response to the recommendations may have regard to the views of the following: (a) the Climate Change Authority; (b) the Regulator; (c) such other persons as the Minister considers relevant. All three amendments are about trust, integrity and transparency. The minister used these words in his press conference today, but, I have to be blunt, this iteration of the legislation is not good enough. I accept there will be amendments in the other place, but, once again, this House is being asked to take that on trust. This is neither respectful nor effective. A pat on the head and a 'don't worry about it' is not good enough for either this crossbench or our communities. The first two of my three amendments have to do with ensuring carbon credits that do not represent additional emissions abatement are not available for use by safeguard facilities. As the minister knows, there is deep-seated concern in the community, including in my electorate of Goldstein, that this legislation will not do the job the government says it's set up to achieve, that these 200-plus big polluters which emit 28 per cent of our total carbon emissions will actually reduce their emissions rather than try to account their way to zero, and that it will be too easy for them to access carbon credits rather than change their ways. The minister himself commissioned the Chubb review, which made recommendations in relation to human induced regeneration and landfill gas. On landfill gas, Chubb acknowledged that the current baselines afforded to industry are too generous. But the minister believes there is sufficient goodwill in the sector to ensure that the alternative approach proposed by the government will act as sufficient incentive to encourage businesses to get their act together. I presume, and would like a public assurance from the minister in this place, that, if the changes aren't working, new measures will be introduced to make sure they do. The same goes for human induced regeneration. As the IPCC's recently released Synthesis report clearly shows, we need deep, rapid and sustained reductions in emissions. The human induced regeneration method already has criteria to ensure that the emissions reductions for which ACCUs are issued truly are additional. However, these criteria are not currently being enforced by the Clean Energy Regulator, so projects are being issued with ACCUs in circumstances that are contrary to the law. The second of my amendments deals with landfill gas. Seventy per cent of ACCUs for landfill gas projects are issued to just 20 sites. These projects are old, large sites using the landfill gas captured to generate electricity, also known as generation based projects. At present, regulation around baselines for the landfill gas method is inadequate. The state of the electricity market means baselines should be highest for the largest projects that still run profitable operations, even without the incentive of ACCUs. They're receiving free money for doing what they would do anyway. I propose that carbon credits issued to large generation based projects be excluded from the legislation except where the baselines are no less than 50 per cent. For smaller projects the baseline minimum would be 40 per cent. We cannot afford for low-integrity offsets to be purchased by Australia's largest polluters. The stakes here are simply too high. The third of my amendments is intended to ensure the safeguard mechanism is fit for purpose and that changes necessary to do so are made sooner rather than later. The government has said a review will take place in 2026-27. I am proposing to bring forward the time line for review to calendar year 2025. This will bring us closer to making sure we reach our 2030 emissions reduction target. The government will say the Climate Change Authority will be able to provide progress reports on the state of the safeguard mechanism in its annual health checks. I hope that the minister is right and that he will commit to taking remedial action should the authority find that the safeguard mechanism is not working. As I said at the start, this is about trust, integrity and transparency. I look forward to any assurances the minister is prepared to offer right here, right now. Community trust in leadership is thin, time is short and we have no wriggle room. I commend the amendments to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The question is that the amendments be disagreed to. Question agreed to. 13:14 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 4, page 49 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add: 6 Subsection 125(3) Before "the Regulator", insert "the Minister determines, under section 127A, or". 7 Subsection 126(3) Before "the Regulator", insert "the Minister determines, under section 127A, or". 8 Subsection 127(3) Before "the Regulator", insert "the Minister determines, under section 127A, or". 9 After section 127 Insert: 127A Minister may determine application of methodology determination to a project (1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that a specified methodology determination, or a specified methodology determination as varied under section 114, (the new methodology determination) applies to an eligible offsets project with effect from a specified time. (2) The Minister must not make a determination under subsection (1) unless: (a) the Minister has requested, and received, advice from the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee about whether the Minister should make the determination; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that: (i) the methodology determination that currently applies to the project is ineffective or inadequate; and (ii) the project is covered by the new methodology determination. (3) The time specified in a determination under subsection (1) must be no later than 2 years after the time the determination is made. (4) As soon as practicable after making a determination under subsection (1) in relation to a project, the Minister must notify the following, in writing, of the making of the determination: (a) the Regulator; (b) the project proponent for the project. (5) As soon as practicable after being notified of the making of a determination under subsection (1) in relation to a project, the Regulator must: (a) annotate the relevant section 27 declaration to include a reference to the application of the new methodology determination to the project from the specified time; and (b) give a copy of the annotated declaration to the project proponent for the project. (2) Schedule 4, page 49 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add: 10 After Part 23 Insert: Part 23A — Injunctions and judicial review 238A Injunctions to restrain contra ventions (1) If a person has engaged, engages, or proposes to engage in conduct consisting of an act or omission that constitutes an offence or other contravention of: (a) this Act; or (b) a legislative instrument under this Act; any person may apply to the Federal Court for an injunction restraining the first-mentioned person from engaging in the conduct. (2) If a person has engaged, is engaging, or is proposing to engage in conduct constituting an offence or other contravention of: (a) this Act; or (b) a legislative instrument under this Act; the Court may grant an injunction restraining the person from engaging in the conduct. 238B Extended standing for judicial review (1) This section extends (and does not limit) the meaning of the term person aggrieved in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for the purposes of the application of that Act in relation to: (a) a decision made under this Act or a legislative instrument under this Act; or (b) a failure to make a decision under this Act or a legislative instrument under this Act; or (c) conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision under this Act or a legislative instrument under this Act. (2) An individual is taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision, failure or conduct if the individual is an Australian citizen or ordinarily resident in Australia or an external Territory. (3) An organisation or association (whether incorporated or not) is taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision, failure or conduct if the organisation or association is incorporated, or was otherwise established, in Australia or an external Territory. (4) A term (except person aggrieved) used in this section and in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 has the same meaning in this section as it has in that Act. I move these two amendments in the hope of improving this critical piece of legislation. I thank the minister for his constructive discussions in recent months but I believe this bill could be further improved in order to improve its methodology and its integrity. As we saw this week in the IPCC synthesis report, to avoid a climate catastrophe every country has to fast-track its climate efforts in every sector and on every time frame. In Australia, we must make our safeguard mechanism as good as it can possibly be as soon as possible. My first amendment deals with changes in methodology determinations for offset projects. At present, under the carbon farming initiative act, a given method is applied to an offset project for the life of the crediting period. It's generally seven years under the Emissions Reduction Fund but that period can be extended. The original reason for setting the method for the life of the project was to give certainty to scheme participants, but the inflexibility of this arrangement has now been recognised as a risk to the integrity of the market by both the Climate Change Authority and the King review. Offsetting methods need to be able to change and to evolve over time. They need to reflect changes in estimation techniques, changes in technology and practices and developments in the science underpinning abatement. A solution that strikes a balance between certainty for scheme participants and flexibility for the government is needed. To that end, I have based this amendment on a recommendation in the King review. My amendment confirms the minister's power to make a methodology determination in relation to a particular project if the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, upon the minister's request, has advised the minister to do so, and if the minister is satisfied that a new methodology should be used. It then requires participants to transition onto a new method within two years of a method being varied. I urge the minister to assume this important responsibility, to assume the ability to intervene if it is sufficiently justified, to improve the integrity of this system. My second amendment gives power to a third party to apply for an injunction if a party engages in a contravention of the act. In the past, these actions have been brought by individuals seeking to enforce, say, the due diligence of financial disclosure of requirements, but they have often failed, in part because of the lack of standing of the applicant. Open standing is an important concept. It should be made explicit in this act, such that, rather than an applicant having to establish a particular or a special interest in a matter, applicants are given standing to pursue an action. My amendment seeks to assure that standing. My amendment also extends the definition of a person aggrieved by any decisions or failures under the act, so as to include Australian citizens or those ordinarily resident in Australia or an external territory, such that those persons can seek to have judicial review of administrative decisions made under the act. We know that this litigation alone doesn't provide an adequate basis for bringing about broad policy change. It is a suboptimal tool, but it is a tool which can be useful in bringing about changes in decision-making processes for industry and individuals. It could help in the push for major emitters to reduce their emissions. It could push this government to exercise its oversight functions. How we set-up the safeguard mechanism will determine the success or failure of our efforts to reach our 2030 and 2035 targets. Getting the safeguard mechanism right and robust is crucial for this country. We need to effect the changes that we need to see. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The question is that the amendments be disagreed. Question agreed to. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.  

The House divided. [13:23]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 87 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 55 NOES Andrews, K. L. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

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

 Third Reading 61 13:27 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 61

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023

Second Reading 61 13:28 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes: (a) the Coalition introduced the Cashless Debit Card to protect vulnerable communities reducing the amount of welfare payments available to spend on alcohol, gambling and illegal drugs; (b) since the Cashless Debit Card program commenced more than $988 million has been spent using cashless debit card accounts; participants making more than 20 million approved transactions with over $273 million spent where the primary business is food; (c) the harm and hardship the Government's abolition of the Cashless Debit Card has caused some of Australia's most vulnerable communities; (d) the Government's hypocrisy by reintroducing the Cashless Debit Card and rebranding it the SmartCard with the new card supported by the same provider Indue; (e) the Government has committed over $217 million of taxpayers' funds to this expensive rebranding exercise; (f) the Government has failed to provide details of the total cost to taxpayers of the new SmartCard; and (g) the Government's rushed and total mismanaged transition to the SmartCard; and (2) calls on the Government to without delay, reverse its decision to abolish the Cashless Debit Card program and stop the alcohol-fuelled violence, drug abuse, and childhood neglect in our most vulnerable communities". The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 61 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Bell Cares 61 13:30 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa Bell is a tiny rural community in my electorate and, today, I rise to recognise the dedication and hard work of one of our local champions, Lesley Bryce, the founder of Bell Cares. We know that small rural towns do it tough when it comes to accessing aged care. With Lesley leading the way, this community united to address the lack of support their elderly residents were receiving from traditional home-care packages. With no local providers available and travel costs eating up their finances, Bell's most vulnerable seniors were facing big challenges. But in the spirit of resilience which defines rural Australia this community decided to take action. Lesley Bryce had a solution to improve aged care in Bell, and that was to develop a place based model of support that would be ideal for such a tightknit rural community. This is a concept of self-managed home-care packages which tailor support to the unique needs of residents and employs local people they already know and trust as support workers. On the ground in Bell, this approach has been a tremendous success. It's providing over 270 hours of dedicated care per month through 20 local support workers. In fact, it has been so successful that this model is expanding into other rural communities in Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales. To Lesley and the entire community of Bell I say: congratulations on this incredible achievement and thank you for the wonderful difference you've made altogether. Strathaird Primary School 62 13:31 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt On Friday I had the pleasure of attending the assembly of Strathaird Primary School and delivering the Australian flag. I was honoured to speak with the students about the importance of education and the value of our national symbols. The Strathaird Primary School is one of the most diverse primary schools in my electorate. It is truly a reflection of what makes our community such a warm and welcoming place to live in. As I looked at the students and the proud parents behind them, I was pleased to see how these students who were born all over the world learn together, play together and grow together as a united community. As promised to the students from 4A, 4B and 4C, I would like to say, 'Hi,' to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on their behalf. I thank principal Mrs Julie Kennedy for having me at the school assembly and the teachers and staff for all the hard work they are doing to create a positive and impactful learning environment. Keep it up, and I look forward to visiting again soon. Forrest Electorate: Local Sporting Champions 62 13:32 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the local sporting champions and local para champions in my electorate of Forrest who were recently awarded funding for their sporting endeavours through the Local Sporting Champions grants. We had six champions from the Margaret River region, four from the greater Bunbury region, three from Burekup, three from Busselton and one para-athlete from Bunbury. Each local sporting champion was awarded $750, and our para-athlete was rewarded $1,000. The sports the champions are competing in include cycling, surfing, softball, soccer, gymnastics, darts and swimming. Three competed in the Gravity Enduro National Championships in Victoria, one competed in the Futsal national youth championships in Victoria, eight competed in the Australian national junior surfing championships in Queensland, two competed in Softball Australia's shield in Victoria as well, one competed in Gymnastics Australia's clubs carnival in Queensland and one competed in junior darts, also in Queensland. Our para-champion competed in the Virtus Oceania Asia games. This is a fabulous program. I want to thank and acknowledge the families that help these young athletes to achieve their best. They are very grateful for every cent that comes out of the Local Sporting Champions grant program. Young Endeavour 62 13:34 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I rise to celebrate the news that local Hunter resident Riley Dodson has received a scholarship from Lake Macquarie council which will enable him to participate in the Young Endeavour youth scheme. This internationally recognised youth development program takes young Australians on a life-changing sailing trip, a unique and challenging experience which aims to develop their leadership skills and to enable young leaders to make positive contributions to the community. In early March I had the pleasure of meeting Riley and other student leaders at a youth leadership forum organised by Toronto High School. I even scored myself a specially made burger from their canteen. It was quite good too, may I say. This forum was a great opportunity to meet the next generation of leaders. Events like these make me very excited about the future of my electorate. We have no shortage of incredible young talent in the Hunter. Though I'm sure there were many worthwhile candidates, Riley's scholarship application stood out to Lake Macquarie Council because of his honesty, passion and enthusiasm. In June, Riley will set sail on the STS Young Endeavour on an 11-day voyage departing from Newcastle and arriving in Brisbane. Thank you to Lake Macquarie Council and the Young Endeavour youth scheme for providing these opportunities to young people. Best of luck, Riley, on your adventures. We look forward to hearing from you when you get home. Budget 62 13:35 Mr 300121 Griffith CHANDLER-MATHER () (): Three hundred and eighty-eight billion dollars on nuclear submarines, $254 billion on tax cuts for the rich, $12 billion every single year on tax concessions for property investors and $10 billion a year in subsidies for the fossil fuel industry—this is how Labor is spending your money. While you're struggling to pay your rent, mortgage, feed your kids and keep the lights on, these are their priorities. Remember that. While homelessness skyrockets and we're given the final dire warning on the state of the climate, this is what they think the people of Australia want. With just the money committed to this messed-up submarine deal, Labor could raise the pension and other Centrelink payments above the poverty line, put dental and mental health into Medicare and invest $5 billion a year in public and affordable housing. With the stroke of a pen, Labor could lift millions of people out of poverty. They just don't want to. They are spending $368 billion on nuclear attack submarines to serve the wishes of the US empire and make us less safe while families sleep in cars. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Again the member Macnamara is laughing. You shouldn't laugh, because you're putting those people in that position. Our Minister for Defence called this deal 'an investment we cannot afford not to make', yet apparently ensuring people in this country can afford to see a doctor, eat three meals a day and have a safe and secure roof over their heads is optional. This is your legacy, Labor. You should own it and answer to the people at the next election for it. Tolliday, Ms Laura 63 13:37 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I rise to recognise the lifelong work of a much loved member of our community, Laura Tolliday, a Western Australian who lives in my electorate of Pearce and who has contributed a significant amount of her life to sport. That dedication and commitment were recognised this month when Laura was proudly inducted into the WA Women's Hall of Fame, which acknowledges the achievements and contributions that women have made to WA society, community, history and culture. Laura Tolliday is 95 years of age—a beautiful, good-hearted, community-minded woman who we are all so incredibly proud of. Laura is a woman of many firsts in life in sport. She joined the YWCA in 1949 to play netball and became a state champion. She also played in the first WA women's cricket team to compete in the All Australian Women's Cricket Carnival. Laura continues to be involved in netball and has helped start youth clubs, supporting youth and recognising the importance of sport in our community. As an inductee, Laura joins more than 200 women who are creating a wonderful legacy. Their recognition in the WA Women's Hall of Fame is a powerful celebration of women in our community. Laura is also a member of our wonderful Knit and Natter group. She knits jumpers with magic stripes, and those are donated to charities, which includes the Ronald McDonald House. They are incredibly important jumpers for those children. Congratulations, Laura Tolliday. We salute you. Health Care 63 13:38 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Eleanor, from Hawthorn, wrote to me recently. She's only 19. She has multiple chronic physical problems and she's increasingly concerned about how expensive it is to see her GP. Arne, from Hawthorn, told me that it would be a huge relief for him if our government would address the cost of seeing a doctor. After Anne, from Glen Iris, retired recently, she was told that her GP can no longer afford to bulk-bill. She's worried she might have to go to a public hospital for her routine preventative care. She feels safer with her GP. She feels that all Australians should have basic rights to free good health, to education and to a house to live in. Times are tough. We need to support our GPs and to reduce their workload. We need to help Australians afford their medications. We know that many miss doses and delay refilling scripts because they just can't afford them. In 2018, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme committee identified 143 commonly prescribed medications which could safely be prescribed for two months at a time for up to 12 months on a single prescription. Many peak bodies supported this suggestion. Faced with powerful lobby groups, the last government lacked the courage to put it into effect. I call on this government to affect that change to take pressure off our GPs and to reduce the cost of medications for all Australians living with chronic diseases. Energy 63 13:40 Mr ZAPP HWB Makin IA () (): Recent commentary that Australia is facing a looming gas shortage deifies logic. Australia is the world's largest LNG exporter. Australia has an abundance of gas on tap. What also exists is a lucrative global gas market and gas companies making record profits while paying negligible tax in Australia. Not surprisingly, gas companies want to open up new gas fields, extract more gas and further boost their very healthy profits. Talk of gas shortages or that new gas extraction is needed to bring down prices is a ruse by the gas companies to force state and federal governments into approving more gas fields. Ninety per cent of the gas resources on Australia's east coast are controlled by a gas cartel of three multinationals that are holding Australians to ransom. Gas prices are crippling businesses and directly affect electricity prices. Gas is an Australian natural resource. Australians should have access to it at a fair price, not at the hugely inflated prices being charged by the gas companies. Western Australia proved that can be achieved with a policy that has been in place for nearly two decades. It did not send gas companies broke, it did not stop investment, and gas companies should stop treating the Australian people as mugs Wyangala Dam 64 13:41 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Wyangala Dam in the state's Central West is a piece of infrastructure that needs to be enhanced. When in government, the coalition federal government put in place $650 million to increase the dam wall by 10 metres, to 95 metres, which would have added 650 gigalitres to that dam—that is, more than what the Sydney Harbour holds—and that would have enhanced the opportunities for farmers but perhaps, just as importantly, it would have prevented perhaps the six floods that Forbes has suffered, endured, copped, in the last dozen or so years. But Rose Jackson, who is the state water minister—well, she is the shadow minister; perhaps she will be the minister—said, 'Let's not worry about increasing the dam wall. Let's build a road so the people of Forbes can escape quicker.' I do hope she is not the water minister. If there is to be a silver lining out of the result in Monaro and if Steve Whan actually does succeed, then let's hope that some sense comes into the Minns government. I notice he didn't mention the regions in his acceptance speech. I accept the result, but New South Wales Labor needs to remember the regions. Norfolk Island 64 14:34 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Norfolk Island is located in the southern Pacific Ocean, defined by jagged cliffs, a beautiful national park and World Heritage sites. In 1788 the tenant Philip King went ashore and took possession of the island, and many residents, as honourable members might know, are descendants of the HMS Bounty mutineers who resettled from the Pitcairn islands and Tahiti. This sixth of March just gone is the anniversary of its foundation. It reminds us to look back on the unique history of the island and to look forward. In 2016 an historic change occurred whereby residents of the islands were required to pay taxes, and governance arrangements changed. In return they would be entitled to security payments, Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The decision was met with a mixed reception. Some residents fiercely desired to maintain their independence, fearing a colonial style of rule. In 2021, the Queensland government established the Norfolk Island state services partnership, providing support for education and health services, but I know, through my friend the member for Bean, that challenges remain. I am looking forward very much to visiting Norfolk Island with my friend the member for Canberra and the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, to continue to engage in good working relations with Norfolk Island. Cost Of Living 64 13:44 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Mortgage stress is hitting Western Sydney residents hard. It's a top issue for many Lindsay constituents who have faced interest rate rise after interest rate rise time and time again. In August last year, Otivo released its Mortgage stress report, which showed that almost every mortgage property in Colyton, St Marys, North St Marys and Oxley Park in Lindsay were facing mortgage stress. In other parts of my electorate, around half of mortgage holders were in mortgage stress, including in Glenmore Park, Mulgoa, Emu Plains, Cranebrook and Londonderry. Imagine the pain these Western Sydney families are feeling right now. There have been six rate rises since Otivo's report. In fact, there have been nine successive rate rises under this Albanese Labor government. We are in the grips of a cost-of-living crisis. Lindsay locals are tightening their household budgets when it comes to the weekly grocery shop. I've had constituents telling me they simply cannot afford registration fees, new footie boots and petrol to get to and from their kids' weekend sport commitments. This is heartbreaking. Western Sydney is at the coalface of this cost-of-living crisis, and the Albanese government needs to provide actual solutions now. New South Wales State Election 64 13:45 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Last Saturday voters in New South Wales elected a Minns Labor government. We saw huge swings in the state seats in my local area: Parramatta, Drummoyne, Strathfield and Auburn. These results would not have been possible without the support and help of the extraordinary volunteers and Labor branch members. For years they have kept the light on the hill shining brightly, because Labor supporters are true believers. They get involved because of their commitment to making our community a better place for all. I would like to especially thank Greg Davis and Felicity Davis Rafferty. Greg is a retired flood engineer who is committed to ensuring we urgently act on climate change. Felicity works in the higher education sector and wants to make our education system more equitable. During my own election campaign, they stood beside me at the early morning train stations and at prepoll, and they helped me put up posters. They made me believe it was possible to win. They were there again for Julia Little, the Labor candidate for Drummoyne. Their passion, values, commitment and care for our local community have inspired and driven me. I am grateful to them and all of the true believers, who are the backbone of our great movement. Thanks to Greg and Felicity for your continuous and unwavering support. I will not let you down. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 65 13:47 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I rise to express my concern and some real sadness with the direction in which the Prime Minister is taking the Australian people in relation to the Voice to Parliament. Last Thursday, the Prime Minister revealed the words which he will put to the Australian people in a referendum in late 2023. Despite his words inviting all Australians to walk together to a better future, he has, without broader public debate or transparency, put forward a fundamental change to the Australian Constitution and to the workings of this place—this place that, today, has the highest representation of Indigenous Australians ever on record, much to our collective pride and gratitude to the voters who have elected them. On the weekend, esteemed journalist and deep observer of this place for over 50 years, Paul Kelly, forewarned: The Australian tragedy of 2023 is about to unfold … It is a tragedy because the Australian Constitution needs to recognise the Indigenous people and what they rightly call the 'torment of our powerlessness', yet the Albanese cabinet decision is an extraordinary and flawed model devoid of bipartisanship or any effort to achieve it. When the Prime Minister got to his feet last Thursday, he smashed the hearts of many coalition parliamentarians and supporters who hoped he would conduct a sensible, transparent, respectful civic debate involving all Australians. It turns out wedge politics are more important to our Prime Minister than an enduring win for our Indigenous Australians. Medicare 65 13:49 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra This week we learned yet another bulkbilling GP in Canberra has shut its doors, with the Hobart Place General Practice closing. For about 40 years, this clinic has provided affordable health care to generations of students and vulnerable Canberrans. The clinics says that the Medicare rebate, frozen under the coalition, played a significant role in the closure and made the practice financially unviable. This is terrible news for Canberra, which has some of the lowest bulk-billing rates in the country. It's also bad news for the residents of surrounding southern New South Wales who travel to Canberra for care. Dr Joo-Inn Chew, who has worked at Hobart Place for 20 years, put this loss into perspective in her piece in the Canberra Times today. She spoke about the difficulties of general practice but also the rewards, and that in her 20 years of practice she became a better doctor and a better human. One of the key reasons for the low bulk-billing rate in Canberra is the Morrison government's decision in 2020 to remove ACT and Queanbeyan doctors from eligibility criteria for rural incentives. Too many Canberrans are struggling to access the primary care that they need. Fortunately, the health minister, Mark Butler, is working to fix this mess, having delivered the strengthening Medicare task force report, and he's focused on making Medicare more accessible. It may be too late to save the Hobart Place GP, but I will continue to advocate for my constituents in Canberra to access the primary care that they need. Waldock, Mr John (Jack) 65 13:50 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay On 17 March, the Gympie RSL sub-branch honoured World War II veteran, John 'Jack' Waldock with a poppy ceremony as he was buried with his mum and dad in Gympie Cemetery. At 103, he was the oldest member of the RSL and embodied the Anzac spirit of endurance, courage, sacrifice, humour and mateship. He was born and bred in Gympie, defended Australia in the battle of Milne Bay in PNG, where Japanese forces were first defeated on land, and was an adored fixture at the Gympie RSL for over 47 years. When he turned 102 during COVID, the RSL went to Jack's house and sang 'Happy Birthday' to him from the bus to his front door. As the Gympie RSL secretary and friend of mine, Martin Muller, said: Jack's smile, laughter and stories from life in Gympie and the Wide Bay remind us of those who came before us and built our country. This generation met hardship with laughter, fortune with gratitude and stood by those in need. When Australia was in need, Jack was there. When Jack was in need, Gympie and his mates from the RSL were there. My condolences go to Jack's family. Rest in peace, Jack Waldock. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 65 13:52 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara Let's stop pretending. This Leader of the Opposition is the leader of the 'no' campaign in the upcoming referendum. He says no, but Australia will say yes. This Leader of the Opposition does not have questions. All he has are political tactics that are aimed at undermining reconciliation. This Leader of the Opposition walked out on the national apology and now he's walking out on the Voice. He is not seeking to engage in good faith; he is seeking to tear down. But Australia will see through his political games. Australia's heart is too big for this Leader of the Opposition. Australia's heart is big enough to know that the time has come to recognise our first people in our Constitution. Australia's heart is big enough to know that First Nations people deserve a say in the matters that affect them. Australia's heart is big enough to answer the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Leader of the Opposition is stuck holding onto the dregs of the Morrison government, but Australia has moved on. Australia will wake up the day after this referendum a more united, inclusive and big-hearted country, and standing alone by himself will be that Leader of the Opposition. It is time to say yes even if the Leader of the Opposition says no. Denny, Mr Frederick Francis (Fred), OAM 66 13:53 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Last week, I had the great pleasure of presenting Fred Denny from Thirlmere with a certificate to mark his upcoming 100th birthday. Fred's achieved so many remarkable things in the course of his hundred years. Firstly, I congratulate him on receiving the Order of Australia medal last year for his service in the Second World War with the 55th/53rd Battalion, the Mice of Moresby. A lance corporal, Fred served in the Army from 1940 to 1945 and was a frontline gunner on the battlefields. Fred, a butcher by trade, enlisted in the Army at the age of 18 against the advice of his best mate Brandon Chiddy, who later became a POW in Borneo. Today, Fred continues to serve and volunteer with the Picton-Thirlmere-Bargo RSL sub-branch. He was a regular attendee at the Thirlmere Anzac Day service and often travels to the city to join his battalion mates to commemorate. Fred left school at the age of 10 to deliver meat for a butcher shop with his father. Aged 11 and 12, he used to drive cattle the family bought in Camden to Wollondilly Shire to stock the butcher shop. Fred and his wife, Myrtle, who, sadly, died in 1993, have two children, five grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren. After the war, he worked with Sydney Water for 40 years and was one of the engineers who oversaw the construction of the Warragamba Dam. Fred, your service to our community and our nation is truly extraordinary. I hope you enjoy your birthday celebrations with family and friends on 9 April. New South Wales State Election 66 13:55 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie The federal electorate of Macquarie comprises two very different state electorates. They don't call the Blue Mountains the 'red mountains' for no reason. My state Labor colleague Trish Doyle achieved a remarkable result on Saturday night with her third victory. So far, she has increased her primary vote by about eight per cent, to 53 per cent, and the two-party preferred vote is at 72 per cent. Congratulations, Trish, and all the party members and volunteers who contributed to this result. It will be terrific working with her on mountains issues, especially Katoomba hospital and the Great Western Highway. In the Hawkesbury, Amanda Kotlash achieved around a five per cent swing to Labor. This is an impressive result in one of the Liberals' safest seats in New South Wales. I congratulate her and the team and give a shout-out to the young volunteers in the Hawkesbury, many of whom I stood with on Saturday. They know exactly what sort of future they're fighting for. I congratulate Robyn Preston on being returned as the member for Hawkesbury, and I hope we can work together to resolve the many outstanding state issues that go to the flood recovery. I particularly look forward to working with the Minns Labor government—doesn't that sound good?—on their commitments to rebuild TAFE, upgrade Bligh Park community centre, install fencing for the Bligh Park Football Club and provide the new fantastic funding for the Women's Cottage, not to mention improving our Hawkesbury roads. Barker Electorate: Keith Diesel and Dirt Derby 66 13:56 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker The short break from parliament over the weekend afforded me the opportunity to get back to Barker, and on Saturday I attended the Keith Diesel and Dirt Derby. The 10th year of this popular event attracted over 10,000 people. Unfortunately, however, this is the final year of the event; the organising committee are going to take a well-earnt break. For the past few years, I've enjoyed not only attending but taking part, as I take the rough and tumble out of politics and into the dirt in the header demolition derby. Indeed, the opportunity for competitors to smash combine harvesters into one another was given the extra sweetener of having their local federal member included. As we say goodbye to this great event, at least for now, I'd like to thank and commend the committee and contributing organisations for their hard work over the past decade: the Keith show society, the Keith Lions, Keith Apex, Keith Men's Shed, Ryan McDonald, Dale Farley, Chad Makin, Bruce Hunt, Darren Small, Ian Farley, Toby Downs, Trudie Hedges and, of course, Mayor Paul Simmons. But I've got to mention, specifically, Glen Simpson. He's the man around whom this is all built. Thank you. I'm so pleased. You can all retire now from the Keith Diesel and Dirt Derby in better shape than my header. New South Wales State Election 66 13:57 Dr REID 300126 Robertson There is Christmas, there is new year and there are birthdays. Now there is 25 March 2023, because, on 25 March, the people of New South Wales voted for a fresh start. On the Central Coast, Sam Boughton—aged-care physiotherapist, surfer and all-round good bloke—is our incredible Labor candidate in the safe Liberal seat of Terrigal, where counting is now down to the wire. There is also: Liesl Tesch, member for Gosford—superwoman and true community representative; David Harris, a decent man and good human being with exceptional experience; David Mehan, a strong community advocate; and Yasmin Catley, who's always there for our Central Coast family. To Premier-elect Chris Minns, Deputy Prue Car and the entire New South Wales team: congratulations on an outstanding campaign. New South Wales has shown strong support for a team that will focus on education, focus on health care and end privatisation. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTRY 67 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 67 13:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will answer questions on her behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 67 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living 67 13:59 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies My question is to the Prime Minister. Brendon's Quality Meats in my electorate has been serving our community for 42 years. Owner Brendon says he has seen the impact of the rising cost of living on his customers, saying people have been increasingly switching to cheaper meats. Will this out-of-touch Prime Minister finally admit Australian families always pay more under Labor? 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Menzies for his question, and certainly I say to him he can inform Brendon that all of us in this chamber should be aware of the pressures over cost of living. Cost of living is a direct result of the inflationary impact that, in the beginning of March 2022 quarter, before this government was elected, was the highest jump in inflation we have seen this century, of 2.1 per cent. I'm sure Brendon is conscious of that, and I'm sure the member for Menzies would inform Brendon of that accurately. We have taken action, and we know there's more to do. One of the things we've done to take action is on pharmaceuticals, where we've cut the price of PBS medicines from $42.50 down to $30, the first cut in the cost of pharmaceuticals under the PBS in 75 years, since the former Labor government created that. Mr Pasin 240756 We missed your bill. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting across the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 We know when those opposite had the opportunity under the Leader of the Opposition as health minister, his idea was to put a tax on people visiting the GP, of $7. His other big idea was to increase the cost of prescriptions by $5. But the other idea he had about cost of living was to remove the restrictions on state and territory governments that prevent hospital emergency departments charging a fee for presentation. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance, on 8 February you directed the Prime Minister back to the terms of the question after he spent more than a minute attacking the opposition and not directly engaging with the terms of the question. He's doing the same thing, and I call upon you to rule as you previously did. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW I think from recollection that ruling on 8 February was dealing with a question that didn't have a tag nearly as broad as the one that was just asked. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was about the cost of living—in particular regarding the cost of living, prices rising and a political tag at the end of the question about the Prime Minister's commitments. I'm going to give him the call, and if he is not being relevant he will be drawn back to the question. I'm listening carefully to his answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 I was talking about the cost of living, and imagine the cost-of-living increases if the former health minister, the now Leader of the Opposition, had had his way and removed the restrictions on state and territory governments—having, in hospital emergency departments, to pay a fee to visit. Ms Ley 00AMN That's all you've got—really? Mr ALBANESE R36 Now, the deputy leader says, 'Is that all you've got?' The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 They show contempt for the issue of the costs of health care and how important they are to the cost of living. The same people who were opposed and are still opposed to the $1½ billion we have for energy price relief to take pressure off the cost of living come in here and just show how out of those they are and how they're against absolutely any initiative that is put forward. (Time expired) Climate Change: Safeguard Mechanism 68 14:04 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins My question is to the Prime Minister: how will the passage of the safeguard mechanism help Australia achieve our climate change targets, provide business with certainty and build a better future? 14:04 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Higgins for her question and for her advocacy. One of the reasons why the member for Higgins is sitting here in this chamber as the best ever member for Higgins is because she understood, like a majority of her constituents who sent her here, that climate change was an issue that had to be dealt with and that it had to be dealt with in a practical way that made a difference. That's why, after a wasted decade, today is indeed a good day. It is a good day for our environment but a good day for our economy as well. It's a win for every Australian who voted for real action on climate change. The fact is that we received an endorsement at the election to move to enshrine a 43 per cent reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050 and to put Australia on a realistic path to get there. But these numbers are only the what. The how is the safeguard mechanism. We recognise that business needs certainty and stability, which is why the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia and individual businesses in this country were crying out for this legislation to be carried. I want to congratulate and thank the minister for energy, but I also want to thank every member of the crossbench, including the Greens political party, for being prepared to come up with a real, practical solution, for not allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good in their own views, which they have. The fact is that we want to move Australia forward. Those opposite cannot move past their pathology of political conflict. But this legislation is Australia's chance to move past them, to move past the decade of denial that we saw from those opposite, where 22 energy policies were announced and none were delivered. We now have the opportunity to put that wasted decade behind us with greater investment in the cheapest form of new energy—that is, renewables. We can be a renewable energy superpower. We can take advantage of the fact that we live in the region with the fastest growth in human history. This is good for jobs, good for our economy and also good for our environment. Energy 68 14:07 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders My question is to the Prime Minister. Hugh Saunders, a resident of Brighton East in the electorate of Goldstein, was told in January that his energy bill would rise by over $1,700 dollars this year. The member for Goldstein voted for the government's so-called price cap legislation. Will this out-of-touch Prime Minister finally admit that Australian families always pay more under Labor? 14:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Flinders for pointing out the fact that the member for Goldstein is a part of the solution, not a part of the problem. She did vote for the legislation that was before this parliament, because Australians have been crying out for action on climate change. One of the reasons why the member for Goldstein is here is her position, which she went to the election on, on supporting action on climate change—like the other crossbenchers up there. For those opposite, even after Saturday, to not have some sort of bell ringing or some sort of wake-up call after the Victorian state election, where Daniel Andrews increased his majority, I am not quite sure what it would take for them to realise that people want action for the future. Those opposite can be stuck in the past, but we will continue to move forward as part of international action that we need to be part of. Those opposite are just so stuck in the past. The problem isn't that they are frozen in time while the world forms around them; the problem is they want everyone to stay back there and keep them company. Those on this side of the House will not do that. We will continue to engage in a constructive way to get things done in this parliament. What amazes me is that those opposite actually have an opportunity to participate in debate, but instead they choose to be observers. They don't participate at all in any of the processes that are there before the Senate or in here—they just come in here and vote no, no, no, no to everything. Which is why they get so upset when I say they're the 'no-alition'. If they're upset by that, they should stop acting like it. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will refer to the opposition as the coalition. Climate Change: Safeguard Mechanism 68 14:10 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening the safeguard mechanism, and what will be the environmental and economic outcomes of these reforms? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting, particularly when ministers are being asked questions and before ministers even begin speaking. If he does that anymore, he will not be here in question time. 14:11 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question. I know how important she feels today's vote in the House of Representatives to pass the safeguard reforms is, and I know all her colleagues agree with her. Today, the House of Representatives sent a message to investors right around Australia, to industry right around Australia and to investors right around the world: the climate wars are in retreat. Not every member of this House gets it, that is true, but the parliament as a whole understands it—in this House and, I am very confident, in the other House as well. This is important because after 10 years of denial and delay the time for action is now. The honourable member asked me what the environmental and economic implications of the passage of the bill will be. The environmental implications are very clear. We would not have achieved our targets without passing this bill and without implementing this reform. That is very clear. That is unimportant to some in the House. Some in the House will be just fine with Australia not achieving its 43 per cent emissions reduction target. Some in the House have opposed, and continue to oppose, the 43 per cent emissions reduction target. But the government are committed to the 43 per cent emissions reduction target and we are delivering it. We are delivering it, importantly, today. The removal of 205 million tonnes of emissions as a result of these reforms is absolutely vital. It's the equivalent of two-thirds of the cars on the Australian roads. That is what is at stake and that is why it's important that the House did what it did today and that the Senate will do so in a few days time. It's also important economically, because we have sent a message to the world. The days of 22 energy policies are over. The days of changing and switching between policies are over. Under this government, this country has one energy policy and we're getting on with delivering it. There's one energy policy that will be delivered. The Albanese government get things done. I know this is an unusual concept for those opposite. There are ways that a government will actually deliver a policy. We actually get things done. We work with the business community— The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will cease interjecting. Mr BOWEN DZS We welcome the response of the Business Council and peak groups today in response to this government's ability to get its agenda through—something which has not been seen for the last decade. It's important, as the world decarbonises, that Australia gets its share of the economic action. It was not happening before May last year. Business as usual would see emissions go up and opportunities lost. Business as usual is not acceptable to this government. We will work with the business community to see emissions down and jobs up, and that's exactly what we are doing. Infrastructure 69 14:14 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is to the Prime Minister. In 2014 you told this House that independent cost benefit analysis of infrastructure proposals was necessary to: ensure that there is proper value for taxpayers for infrastructure investment and that we get the right infrastructure investment to boost productivity. Does the Prime Minister still hold this view, and if not, why not? 14:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Wentworth for her question. Indeed, I'm very proud that we established Infrastructure Australia. It was one of the first pieces of legislation in the first week of the new Labor government when parliament first sat in 2008 after the 2007 election. What it did was bring together a serious board made up of private sector representatives, as well as representatives from state and local government, to make sure that there was productivity analysis so that the funding and investment by the Commonwealth went to the right projects. That was a board that contained people such as Sir Rod Eddington, and Mark Birrell, the former Kennett government minister in Victoria, was the deputy chair. And we had people like Kerry Schott and Heather Ridout—serious people doing proper analysis through the process. That led to projects being funded—to every single one of the priority projects being funded. Upon coming to office, we now have legislation before this parliament to amend Infrastructure Australia, to make sure it goes back to where it should be. Indeed, about the former board, and with respect: having a former deputy mayor of a council where the minister happened to come from, compared with someone like Sir Rod Eddington, was just an undermining of that process. It was not taken seriously. The legislation that is before parliament, moved by the infrastructure minister, will make sure that there's transparency and will make sure that there's proper analysis. That's because there's a finite level of resources, and that is why we should make sure that productivity drives that agenda going forward. That is what my government is committed to, and that's what we will get on with the business of doing. I look forward to the parliament supporting the legislation moved by the minister. Economy 70 14:17 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley My question is to the Treasurer. What will the passage of the safeguard mechanism mean for the Australian economy and for Australian businesses? 14:17 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Dunkley for her question. Today is a really important day for our environment and also for our economy. The passage of the safeguard mechanism through this parliament will deliver long-overdue policy certainty for our economy. This is what Australian businesses and investors have been crying out for, and it's what the Australian people voted for. The safeguard mechanism will finally put the Australian economy on a credible pathway to net zero. After a decade of drift, division and dysfunction, and the 22 failed energy policies of the former government, businesses have been pleading for certainty. Now they will get the certainty to invest that they need and deserve. The safeguard mechanism will create new jobs in new industries, and deliver new investment. Deloitte estimates that the transition to net zero could add an extra $890 billion to our economy over the next 50 years and create an extra 195,000 jobs. Australian businesses and investors see the potential of harnessing all of this demand for renewable energy to broaden and deepen our industrial base, while at the same time maximising our traditional economic strengths. Businesses and investors understand that the safeguard mechanism is the best way to provide this investment certainty that they crave and require. As the Prime Minister said, the BCA, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Industry Group all want this done. That's what makes it all the more ridiculous that the so-called party of business is voting against this legislation. By standing in the way of this legislation— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right will cease interjecting immediately. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B To give credit where credit is due, it was a commendably tight question: what will the passage of the safeguard mechanism mean for the Australian economy and Australian businesses? The Treasurer is now well into a generalised attack on the opposition, which is well outside the scope of question. He should be directed back to the terms of the question. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm just going to ask the Treasurer to return to that part of the question around the economy and business. I give him the call. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Anybody who stands in the way of this investment and this certainty that the business community desperately need is standing in the way of future investment, future industries and future jobs, and they are on the wrong side of history. In being on the wrong side of history, the Leader of the Opposition is once again showing that he is more negative than Tony Abbott, more divisive than the member for Cook and less capable of learning the lessons of the wasted decade and the last few elections than anybody else in this place. The climate is changing, but this coalition never will. The Albanese government and this parliament will get on with the job of providing business the certainty that they need, in the interests of our economy, our environment and our country. That's why today is such an important day. The SPEAKER 53517 Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the same rules apply to both sides of the chamber. Members are not to be interjected on before they ask their question. Cost of Living 70 14:20 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Increased mortgage payments and rising costs of living mean Victorians with a mortgage will pay more than $19,000 extra this year. They'll be $19,000 worse off this year. Will this out-of-touch Prime Minister finally admit that Australian families always pay more under Labor? 14:21 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'll tell you something that'll make a difference to living standards: that's getting wages going again. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. Mr ALBANESE R36 Philip Lowe, the RBA governor, might know something about it. He said this on 8 March: …wages growth is stronger than it was a few years ago, which is a welcome development. It is also positive that the rate of wages growth remains consistent with the inflation target… Something else that'll make a difference for people, wherever they live—even in the state electorate of Wollondilly and other areas as well—is the record number of Australians that are in full-time employment. I'm very proud that, in the first six months of this government, more jobs were created than under the first six months of any government going back as far as records are kept. The other thing that will make a difference in terms of people's— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The member for McEwen will cease interjecting. I'll hear from the member for Hume on a point of order. Mr Taylor 231027 It was a very specific question. It was about Victorians with a mortgage being worse off. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was on rising costs of living and mortgages, about extra pain this year and about families. I will call the Prime Minister back to— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I can't hear the Prime Minister at the moment because there are far too many people interjecting. If you want me to make these rulings, I've got to be able to hear what the Prime Minister is saying. Mr ALBANESE R36 The other thing that would have made a difference is if the member opposite had delivered on his election promise to reduce the wholesale electricity price to $70 per megawatt hour by the end of 2021, instead of the $286 that was delivered by this bloke opposite. He is the worst energy minister that Australia has ever had. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The House will come to order so I can hear from the member for Corangamite. Medicare 71 14:23 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government addressing the current challenges confronting Medicare? What factors have contributed to the current situation? 14:24 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. She knows that our government has no higher priority than strengthening Medicare and delivering cheaper medicines. She'll be very pleased to know that we're getting on with the job of doing just that. In May, the Treasurer's second budget will deliver the government's response to the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce, which is underpinned by $750 million in new investment in Medicare. This year, we'll deliver 50 urgent care centres, which will be providing care in the community seven days a week, from 8 am till 10 pm, for non-life-threatening emergencies—all free of charge, all fully bulk-billed, taking much-needed pressure off our deeply stressed hospital emergency departments. And we've obviously already delivered on our commitment to put in place the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—good for the hip pocket and good for people's health. And there could be no more important time to strengthen Medicare, because, as the member for Corangamite tells me, it's never been harder to see a doctor right now than it is today, and never more expensive. That didn't happen just by chance; it is a product of nine long years of cuts to and neglect of Medicare by those opposite. There is no single person in Australia more responsible for the current state of Medicare than the Leader of the Opposition. The contrast between our first budget and the Leader of the Opposition's first foray as health minister back in 2014 could not be starker. While we're taking pressure off hospitals with urgent care centres across the country, he tried to cut $50 billion out of hospital funding as well as a range of other hospital programs. While we delivered, in January, a cut of $12.50 to every general patient script, he tried to jack up the price of every single medicine script in this country, including by $5 a script for general patients. While we have committed more funds to Medicare in this budget, the Leader of the Opposition tried to make every single Australian pay for every single visit to the doctor through his infamous GP tax. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for the environment will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Petrie will cease interjecting. Mr BUTLER HWK When that was blocked by the Senate, rightly so, instead he started a six-year freeze to the Medicare rebate, which ripped billions and billions of dollars out of general practice. No wonder Australia's doctors overwhelmingly voted the Leader of the Opposition the worst health minister in Australia in the Medicare era. He just can't be trusted with Australia's health care. Cost of Living 72 14:26 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. A typical Australian family with a mortgage today is paying $1,700 a month more than when the coalition was in government last year. Power bills are rising sharply, and the cost-of-living is going up and up. Inflation is at its highest level in 30 years. Will this out-of-touch Prime Minister finally admit that families always pay more under Labor? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Cooper will cease interjecting. 14:27 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm asked a very broad question— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 about the cost of living, the impact of inflation, and housing and energy policy. Indeed, we had legislation last December about energy policy. We had the cap on gas and on coal—gas here, coal in New South Wales and Queensland. That made a difference in halving the wholesale price that was predicted at the time of the October budget. We also had a $1½ billion energy price relief plan, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition voted against. But we voted in favour of it, and that will be included in the May budget. But there is an opportunity for redemption. I always believe that people can redeem themselves. I have that faith. The nuns at St Joseph's, Camperdown, taught me that. They did. And there's an opportunity on housing, with the Housing Australia Future Fund, to actually do something about housing policy. The HIA, the Housing Industry Association, said it supported 'the government's goal to build 30,000 social houses and believes it's a worthy goal to get behind'. It said, 'More supply means cheaper rents.' The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that that is irrelevant. I actually think it isn't irrelevant at all going forward. Fortunately, some over there— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. I will hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN On a point of relevance, the Prime Minister is simply not addressing the question at all, in any way, and we have asked this question hundreds of times, and it never gets an answer. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right! The deputy leader was heard in silence. The Leader of the House will be shown the same courtesy. Mr B DYW The final part of that question—and it has been the final part of a number of questions—goes to particularly asking ministers, or, in this case, Prime Minister, to compare and contrast where you would pay more. That tag specifically invites a comparison with the previous government. That's exactly what it's doing, and the Prime Minister is simply responding to exactly that part of the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister was talking about housing and quoting the HIA. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'm going to ask him to make sure that's relevant to the part of the question which was about the cost of housing and the cost of mortgages as well. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thanks, Mr Speaker. The master builders association, the CEO, had this to say. They 'called on the Senate not to miss an opportunity for sensible reform in helping to achieve the housing needs for the future'. That's what they've had to say. But you don't have to go to the business community; you could just go to a member of the backbench, because this is the member for Bass had to say: … at its core, it is a step forward towards providing more Australians—Tasmanians, mums and dads, women escaping family and domestic violence, older Australians and younger people—with a roof over their head. I can't stand here as an elected representative and make a choice to ignore their needs. There, in one paragraph, is a member of the opposition's own team calling out the fact that they do ignore their needs—calling out the fact that they just vote no to everything, regardless of whether it will make a practical difference to people's lives. The Housing Australia Future Fund will make a practical difference to people's lives, which is why those opposite should support it. Budget 72 14:31 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Treasurer. What pressures are placed on the budget when ongoing programs are left unfunded? 14:32 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the member for Paterson for her question. Six weeks tomorrow, from this dispatch box, the Albanese government will hand down its second budget, and we have been upfront about the pressures on the budget and the pressures on our economy which provide the context for that budget. In this environment there is, as always, a premium on what's responsible, what's affordable and methodical, and what is sustainable in the budget while also making sure that we continue to clean up the mess that we were left by those opposite. One of the biggest pressures on the budget in May will actually be programs which any normal human being would assume were ongoing programs but which those opposite funded, in lots of cases, only until the end of June this year. This is how those opposite booby trapped the budget that they left behind— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker is on a warning. Dr CHALMERS 37998 with all of these ongoing programs which aren't funded in an ongoing way. So in our first budget, in October, we had to spend more than $4 billion to make up for these cover-ups when it came to essential government programs that weren't funded in an ongoing way—unlegislated zombie measures that were never going to pass the parliament—and the failure of those opposite to adequately provision for funding for the COVID response. Once again, in May, we will need to find billions of dollars— Mr Chester IPZ Oh, poor Jim! The 53517 The member for Gippsland will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 to make up for those opposite's propensity to make big announcements but not actually fund them in the budget. Let me give you a few examples, Mr Speaker. For example, the former government jumped up and said they were going to fund 50 per cent of the Olympics in South-East Queensland. They budgeted precisely zero dollars for that task. Those opposite had the My Health Record system, which is used by millions of Australians to store personal health information, not funded beyond the middle of this year; the eSafety Commissioner, which is responsible for keeping our kids safe online, not funded; and the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency, in charge of disposing of radioactive materials, not funded. MyGov is not funded in an ongoing way. This is the way that those opposite went about vandalising the budget. They were notorious for making the big announcements but not funding them in the budget. The Leader of the Opposition can't distance himself from this behaviour. He was a member of the Expenditure Review Committee that made these decisions. He sits over there hoping that if he doesn't ask any questions the voters of Aston won't notice and won't remember who the Leader of the Liberal Party is in Canberra. They were notorious for doing this, Mr Speaker. Those opposite should take responsibility for the mess that they made of the budget, in the same way that we take responsibility for cleaning it up. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 73 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Kowalski, Mr Daniel Steven, OAM, McKeon, Mr David 73 14:34 The SPEAKER 53517 I'd like to acknowledge former Olympians Daniel Kowalski and David McKeon, who are in the gallery today. A very warm welcome to you both. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 73 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Regional Australia: Infrastructure 73 14:35 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. I refer the minister to the government's failure last week in parliament to address the regional programs delay for local councils. Given it has been 10 months since the federal election and five months since the budget, how many grants to local councils and community groups have been formally assessed and approved from Labor's regional and community programs announced in the budget? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will leave the chamber. I have been crystal clear about that sort of behaviour. When members are asking questions, they'll be heard in silence. The time to interject is when the minister is speaking, not when— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I correct that record! Let's get on with it. The member for Barker then left the chamber. 14:36 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member very much for his question. We inherited an absolute mess when it came to regional grants. If you remember, we got elected on a promise to clean up the rorts and pork-barrelling that categorised the regional grants program. When we came into government, we had the Building Better Regions Fund, which, of course, was subject to a substantial National Audit Office report, which found that there were significant flaws in the way the previous government made decisions. When we came to office, we found that not a single one of the proposals for round 6 of the Building Better Regions Fund had been assessed at all. So concerned were all of you about all of those programs that you asked specifically about it— M L6B On relevance: it was a very specific question. How many grants to local councils and community groups have been formally assessed and approved from Labor's regional and community programs announced in the budget? That is very specific and, if the minister can't answer the question, she should admit that. The SPEAKER 53517 There was a little bit more before we got to that part, and I'm sure the minister is addressing that part of the question. I'll listen carefully for the remaining two minutes to make sure she addresses the specific project that you did request. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Again, I am talking about the reason that, when we came to government, we had to clean up the appalling job that those opposite, particularly the National Party, did when it came to regional grants program. So I don't make any apologies about us taking some time to actually build integrity into the regional grants program, because we had, under the Community Development Grants Program, billions and billions of dollars, frankly, pork-barrelled into National Party and Liberal Party seats across this country. We are taking our time with the Growing Regions Program. The guidelines are currently before all of the stakeholders to look at to ensure that we are using the best possible processes that we can, and the announcement about the opening of those applications will be done shortly. Again I remind the House that the reason we have had to do this and take our time is the terrible job those opposite did when it came to the regional grants program. Frankly, when it comes to things like the Community Development Grants Program, like the Building Better Regions Fund, they had no integrity when it came to the distribution of those grants, and I'm looking forward to putting in place an important program to fund our regions properly, fairly and transparently—something those opposite were incapable of doing. It absolutely shows why not a single one of them should occupy these benches ever again when it comes to integrity when it comes to grants. Online Safety 74 14:40 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga My question is to the Minister for Communications: what is the Albanese Labor government doing to support online safety for Australians, and what challenges does the eSafety Commissioner face in supporting the government's objectives? 14:40 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for her question. She knows the safety of all Australians is a core priority of the Albanese government, including online. It is fundamental that our online world, which is so much a part of our daily lives, provides safe and inclusive environments, maximises the benefits of the digital economy and supports social cohesion. Ensuring the safety of Australians online has been a shared goal across government and civil society, with Labor supporting the passage of the Online Safety Act when we were in opposition. The Albanese government is now undertaking the substantive work to ensure the act is successfully implemented, together with our regulator the eSafety Commissioner. eSafety has been undertaking important work in relation to the basic online safety expectations outlined in the act, recently issuing a second set of reporting notices to seven digital platforms on the steps they are taking to tackle online child sexual exploitation material. The commissioner is also requiring industry to review and submit draft codes to address the most serious harmful online content. eSafety has also been supporting the government's work to tackle safety on online dating apps. Following our round table on this issue in January, the eSafety Commissioner has been working with agencies across government to inform consultation with victim-survivors about their lived experiences of harm facilitated by dating apps. This is really critical work to raise the bar for online safety, to hold the platforms to account for their actions and to keep Australians safe. But despite its critical role, members will be astounded to learn that eSafety has been operating without funding certainty, thanks to the decisions by those opposite. The fact is it has been relying on non-ongoing or terminating funding for years. Can you believe that eSafety's base funding of $10.3 million has never been increased since it was established in 2015? This is despite eSafety being given significantly expanded powers. In fact, after 30 June this year, thanks to funding decisions by the now opposition, eSafety would've faced a funding cliff, with their overall funding dropping from $53.8 million down to $23.3 million. That's a more than 50 per cent decrease, and as with every budget announced in the last government, they went for short-term expediency and never addressed the structural underfunding of key agencies like eSafety. Once again Labor is left to clean up the mess left by those opposite. In contrast, we will fund the regulator so it can do its important job. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting. AUKUS 75 14:43 Ms LE 295676 Fowler My question is to the Prime Minister. The government has committed to spending $368 billion on acquiring nuclear powered submarines when people are struggling to pay the grocery bills, yet we still don't know the full cost to taxpayers and where and how the nuclear waste will be stored. What will it cost our taxpayers to manage this nuclear waste, and will Australia be accepting any nuclear waste from other AUKUS countries under the agreement? 14:44 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question—the first question on AUKUS I've got from anyone on the other side. This is a very significant announcement, and we put up the fact that over a period of decades the cost will be between $268 billion and $368 billion. Under that arrangement Australia will be responsible at the end of life, when the nuclear fuel cell is depleted, for the storage of that, and we've said it will be on Defence land. I can confirm that there is no responsibility to store anyone else's waste, a responsibility to store what effectively will be our own, because what the plan is here is for us to build these subs in Adelaide. And once the Australian flag is on a submarine, like once the Australian flag is on a plane or on any other piece of equipment, it is our responsibility and we are in control. That is a part of our national sovereignty that I hope that the member opposite would agree is important. But the issue on the economy is important, to say this: unless our national security is looked after then the impact on our economy, on our society, on everything else falls away, and that is why expenditure and investment in our national sovereignty is so important, is so absolutely vital. And I don't apologise for making a commitment that will see our defence expenditure rise over future years. The truth is, we live in an era of strategic competition in our region. The truth is we live in very uncertain times. And it is important that we invest in our capability. It's also important that we invest in our relationships. My government is doing both. We are investing in our capability, whether it be nuclear powered submarines or whether it be other military equipment that will improve our capability. Next month we will be releasing the Defence Strategic Review that will outline the work of Sir Angus Houston and Stephen Smith. But that is an important priority for us going forward. We make no apologies for that. But at the same time, we're also building positive and constructive relationships to advance peace, security and stability in our region. Arts and Culture 75 14:47 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra My question is to the Minister for the Arts. Why are the national collecting institutions so important to Australia? What funding situation are they currently in? 14:47 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I want to thank the member for Canberra for the question but also for being an absolute champion of the national collecting institutions. Those collecting institutions are there to make sure that the most precious items of the Australian story are kept safe, are kept publicly available and are kept forever. But if you were to look the budget items for what we were left with, there was also a presumption they'd be kept safe, they'd be kept publicly available and they'd be kept until 30 June this year, because that is when the funding runs out in so many ways for the institutions. Additional funding runs out for the Maritime Museum on 30 June, for the Portrait Gallery on 30 June, for the National Museum on 30 June, for the Bundanon trust on 30 June, for the National Film and Sound Archive on 30 June, for the National Gallery of Australia on 30 June, for the National Library on 30 June and for Old Parliament House on 30 June. Those opposite have already started interjecting about what a wonderful job they did with respect to the arts and cultural institutions, so wonderful that there's actually a motion on the Notice Paper at the moment from the member for Lyne saying that their arts funding reached 55 million Australians. So with those sorts of numbers they've got quite a story to tell. Part of telling the Australian story isn't just the institutions themselves but it's about digitising that story and keeping it through the process of Trove. Many members on this side and across the crossbench have contacted me about Trove for some time. Trove is one of the Australian government's most visited online services, with more than 50,000 visits a day, over 1½ thousand digitised newspaper titles and 900 partner organisations. But under their proposal it would be funded until—guess what date—30 June. And at 30 June, the money for the National Library to be able to continue funding Trove was going to finish. It's across all the collecting institutions. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. Mr BURKE DYW Maybe they thought the National Gallery would hold the roof up with Blue Poles. Or maybe it would be like Night at the Museum and all the exhibits would start running around and fixing the building themselves every night. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the National Party is to cease interjecting. Mr BURKE DYW Under their funding, the workers don't have a future and the buildings are allowed to leak and collapse. This is the legacy! And they laugh about— Mr Littleproud 265585 It was your funding, because you had the last budget! The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting immediately. Mr BURKE DYW And the Leader of the National Party is laughing about the concept of the building leaking. Think of the value of what's held in the National Gallery. Think of the concept of being custodians of the national story and think about a budget where everything finished on 30 June. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting so I can hear from the member for Deakin. Pensions and Benefits 76 14:50 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin My question is to the Prime Minister. Since the government abolished the cashless debit card the consequences have been devastating, with police records showing an almost doubling of offences in Ceduna alone. In the gallery today are representatives from the northern Goldfields, who are here to speak to parliamentarians about the devastating effects the government's abolition of the cashless debit card are having on their communities. When will the Prime Minister reverse his reckless decision to abolish the cashless debit card? 14:51 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The minister will be meeting with the delegation who are here today. I understand from the media release from the member opposite that he has raised their meeting here and, of course, people should have the opportunity before this parliament to engage. It is something that my government does. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin has asked his question. Mr ALBANESE R36 We respect people, we listen to people and we went to the election with a clear commitment— Mr Sukkar 242515 You're not listening! Crime has doubled! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin is on a warning, and if he interjects one more time he will leave the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 We also understand that on so many of the issues that have been raised—for example, in the Northern Territory, where there hasn't been a change—there is substantial misinformation about the impact which has occurred there. The truth is that, in so many of these communities, what we're dealing with is intergenerational disadvantage. That is a failure of all governments across the board. The shadow minister might like to think that everything was all okay beforehand, but the truth is that when you sit down and talk with communities, as I have around the country, they will inform you— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Hume. Mr ALBANESE R36 about these issues of intergenerational disadvantage, intergenerational unemployment and despair. This is something that has, certainly, brought me to the view that we need to try to do things better in the future. That's what my government has committed to do. I'd encourage those opposite, particularly the member opposite, to engage in a constructive way with the government to achieve solutions going forward in their interest. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for McEwen will cease interjecting. The member for Fremantle is warned. Nuclear Waste 77 14:53 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean My question is to the Minister for Resources. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring responsible management of the Commonwealth's radioactive waste inventory? 14:54 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank the member for Bean for his question. This government is ensuring responsible management of the Commonwealth's radioactive waste inventory by cleaning up the mess left by the Liberals and the Nationals. As we know, radioactive waste is a population and environmental health issue. The vast majority of Australia's radioactive waste is a by-product of the production of nuclear medicine for the treatment of cancers. It's imperative the government stores and disposes of this material safely to futureproof a vital industry that is of vital importance to health treatments for so many Australians. Those opposite agreed with this. It was a bipartisan position. They introduced a bill to create an agency to manage this waste, citing its national importance—and I agree. What they failed to do was fund it. That's right; those opposite sought to create an agency that would have the care of radioactive waste—which, as we know, lasts for thousands of years—yet they let the funding fall off a cliff. There is not a penny in their budget for ongoing operations for the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency. I want to be clear: we support the ARWA, the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency, but it needs funding to continue its work—something those opposite neglected. I understand the two ministers for resources of the former government had a lot on their plates. Of course they found the time to create a massive grants program for where the site is—and some of those, I must admit, are excellent projects. But delivering funding for the ongoing management of our radioactive waste design and disposal pathways, which we know takes time—'Absolutely no way, we will not do that,' is what those opposite did. Because of the budget mess left by the Liberals and Nationals, later this year the money for the agency within my department does run out. I'm asked how we're going to fix it. Well, we're going to find the extra funding that's needed that they declined to do because they are irresponsible with the finances of the budget of this nation. Almost every Australian will benefit from nuclear medicine in their lifetime. Everyone in this place will know someone who has benefited from or needed cancer treatment. They can understand why this material exists and why we need to safely store it, especially after its lifesaving medical applications. So why wouldn't you fund it? Why would you stop funding such an important program? The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals! Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 I am asked—and they keep heckling me and interjecting—about the funding. These are the people who suggested we use nuclear power, the most expensive form of energy known to the world, yet would not continue funding for the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom will cease interjecting. Ms 102376 You are hypocrites. It's unbelievable what you say. We support ARWA and we will make sure it's funded, unlike those opposite. Student Debt 77 14:57 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane My question is to the Treasurer. Student HELP debt hangs over entire generations, adding more financial stress to people already struggling through the cost-of-living crisis. If the government can afford the $254 billion stage 3 tax cuts and to spend $368 billion on nuclear submarines, why can't we afford to wipe student debt? 14:57 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the member for his question. We understand that students and young Australians are under pressure at a time when we've got inflation which is higher than we'd like and will hang around for longer than we'd like. Our job is to try and strike the right balance between the most responsible budget possible and doing what we can to ease the pressures on people. We've got a system, as the honourable member knows and all honourable members here know, where people repay their student debt when they reach a certain income level; they pay a portion of their university costs. We think that that is a good system because it means people don't start to repay that debt until they're beginning to earn what is approaching a decent wage. Obviously we are aware that in the last few weeks there have been stories about the pressures on students in particular, reports about students and former students under pressure. We take that very seriously. When it comes to the broader pressures on the budget, we've been upfront about those as well. We need to manage those carefully in the context of high inflation—which is impacting disproportionately, including on the people on whose behalf he asks that question. One of the other things which is really important is to make sure that we are building more social and affordable housing for people. That's why it is so disappointing that, when the Greens were given the opportunity to vote in this place for more social and affordable housing, they scurried for the door. They ran for the door. That was disappointing because you would have thought that, for a party that talks so much about younger people and about affordable housing, the least they could have done is support the minister's efforts to put in place this $10 billion fund to build more social and affordable homes for people. That's so we can get the supply up, so we can build more homes and so we can begin to take some of the pressure off people. So it was disappointing. On the specifics of the question about pressures on students and former students in particular, I think I've answered those. The least the Greens could do, when the government puts forward a sensible, important policy to make life a bit easier for those people, is to vote for it. Health Care 78 15:00 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Why is it important to provide continuity of funding for vital health programs? 15:00 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Tangney for his question. I know just how hard he works in his electorate of Perth to deliver better healthcare services. Earlier in question time today, I talked about how hard it has become to see a doctor in Australia today and how expensive it is also. For the first time in the history of Medicare, almost 40 years, the average gap fee for a standard GP consult is now actually more than the Medicare rebate itself. That didn't happen by chance. It's the product of deliberate decisions taken by the former government over nine long years—in particular, as I said earlier in question time, those taken by the Leader of the Opposition when he was health minister back in 2014. But beyond those obvious cuts, those published cuts and the neglect to Medicare, there is a long list of cuts to health programs buried in fine print in the Morrison government's final budget—dozens and dozens of ongoing health programs that the former government refused to fund beyond 30 June this year. Australians have learned over the last three years just how important electronic or digital health is today. The centrepiece, the mothership piece, of Australia's digital health system, allowing electronic prescribing, telehealth and so much more, is My Health Record—the personally controlled electronic health record of 23 million Australians. Although I know it is hard to believe, in the Morrison government's last budget no money at all was put aside to keep the My Health Record system going. Not a single dollar was extended to— Mr Littleproud 265585 What did you do in October? The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals is warned. If he interjects one more time he will leave the chamber. Mr BUTLER HWK fund the My Health Record beyond 30 June. They were switching off the electronic health records of 23 million Australians in just 14 weeks time and expecting Australia's doctors, nurses and health professionals to dust off their fax machines because, apparently, they were putting digital health behind us. Likewise, not a single dollar was put into the Morrison government budget last year to fund adult public dental health services. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause and I will hear from the member for Page on a point of order. Mr Hogan 218019 Mr Speaker, it's on relevance. The ministers opposite continue to refer to the previous government when they're asked questions. It's a habit of theirs and it defies your ruling. The SPEAKER 53517 I appreciate the feedback from the member, but the question was about why it is important to provide continuity of funding for vital health programs. The minister is being relevant. He is coming to the conclusion of his answer. I will remind him to remain relevant at all times to the question. Mr BUTLER HWK I am talking about ongoing programs usually funded for the full four years of a budget's forward estimates—in this case, the adult public dental scheme, which delivers vital dental services to 180,000 pensioners and lower income Australians every single year. It is not clear to me whether the former government deliberately intended to cut these services or just wanted to make their last budget look better. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, as a member of the budget committee, the ERC, can enlighten us on which one it was. (Time expired) Voice to Parliament 78 15:04 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor governments have routinely released Solicitor-General advice when convenient to do so, on at least three occasions. Why won't the government release the Solicitor-General's advice about the Voice to Parliament? Why does the government release advice only when it's politically convenient to do so? 15:04 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The government doesn't release cabinet papers; nor did the government he sat in for nine years release cabinet documents—not once. I assume this is talking about the Voice to Parliament, although the question didn't refer to that. I would encourage the shadow Attorney-General to continue to engage with the government. One of the things he knows, because he helped to write some of the words that are now going to be put before the Australian people when he was a part of the process more than a decade ago, the shadow Attorney-General—others mightn't, but he knows full well—is how disingenuous some of the comments are that have been made. The shadow Attorney-General— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Braddon is interjecting in his wrong seat and will cease interjecting or will leave the chamber. The member for Wannon, on a point of order? Mr Tehan 210911 Just on relevance, it was a very direct question on the Solicitor-General's advice. Would you please refer why you won't release the Solicitor-General's— An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for— Mr Pearce 282306 It wasn't me. The SPEAKER 53517 Whoever it is can cease. Mr ALBANESE R36 I answered the question very directly with my first answer, which was for the same reason that the former government didn't release documentation that was specifically provided for the cabinet over their nine years in government. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The members for Groom and Bowman are now both warned. If they interject one more time, they will leave the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 Now, the shadow Attorney-General has actually been involved in a deeper way in this process for longer than I have been, and that is why he knows full well that some of the campaigning that has attempted to draw questions where they simply are not there is disingenuous, going forward. Noel Pearson nailed the shadow Attorney-General in his article in the Australian of a few weeks ago. I'd say to the shadow Attorney-General he was right then: he should have the courage to stand up for the principled position he has historically taken on this issue and to support it when it's put to the Australian people later this year. Mr ALBANESE R36 The Leader of the Opposition has broken his vow of silence today through interjecting about something. The shadow Attorney-General knows, because it was outlined historically, how this process occurred in that article by Noel Pearson just a couple of weeks ago in the Weekend Australian. To the credit of the Weekend Australian they got it right, and I'd ask the member to reflect on that. (Time expired) Biosecurity 79 15:08 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: why is funding certainty so important for essential government functions like biosecurity, and what happens when governments don't plan for the future by providing this certainty? 15:09 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Solomon for his question. He knows, particularly being from the Northern Territory, just how important our biosecurity system is for agriculture in the Territory. You'd think, frankly, it would go without saying that funding certainty for essential government functions like biosecurity is vital. Certainly we on this side of the House absolutely understand how vital that is. We understand the need to protect the Australian community from biosecurity threats that could wipe out our agricultural industry. This is a multibillion dollar industry that we rely on for our export trade. Five point seven trillion dollars of environmental asset are, of course, incredibly important to this country and 1.6 million jobs across Australia depend on effective biosecurity measures. Everyone in Australia shares the benefit of a strong biosecurity system and we all have an incredibly valuable role to play in supporting it. That is why it is so important that our biosecurity system has funding certainty. Unfortunately, what we now know is that the former coalition government, squandering nine long years, left our biosecurity system without the funding certainty it needed to do its job. I'm sure that everyone, including every farmer in this country, would be very surprised to learn that embedded in the Liberal's last budget was a drop in funding for biosecurity of 20 per cent on 30 June this year and another 25 per cent drop on 30 June next year. That is the legacy of biosecurity that the previous government has left us. The funding has fallen off a cliff. Trying to make sure that in an election year their budget looked okay, they failed to properly fund biosecurity going forward. We know that, of course, the previous government refused to do the hard work to actually fund it—as if the people of northern Australia don't need protecting from foot-and-mouth disease or lumpy skin disease, as if our prawn farmers don't need protecting from white spot disease, as if our horticultural industry doesn't need protecting from varroa mite, as if Australians aren't going to need detector dogs at our airports to keep out exotic pests and disease. On the National Party's watch the number of detector dogs at our airports dropped from 80 in 2012 to only 39 in 2019. That is what happened under their watch, so concerned were they about biosecurity. Of course, after an irresponsible and reckless coalition government we have now been left to clean up your mess. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 80 15:12 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. The proposed Voice to parliament will have a constitutional function of making representations to the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Reserve Bank of Australia is part of the executive government and interest rates affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, as they do all Australians. Will the Reserve Bank need to do consult with the Voice before making a decision on interest rates? Government membe rs interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right will cease interjecting. The minister will resume her seat for a moment. The member for Bruce will cease interjecting immediately. I want to hear the question again. The member will state his question in silence. If anyone interjects they will be leaving the chamber immediately. 15:13 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question as to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. The proposed Voice to parliament will have a constitutional function of making representations to the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Minister, the Reserve Bank of Australia is part of the executive government and interest rates affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, as they do all Australians. Will the Reserve Bank need to consult with the Voice before making a decision on interest rates? The SPEAKER 53517 If the member for Wannon and the minister for environment continue to interject they will be warned. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Wannon is warned. When I say I am warning you if you are going to interject and you keep interjecting you will be warned. I think it is pretty straightforward. 15:14 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton The last time I looked the Reserve Bank of Australia was independent. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The house will come to order. Public Sector Governance 80 15:15 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What were the findings of the Watt review about probity and transparency in awarding government contracts? 15:15 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong A report by Dr Ian Watt AC and a taskforce were released on Friday. This was a report that was commissioned by the heads of Services Australia and the NDIA on or around 24 November last year to investigate matters which had been uncovered in the media about contracts awarded in the procurement process to an organisation called Synergy 360. The report found that of the 95 procurements that were in the scope of the review, 19 were flagged for further investigation due to inconsistency with Commonwealth procurement rules. Five of these were within the NDIA and 14 were within Services Australia. The total value of the 19 procurements requiring further investigation is approximately $374 million. Many procurements, according to the report, lacked appropriate conflict-of-interest documentation, there were inaccessible records, procurements had been poorly managed, and there were actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest. However, this morning, in light of the report by Dr Watt, there were disturbing reports in the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald concerning decisions to award a government contract to Milo Consulting, also known as Synergy 360. Synergy 360 is partly owned by Mr David Milo, who is a friend of the member for Fadden. Another part owner of Synergy 360 is a Mr John Margerison, who is the long-time chairman of the member for Fadden's fundraising body, the Fadden Forum. The reporting notes that the public servant who oversaw this procurement had a close relationship with one of the owners of Synergy 360, and Services Australia cannot identify any record of disclosure. The contract that was the focus of today's reporting ran from 23 May 2019 to 28 June. It began at just under $10,000 and moved up to $30,000. This figure is significant because anything above $10,000 would have needed to have been reported in AusTender. There was another follow-up Milo Consulting contract awarded to the value of $79,585. Again, this is a significant number. Procurements entered into for over $80,000 are considered complex and would need to go to market. The scope of this work was to advise the Department of Human Services on how to reform its identity verification systems. At times before and after the Milo Consulting contract within the department, Milo Consulting was informing Infosys and Unisys—bidders for Department of Human Services contracts—on how to do so. There are emails, in December following the issue of the Milo Consulting contracts, reporting that there were opportunities to partner with Infosys to submit a joint bid response. In October 2019, there were emails about the American giant Unisys, saying that Milo Consulting had found an opportunity. I wish that the Watt review had come back clean. We've now got 19 contracts that warrant deeper and further investigations. I think it's well past time for the member for Fadden to explain these conflicts and the poor procurement practices on his watch. (Time expired) Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, it being 3:20— Mr Albanese R36 Put the member for Banks in the first 22 questions. The Leader of the Opposition didn't get one—you could have had his. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS 81 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 81 15:19 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr RAE 300122 I do, most grievously. I've received comments from the media and in the chamber concerning an interjection I made in debate earlier today during a speech by the honourable member for Moncrieff. The comments allege that the interjection was of a personal nature against the member. This is absolutely not correct. I accept that interjections are always disorderly, and I apologise to the member for being disruptive during her speech. My comments made absolutely no reference to the member herself. The comments that have been attributed by some to me were not made by me and would never be made my me. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 81 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Standards 81 15:20 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Earlier today in the chamber the member for Hawke interjected with statements about my own family life, which were unacceptable, especially post the Jenkins report. I wrote to you regarding the incident. I accept that the member has stood up and apologised for something that was an interjection, but I place a record that it was not an interjection; it was a slur on my family. I think it should be outlined that that was unacceptable. The SPEAKER 53517 Just to assist the member, are you asking for an update on the correspondence that you wrote to me? Ms BELL 282981 I asked the Speaker for an update on the correspondence. 15:21 The SPEAKER 53517 I thank you for your question. I acknowledge your letter and did discuss this with you before question time. I can confirm I have reviewed the footage. I've spoken to the deputy speaker who was in the chair at the time. I understand now that the member for Hawke has unreservedly apologised for interjecting. It is not clear what that interjection was during the footage that I have reviewed, but I want to remind all members on the importance of respectful debate in the chamber at all times. I thank the member for raising it with me, but I want to reiterate to all members: if you believe you have been spoken about in a way that is disrespectful or indeed if any member believes another member has been spoken about in a way that is disrespectful, the time to raise that issue is when it happens. At the discretion of the chair, action may be taken at the time when a comment is brought to the attention of the chair. I remind all members of that process. STATEMENTS 81 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 81 15:22 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ROBERT HWT Yes, most egregiously, once again, Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr ROBERT HWT notwithstanding the comments from the member for Maribyrnong today, doubling down on his comments from 24 November, when he implied that my conduct as the former minister with procurement was corrupt. He was aided and abetted by the former Fairfax papers. On 1 December, the minister also advised the House that he had appointed the eminent Dr Ian Watt to review those contracts to ensure there was no real or perceived conflict of interest. The minister said at the time: It will provide important independence as we seek to get to the bottom of the matter of whether there was any misconduct. Dr Watt reported on 6 March— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I'm sorry to interrupt the member for Fadden. You will get the call again. Members will resume their seats. I cannot see what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is doing or saying. I ask her to resume her seat. If she has an issue to raise, I will hear from her. We cannot have interactions going on in the chamber while I am hearing a personal explanation from the member for Fadden. Members, if you wish to remain in the chamber, do so quietly and in your places. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E Don't you talk, sucker! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for McEwen will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for McEwen then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I will hear from individuals when they get the call, otherwise members will just remain in their places, quietly. Mr ROBERT HWT The member for Maribyrnong appointed Dr Watt as the eminent Australian to 'provide important independence to get to bottom of the matter of whether there was any misconduct'. They were the minister's words in the House on 1 December. Dr Watt was appointed, and he reported to the minister on the 6 March, three weeks ago. The government has now released a report, through the Sydney Morning Herald, on the weekend. The report says at page 4: 'The taskforce did not find clear misconduct within the 95 procurement processes.' After four months—at what cost we will find out in estimates—and multiple interviews working through multiple departments, Dr Watt has found zero misconduct with 95 procurements. That's where the matter should rest. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 82 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Audit report No. 16 of 2022-23 82 15:25 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 16 of 2022-23 entitled: Management of migration to Australia—Family Migration Program: Department of Home Affairs. Document made a parliamentary paper. COMMITTEES 82 COMMITTEES Privileges and Members' Interests Committee, Electoral Matters Joint Committee 82 Membership 82 15:26 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received advice from the chief opposition whip nominating a member to be a member of certain committees. 15:26 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That Mr Chester be appointed a member of the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests and the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Question agreed to. BILLS 82 BILLS Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 82

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023

Second Reading 82 15:26 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Before the 90-second statements, I moved the amendment circulated in my name. In those amendments, I made clear that while not declining to give this bill a second reading, it sadly needs to be seen in the context of the absolute disaster that has fallen on vulnerable communities throughout this country as a result of the ideological position that this government has taken with respect to abolishing the compulsory cashless debit card. We have seen clear, irrefutable evidence, just as recently as on the weekend. South Australian police statistics show that since the compulsory nature of the cashless debit card was abolished by the Labor government in Ceduna, crime has doubled. Crime has doubled in that time. In a debate not too dissimilar to this last year, when the government applauded themselves when they abolished the cashless debit card, we on this side were very clear with the government that the human misery that would follow the abolition of the cashless debit card was not theoretical; it wasn't asked making a political point. I pleaded with the government: 'Do not do this. If you do this, if you abolish the cashless debit card, as sure as night follows day, we will see alcohol and drugs flood into vulnerable communities.' You don't have to be Einstein or have a PhD and you don't need to sit at the dinner parties that those members of the government sit at with their high-minded discussions to know that if you allow vulnerable communities to be flooded with more drugs and alcohol, the dysfunction in those communities will go through the roof. You don't need to be a genius to work that out, and yet the government went ahead with it anyway. Now we see the statistics don't lie. The South Australia Police statistics show crime out of Ceduna has doubled. I was in a meeting this morning, in fact, with community members and community leaders from the Goldfields and Kimberley regions of Western Australia, which had compulsory cashless debit cards previously. We had the member for Grey there as well and all of the members that represent cashless debit card sites. It was story after story that just confirmed the statistics—that towns, such as with Ceduna, that had seen a resurgence in tourism and had been seeing great harmony since the cashless debit card was put in place are now seeing that absolutely degenerate. I always make this point in this debate. This is the heartbreaking thing. It really is. I'm not known in this House for my sentimentality. I'm not known for my sentimentality generally. But I must say that the things that do tug on my heartstrings as a father and as a husband are when I see the outcomes of this decision of the government leading to women and children suffering. I always make this point. I think I am a bit more generous to the government than they are to the opposition. I always make the point that no-one in this chamber wants to see people suffer. So it beggars belief that the government would put in place a policy that they know with certainty will lead to women and children suffering. More drugs and alcohol flooding into these communities hurts women and children the most. Today, in our meeting with community leaders, including Indigenous leaders, from the Goldfields region of Western Australia, one remarked on how now they are seeing children coming to school again having not eaten, with there being no food at home. They're relying more and more on the school system to try and help them through, whereas when the cashless debit card was in place a huge improvement had been seen because welfare recipients who were subject to the cashless debit card in a compulsory fashion were forced to use 80 per cent of their welfare for staple, everyday goods you would find at a supermarket. They could not go and spend it at the bottle shop. They couldn't go and spend it at the pub. Now we see that money being spent at the bottle shop and the pub. How could anyone in good conscience go ahead with that policy? If you've got a brain, you would know that more drugs and alcohol are going to have that consequence. We now see the human misery and the suffering that has resulted from it. This is a very narrow bill in that it helps transition people from old BasicsCard technology, effectively—those who were on the compulsory BasicsCard in the Northern Territory—to the updated technology that was the CDC technology. Those opposite criticised the former government for the cashless debit card and yet now are utilising the cashless debit card technology that we had in place on a compulsory basis. They have now turned it voluntary. They are now transitioning everybody in the Northern Territory on the BasicsCard to that cashless debit card, the technology of which we developed. On the one hand, we are so utterly appalled by what the government has done here on the CDC that at first inclination we would say: 'Don't support anything the government does in this space. They have so tarnished themselves, they have so tarnished these communities, that we shouldn't support anything they do in the cashless debit card space.' But, if we were to take that position, we would deny people on the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory the better functionality of the cashless debit card, which was the card that we had in place and was the card that the opposition at the time criticised and said was terrible. Now they're using our technology in the transition for those who are on compulsory income management in the Northern Territory. Above my deep disgust, to be frank, of what the government has done here, we will place their interests above that deep disgust that we feel and, subject to my amendments, which I've circulated, we will not deny those recipients of the updated card. It's worth mentioning a couple of things in relation to the so-called SmartCard. The SmartCard is a rebranded cashless debit card—that's all it is. All you have to do is look at some of the providers of those cards and what they've said about the updated card, a card which has cost $217 million. As the Traditional Credit Union explains to its cardholders, 'The differences between the CDC and the new SmartCard are'—hold your breath—'its colour and its name.' That's what $217 million gets you under a Labor government—a change in colour and a change in name. Why would you do that? Why would you spend $217 million to take the technology that was already there and that was developed by the coalition, rename it something else—the SmartCard—but then only change the colour and the name? Dr Aly 13050 You said it had better functionally and that's why you're supporting it. Mr SUKKAR 242515 I say to the minister: keep up. You've lost track. Dr Aly 13050 No, I haven't. Mr SUKKAR 242515 I take the interjection. The CDC, which was in place and criticised by the government when in opposition, is now the technology which underpins the so-called SmartCard, which has cost $217 million in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Someone has done pretty well out of it. Some consultant has made a whole lot of money out of renaming it from the cashless debit card to the SmartCard and updating the colour. Let's see what that contract looks like. But, notwithstanding that absolutely appalling disregard for taxpayers' money, at least those who are on the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory will now get access to the updated technology that the coalition developed with the cashless debit card. In that respect, we will not stand in the way. What we also won't do is speak down to these communities. The Prime Minister was flailing around for an answer in question time. Detail is not his strong suit, as we all know—he's the person who couldn't name the cash rate or the unemployment rate on the first day of the election, which I think says it all about his ability to master detail. What we won't do is speak down to those communities. You've got a delegation of people from cashless debit card sites—community leaders and Indigenous leaders—saying: 'Reinstate the cashless debit card. We are suffering the consequences of this decision from the government. Please reinstate the card and, at the very least, help us deal with the dysfunction, the violence and the alcoholism that we're now seeing.' Sadly, what we've seen from those opposite—from the minister, from the assistant minister, from the Prime Minister—is this talking down to communities rather than listening to them. At a time when we're talking a lot about the Voice and people's voices, you've got to listen to people's voices in these communities who are suffering. So I was very disappointed when I saw speaking to the ABC Goldfields on 15 February the assistant social services minister basically say communities were being disingenuous in their criticism of the government repealing the CDC. I sincerely hope the government has walked those statements back. I wouldn't want to be out there as a minister criticising those who are on the front line, mopping up the mess that's been created by this government—and I mean literally mopping up. I mean carrying drunken people who are in the street and helping them find safety. I mean the emergency services and the police who are there to mop up the increased violence, including violence against women and children—things that we are seeing borne out in official South Australian police statistics. These aren't my statistics. Sure, when the government abolished the cashless debit card, I said in this chamber that human misery would follow. But the government had at least the argument to say, 'Well, that's just your assertion, Shadow Minister. You don't know that for sure.' Even though, again, you don't need to be a particular genius to work out that more drugs and alcohol in vulnerable communities will lead to that, they at least had that very flimsy ground to stand on. Now they have none of that, because it is not my assertion anymore; these are the official police statistics. Crime has doubled in Ceduna—what does the government not understand about that—since you abolished the cashless debit card. It's not up by 10 per cent, not up by 20 per cent; it has doubled. Again I appeal to the good people in the Labor Party. There's an off-ramp you here, and I think the Australian people give you more credit, even as a government, when you admit mistakes. Walk back from this catastrophic error. As I said to the social services minister across the chamber, and I'll say it on Hansard, if the government reverses its decision to abolish the compulsory cashless debit card in each of the sites, I will be the first person to march into this chamber, seek the call from the Speaker and unreservedly congratulate the social services minister, the assistant minister and the Prime Minister on at least admitting they made a catastrophic error. Every government makes mistakes; the test of a good government is when you recognise the cost of that mistake is too great. I wouldn't want to be going home at night and putting my head on the pillow knowing a decision taken by this government is leading to more crime, including violent crime, in vulnerable communities. I can't say it strongly enough: this pig-headedness, letting politics get in the way, is quite frankly the worst thing about politics in this country—this pig-headed decision to just ride it out, 'Don't worry about people that suffer along the way, because we don't want to suffer the embarrassment or indignity of admitting we made the wrong call.' Well, I can commit today that I will not come to this dispatch box to crow, and say: 'You should have listened to us from day one; we had it right. You didn't need to be a genius to know that more drugs and alcohol into these communities were going to increase crime and make women and children suffer more.' I won't say any of that. I will, unreservedly, congratulate the government for admitting its error. I think we would all walk away from here feeling: 'Do you know what? There are a few women and children who are a bit safer tonight because there are fewer drugs and less alcohol in these vulnerable communities.' Let's be frank: that's what we're talking about today. There is a range of other problems here. The government doesn't know, or just won't say—we're not really sure—when the transition will commence. So we won't stand in the way of this bill; our support will be the thing that allows it to pass the parliament. But, to be frank, I don't think it's likely that the crossbench, and certainly the Greens political party, will support this. So our support is crucial to ensure that this happens, and I think that the least the government could do is commit to when it will commence. Last year, the government's regulation impact statement said that current income management participants will continue to use the BasicsCard and move to a new card with enhanced functionality from 1 July 2023. Has the minister repeated this time line since, I might ask the House? No, the minister has not repeated that declaration, that this will take place from 1 July 2023. In fact, the EM to the bill omits any firm time lines altogether. Instead, without the aid of a new regulatory impact statement, members are being to asked to vote on a vague commencement date outlined in the bill's EM. The minister has not bothered to tell the parliament—much less some of the most vulnerable Australians who will be affected by this decision—when the transition will commence. The minister will need to explain—or the assistant minister, as the case may be—why 1 July 2023 is no longer the government's stated transition date. When did the government know that this would no longer be the transition date? Why are they treating Australians with contempt by not even outlining what the transition date will be? They took this abominable policy to an election and they've now been in government for 10 months. They committed to a 1 July 2023 transition date and yet we don't know anything about that. I will restate our position. I have moved the amendment circulated in my name. It won't stop the progress of this bill, as far as the opposition is concerned. I want to hear from the minister who speaks on this bill about when the transition date will be. Whilst we aren't going to stand in the way of the bill, the least the government could do is outline to us, if not to the Australian people, when the transition date is—not a fluffy time line and not a range, but a date. When will this transition occur, particularly for those who are on the BasicsCard, who will be able to get the increased functionality of the coalition's cashless debit card, which is now being rebranded at a cost of $217 million? It's getting a new colour and a new name, rebranded by the government. Finally, I will say again: I appeal to the government: it's not too late to reinstate the compulsory nature of the CDC in each of the sites where it was working exceptionally well. If they don't believe me, believe the community representatives from the Goldfields, or the Kimberley, or Ceduna or other parts of Australia who have seen a tsunami of drugs and alcohol causing huge crime problems in their communities. And it's not some sort of fluffy time frame. Since the card was abolished, we've seen crime statistics double; we've seen the number of crimes double. We talk about crime—I use the word 'crime; I'm as guilty as anyone of just using the anodyne word 'crime'. Well, what is crime? What are the crimes we're talking about? We're talking about public disorder, crimes against property, whether that be a broken window or a fight in the street. But we're also talking about horrific, violent crime. We're also talking about domestic violence, quite frankly. We're talking about neglect of children. And, if these things don't tug the heartstrings of the hardest person in this House, I don't know what can. So I appeal to the government one last time. We will facilitate in any way, shape or form the government reinstating the compulsory cashless debit card to help the communities who are now seeing a tsunami of crime and of drugs and alcohol into their towns, who are grappling with that. We will facilitate in any way you admitting that you've made a catastrophic error, and I will commend you for walking it back. I will commend you for admitting that error. I think, in the end, politically, Australians will give credit to a government who admits they have made a catastrophic decision that has led to a disaster for these communities, and particularly a disaster for women and children. So I will restate it: we won't be opposing this bill. We won't be opposing particularly people in the Northern Territory who are on compulsory income management, the BasicsCard, from getting access to the better functionality that the government has adopted and rebranded for these purposes. But it in no way means that we walk away from our vehement opposition of this ideological and destructive decision by the government to abolish the compulsory cashless debit card. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is the amendment seconded? 15:52 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I second the amendment. The Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill is a consequential bill. Taken together with the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill, which the House considered last year, this bill directly affects the livelihoods and wellbeing of thousands of Australians. This bill unwinds compulsory income management, a policy regime which has been in place over successive governments since 2007. The government has described its new policy as 'enhanced income management'. In reality this is almost certainly nothing more than a euphemism for abandoning the policy. This bill effectively abolishes the BasicsCard, to be replaced by the government's SmartCard, a near carbon copy of the coalition's successful cashless debit card. Although, as the shadow minister for social services has eloquently informed the House, the government, while admitting that it simply involves a renaming, seems very keen to describe it as a smart card and not as a cashless debit card. It's a deeply confusing position that the government has taken on this particular issue. I want to start by highlighting to the House the lessons which are available in plain sight to all of us from this government's ill-judged abolition of the cashless debit card last year. The parliamentary debate on the legislation which abolished the cashless debit card was informed by powerful speeches from a range of members on this side of the House, including the member for Durack, the member for O'Connor, the member for Grey and the member for Hinkler, all of whom spoke of the experiences in their own communities of the positive and profound impact which the cashless debit card had in those communities during the time that it was in operation and, subsequently, the very serious consequences as a result of the cashless debit card being abolished. Last month the former mayor of Ceduna, in South Australia, Allan Suter, who served as mayor of that community from 2006 to 2018—and, may I say, I had a chance to visit that community during my earlier tenure as the minister for social services—said that his town was, following the abolition of the cashless debit card, experiencing a rise in rough sleeping. He noted there were more children not attending school. He was aware of more people presenting to hospital suffering from alcohol fuelled family and domestic violence. In Western Australia's remote Goldfields region, the local mayors have spoken up strongly about the deteriorating conditions in that part of Australia. Indeed, they have taken the trouble to travel all the way to Canberra today to speak with parliamentarians about the very serious consequences of the government's ill-judged decision to abolish the cashless debit card. Leonora shire president Peter Craig said: … we've got all the cash back on the streets, there's an increase in people going to hospital … Coolgardie shire president Malcolm Cullen offered this assessment: Compared to where we were four years earlier, the children were behaving better and were being looked after better. Those mayors, along with Kalgoorlie-Boulder shire president John Bowler and Laverton shire president Patrick Hill, called for the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Services to visit their communities. Around the time of the Prime Minister's visit to Port Hedland, those mayors invited the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Government Services to spend time in their communities to see firsthand the impact of the abolition of the cashless debit card. I endorse very strongly the call they have made. In my own experience as social services minister—visiting towns in the Goldfields region along with the member for O'Connor, and having the opportunity to visit Ceduna with the member for Grey, and, indeed, the opportunity to join the member for Hinkler on a visit to towns in his electorate—I have seen directly the benefits of the cashless debit card demonstrated, and I have heard from community leaders. I was struck particularly by the quiet conviction of senior Aboriginal women and men community leaders speaking about the benefits they had experienced in their communities from the operation of the cashless debit card. I want to commend all the community leaders I've referred to for their courage in speaking up on behalf of the people they represent. I also want to commend the opposition leader, who has visited the Goldfields region, along with the member for O'Connor; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has visited Geraldton; and the Leader of the Nationals, who has visited Carnarvon. On this side of the House we have been determined to gather the policy evidence about the effect of the cashless debit card. Of course, we draw on that experience in offering our perspective on the actions the government is now putting before the House in relation to the rebranding of the BasicsCard as a smart card. Conversely, I'm sorry to say, we've seen from the Minister for Social Services, the Minister for Government Services and the Minister for Indigenous Australians a determination to avoid an engagement with the facts. For example, we've raised these matters in question time. The member for Durack asked about a rise in antisocial behaviour in Kununurra. This was explained away by the Minister for Social Services as a consequence of flooding. When asked the following week by the member for O'Connor why there had been a spike in alcohol related social harm in his electorate—no flooding in sight in that electorate, no flooding here, but I'll tell you one common element: the removal of the cashless debit card in both locations—what was the response the Minister for Social Services gave to that point? It was that she accused him of peddling misinformation. It's the side of the House, contrary to peddling misinformation, that has been rigorously going to the affected communities and speaking with local residents to understand what the evidence actually says. Let me turn to the consultation and design process that has occurred in relation to the move from the BasicsCard to the SmartCard. I've no doubt they spoke extensively to high-powered branding consultants who said: 'We need to think about the name. The BasicsCard is not very 2020s. We can do much better than that. How about the SmartCard, Minister?' 'I love that. The SmartCard—that's wonderful.' It would be amusing if it were not so serious in terms of what is at stake for the tens of thousands of Australians whose lives are being upturned by this government's prioritisation of dancing to the tune of activists in metropolitan Australia rather than meeting the genuine needs of Australians all around our country. In relation to the bill abolishing the cashless debit card, the government's regulation impact statement had this to say: Current IM participants will continue to use the BasicsCard and move to a new card with enhanced functionality from 1 July 2023. That was the last time that time line has ever been referred to. That time line has been sent to the naughty corner, not to be heard again. The explanatory memorandum for the bill presently before the House omits any mention at all of firm time lines. The bill simply says that the transition would occur 'on a commencement date as outlined in the explanatory memorandum.' The Minister for Social Services has not informed this parliament, nor those vulnerable Australians on income management, when the transition will commence. So we are left with a very obvious question: why is the government no longer committed to a starting date of 1 July 2023? These matters were examined in the Senate estimates process. Departmental officials were asked what lessons had been learned from the transition in relation to the cashless debit card. They boldly ventured to suggest there had been 'some impact'. A study of the cashless debit card transition by the University of Adelaide, commissioned by the government, has only just commenced. Certainly, the terms of reference for that study have not been shared publicly, nor do we know the findings from the targeted transition interviews that Services Australia conducted. All of this is basic information which should be made available to all members and senators. It is equally disturbing that the government is pushing through this bill without allowing a formal inquiry and consultation process to be concluded. The Community Affairs Legislation Committee has given stakeholders only 22 days to make a submission in relation to the very important matters upon which this bill bears and which will affect the lives of thousands of Australians. There is one other question which simply cries out to be asked: why has the Minister for Government Services gone missing from this important public policy debate? He failed to make a contribution to the debate last year on the repeal of the cashless debit card, nor does his name appear on the list of speakers in relation to this bill. I hope to be proven wrong. I hope that I am drawing adverse inferences, and the Minister for Government Services is going to surprise on the upside. That's what I hope, but I fear my hope is only a faint one. The simple fact is that the job of managing this enormous agency, the front line of service delivery to hundreds of thousands of Australians, is something that appears to engage the minister rather less than playing politics in the way that he seems to show great enthusiasm for. That's a matter for regret, because the lives of many Australians depend upon the efficiency with which Services Australia operates, and certainly the lives of many Australians will be affected by the success or failure of this transition. The transition from the cashless debit card to the SmartCard involved around 17,400 people. Just to be clear, people only transitioned if they chose to, whereas in this instance the government is telling us that people will be transitioned from the BasicsCard to the SmartCard. That will impact around 24,800 participants, some of whom are on income management because they've been determined, for example, to be neglectful or abusive of their own children. It's very important that this transition is managed effectively. It's very important that we don't have administrative difficulties that confound the operation of this transition. Based upon the lack of engagement by the Minister for Government Services in the previous bill that went through this place, and the fact that the Minister for Government Services is not even listed, at this stage, to speak in relation to this bill, it is fair to say that it does not appear to be a matter which is consuming a great deal of his time and attention. There are possibly some reasons for this, which have been revealed in public. The Sydney Morning Herald, on 5 March, revealed that Services Australia had advised the Minister for Social Services that meeting the government's transition deadline would be highly problematic because of 'IT issues'. The opposition has called on the Minister for Government Services to urgently explain what advice his agency has provided to the Minister for Social Services and whether he, himself, holds concerns about the capacity of his agency to deliver. Are these 'IT issues' the reason why the 1 July 2023 commencement date has vanished into thin air again? To what extent has the public debate been informed by a detailed contribution from the Minister for Government Services on this issue? I'm sorry to tell the House that there has been no contribution from the Minister for Government Services on this issue. It's interesting that the government's own Office of Impact Analysis has assessed the regulation impact statement, in relation to establishing so-called enhanced income management, as not constituting good practice, which is very far from reassuring, it must be said. Indeed, the Office of Impact Analysis said that the government's transition plan required more detail. We now know that $150 million has been allocated to Services Australia to manage this program, but, as the Office of Impact Analysis has observed, the government has still not clarified 'whether Services Australia has the trained resources ready to deliver this program'. There will be some who will say I am showing a lack of confidence in the Minister for Government Services and that, despite all appearances to the contrary, he actually has a forensic interest in the detail and a passionate commitment to the delivery of services—nothing excites him more than getting under the bonnet, under the hood, of a major IT transformation—and he's going to be terrier-like on this, going after detail after detail. I'd love to believe that's the case, but, frankly, I'm very sceptical. This is a mess, and the sad thing is that the lives of tens of thousands of Australians are going to be affected as a consequence of this government's mismanagement. 16:07 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I am pleased to be speaking on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023. This bill reflects the Albanese Labor government's commitment to reform income management. Last year our government passed legislation to repeal the cashless debit card, or CDC, program. And that delivered on our election commitment to make sure we got rid of the cashless debit card. We see and hear today that those opposite are absolutely committed to bringing that back, which would be very distressing for many in those communities who, for many years, advocated and campaigned to have the cashless debit card removed because of the impact on so many communities. We certainly heard from hundreds and hundreds of people whose lives had been severely impacted by the card, and I'm sure all of those people will be absolutely aghast to hear that the Liberals and Nationals are committed to bringing back the cashless debit card, as they've repeatedly claimed today. The fact is that the cashless debit card was unfair, and it was incredibly detrimental to many people's lives. We heard stories of people that couldn't pay their rent or their car repayments. It was imposed upon communities without consultation and with no notice at all. We know that the former government, the Morrison government, had plans to expand the cashless debit card to other communities and plans to extend it to age pensioners as well. We've seen that reported a number of times. As I say, we went to the election with a commitment to abolish the cashless debit card. Once that legislation was passed, during the repeal of the cashless debit card, we established the Enhanced Income Management program, and today we are moving these amendments to ensure that income management participants are better supported. We know how important it is to provide all of those services that can be accessed—so vitally important for people in a range of communities. The bill sets out amendments that will (1) provide existing income management participants with the choice to access a more contemporary card, known as the SmartCard and (2) direct all new income management participants to the SmartCard. That means no new participants will be issued with the BasicsCard. The bill is truly a product of meaningful community consultation because we do believe in listening to communities and working with them to get outcomes that best reflect them—not imposing policies and plans upon them like the previous government did. This bill is a product of that meaningful consultation. The SmartCard is contemporary visa technology delivered by Services Australia which will give participants access to a modern financial experience. It includes access to tap-and-go transactions, online shopping, BPAY and a PIN for added security. In addition, this bill ensures that participants will receive front-facing, people-driven services delivered by Services Australia—not a private company, as was the case under the previous government with the cashless debit card. It caused a huge amount of distress that people were not able to speak to a person about their individual circumstances in order to access the goods and services they needed. This will be driven by Services Australia, and it really ensures that the most vulnerable in our community are best supported—those who need that support. It was incredibly difficult before, when it was a private company, because they had to call and they were not receiving the support. We've also listened to the strong feedback about the BasicsCard, which includes feedback delivered in the many submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. This bill takes steps to further address concerns around the inadequacies of the BasicsCard. We know from feedback and consultation that the SmartCard meets the community expectations. This bill gives existing income management participants the choice to move to that more enhanced technology. I've spoken to many people in income management on the ground in the regions. I've heard firsthand what their communities need and want. This bill, plus the changes we've already introduced, is what communities have asked for. That's what we have done—consulted, listened and acted—and we'll continue to do that. We do that because this government understands it's not one-size-fits-all; complex issues require complex solutions, often on a case-by-case, location-by-location basis after listening to those communities. We understand that genuine consultation is the way forward. We don't impose the massive legislative policy change—as the previous government did—that caused so much distress when the cashless debit card was brought in. I also highlight that this bill will ensure there are no new compulsory referrals for aged pensioners and special-needs pensioners. We will also ensure that for veterans' payments are non-eligible payments for enhanced income management. This reflects our government's view that it was never appropriate, and ensures that any attempts at changes in the future will actually be put to the parliament for legislative change. We believe it's vitally important to include that. I reiterate to the House that these proposed amendments do not pre-empt longer-term considerations around any income management, depending upon what those communities may raise with us. But our government was very, very clear about our commitment to abolish the cashless debit card, which we have delivered on. It's an issue that has been raised with us for many years. We made it very clear at that election that we intended to abolish the cashless debit card. We listened to communities and we've done that. As of 6 March 2023 participants in the Northern Territory, Cape York and Doomadgee have all successfully transitioned to Enhanced Income Management. Volunteering participants in other former CDC sites have also been able to transition to Enhanced Income Management. As I say, in working closely with those communities, we know one of the most important aspects is providing support. We're going to be doing that. Under the previous government, all of the funding for those supports had just stopped. They had no plans to continue them. We are going to continue giving support to these communities with our $17 million for an economic development grant plan which is currently underway to implement projects to create sustainable jobs in Ceduna, Kimberly, the Goldfields and Cape York. And there's $1.5 million for immediate community priorities in the Goldfields, Kimberley and Ceduna. Today's bill does not change the operation of income management in the Northern Territory and other place based locations. In addition, this bill won't change the eligibility criteria in the assessment process. What this bill will do is give the same choice to existing income management participants in the Northern Territory and other place based locations to actually be able to access and use that contemporary technology. As we said when we abolished the CDC last year, we are committed to informed and detailed consultations with communities on the future of income management and in continuing to work with those communities. Any decisions about the future of income management have to be based on consultation with those communities, state and territory governments and a whole range of people, particularly those participants. We will keep doing that. We will keep talking to all of those participants, recipients, frontline services and First Nations leaders, We will constantly keep working with them. Also, we will continue to invest in and deliver improved opportunities and services to best support and empower our most vulnerable people. That's exactly what we've done with the support services that we have put in place. We're ensuring that Services Australia plays such a vital role in the assistance that people need. I would like to finish by, again, just raising with the House the community concerns that have been raised now that we're hearing from the Liberals and Nationals that they intend to bring back the cashless debit card. We know it was always their intention to expand it further. I imagine that would be very distressing for communities right throughout the country. We know they wanted to extend it to so many communities and to our age pensioners as well. Today, they have confirmed that that is their intention—they want the cashless debit card back. Well, we have made it very clear. We repealed the cashless debit card and we will continue to fight their objective of bringing it back. We want to work with individual communities and get the best outcomes for them. That is exactly what we have done and that's what this bill today relates to. I commend the bill to the House. 16:17 Mr 86256 Bruce HILL () (): If ever there was a clue that the government is doing the right thing, it is when we are in the middle of the opposition's hysteria and the Greens' sanctimonious nonsense. The Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 should not be controversial. It really shouldn't. It simply delivers the government's election commitment to reform income management. It gives the choice to nearly 25,000 people who are currently on income management to access superior technology. Most of those people are on the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory, and so it implements new technology while we honour our election promise to consult with communities on income management. The provisions in this bill merit exactly what exists in the current legislation while that consultation continues. It responds to recommendations from the senate legislation committee that the BasicsCard is out of date. That's because the Liberals and the Nationals failed to invest in it. They were so focused on pumping $70 million of taxpayer money to a private company for their precious cashless debit card that they failed to invest in the BasicsCard and left Indigenous communities languishing with substandard technology. For people on the BasicsCard, it's still only accepted by pre-approved merchants. People are still restricted on where they can shop and what they can buy. So this bill will implement better technology, a modern financial experience, a contemporary debit card with an associated bank account and really radical stuff like 'tap to pay' and having a PIN! It should not be controversial. It will stop the stigma and shame for so many thousands of Australians. But it is in the context of and also progresses and honours our election commitment to scrapping the cashless debit card, and we have done that. It's a principled position. With the second reading amendment—I've read it—I'll give them points: at least they're now being honest. They want to bring back the cashless debit card. That's what it says. They put out a media release today telling Australians that their policy is to bring back the cashless debit card and forced income management. Let's be very clear: this is not just about vulnerable communities. It's not about the semiracist stereotypes that you want to conjure of Indigenous people. As the previous Senate report said, this is a racist scheme. The former government's scheme, the Liberal Party's scheme, was a racist scheme. Last term, I called out the Liberals' and Nationals' secret plans to expand the cashless debit card nationwide to force all social security recipients, including pensioners, onto the card. It was met with hysteria and denials. The former prime minister said in the election campaign, 'This is an outrageous scare campaign.' Well, it turns out I was right. I'm going to quote from Niki Savva's book Bulldozed. From a prominent backbencher: 'We had no agenda for a fourth term. We didn't tell people what we'd do with it. In fact, there were three policies agreed to by Morrison's Expenditure Review Committee ahead of budget. The first was to expand the cashless debit card.' That's right: their No. 1 secret priority was to expand the cashless debit card. Also on page 271, it says, 'The other options ticked off by the ERC were an expansion of the cashless debit card.' They had no agenda for a fourth term; that's right—and they didn't get one. But they did have a secret plan to expand the cashless debit card. It was ticked off before the election, and they didn't tell Australians. But at least they're now being honest; I'll give them that. They want to expand the cashless debit card. Australians should be very clear: this is not about these four communities; this is about their nationwide expansion plan as the former government alluded to. They dropped all the hints. There was a breadcrumb trail of all of their statements. When you lined them up, it was clear as day. I've never had an answer to the question: why would you introduce legislation to allow yourself to force all age pensioners onto the card if that's not what you wanted to do? There is still no good answer. The former social services minister, Anne Ruston, said that they were looking for it to be the universal platform. You might be pleased to know that the bill before the House also removes once and for all the ability of the Commonwealth to make a mandatory age pensioner referral. I can accept that people can have a different view on this, but the terms in which the debate is being conducted are disgusting and, frankly, offensive. Look at some of the language. Here are some direct quotes from the parliamentary debates. This is what those opposite say. What the Labor Party has done is unleash a tsunami of alcohol and drugs into vulnerable communities … It will be an increase in violence and antisocial behaviour. More domestic violence and more neglected children will be the outcome of what the Labor Party did today … We know that the people who will suffer the most from that tsunami of additional alcohol and drugs will be defenceless children who will be neglected and—predominantly—women who will suffer domestic violence. There will be a tsunami. This is a good quote. Apparently an authoritative source now is a report in the Australian. Who knew? You no longer call it the 'Government Gazette'; it's the 'Opposition Gazette' now! Yet what we see is Labor ideology at work. … I refer you to some pieces by Ellen Whinnett in the Australian. The headlines are: 'Cashless debit card cut, "now it's bedlam" in Ceduna' and 'How the cashless debit card's axing left chaos in remote WA'. That's chaos and bedlam. It's bedlam: kids not being fed, women getting bashed up, 'street brawls and a large number of intoxicated individuals arguing and fighting'—all because of the Labor Party. The terms of the debate are over the top. We've had report after report from the former Senate committees looking at this that concluded unequivocally that, for all the good that income management can do for some people, overall it did overwhelmingly more harm than good. We can all sit here and listen to these anecdotes. I remember last term we were called paedophiles at one point. So we can all have the insinuations that somehow we're relishing seeing women being bashed and children being molested. That's their tactic: smear us in that way. They can use the little semiracist stereotypes that somehow this is about four isolated communities and there's nothing to see here, but we know the truth. Their plan is forced income management right across the country. That's their ideology. It's what their prominent backbenchers say. It's what the former prime minister alluded to. It's what the former social services minister was committed to. It's what we now know from Niki Savva's book was the plan of the ERC. It was ticked off. It wasn't just a policy at the election; they'd costed it, they'd done it and it was ticked off. Mr Wallace 265967 Niki's always right, isn't she? A great source—a primary source! Mr HILL 86256 And none of your former ministers denied it, did they? Have you seen one of them come out and deny the fact that that was their plan? Not content with their record, I'll just point to paragraph (e) of the second reading amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's truly ridiculous. The shadow minister embarrassed himself with this. It says: (1) notes: …   …   …    (e) the Government has committed over $217 million of taxpayers' funds to this expensive rebranding exercise; According to the shadow minister, 'It's going to cost $217 million to change the name and the colour of the card.' I suggest the opposition check their facts. Of that budget allocation, $158.4 million—more than 70 per cent—is expenditure directly on existing and new services in these four trial sites. So let's be clear: what they've said not just in debate but in their second reading amendment is demonstrably, unambiguously, utterly false. Of the expenditure proposed with this bill, $158.4 million is to go directly into current and new services in those four trial sites. The now opposition spent years forcing income management on these communities—little guinea pigs, they were, around the country. They spent years promising the world to these communities but did nothing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Bruce, there is a point of order. Member for Hinkler? Mr Pitt 148150 My area is one of the trial sites, and I'm absolutely opposed to any of them, including myself, being referred to as a guinea pig. The member should withdraw. Mr HILL 86256 The trial sites— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Thank you. I'd ask you perhaps to rephrase that, please, Member for Bruce. Mr 86256 I'll contextualise my comment. The notion of a guinea pig is common parlance for an experiment. This was a public policy experiment. It was a trial. It was trial also, as you well know, that was supposed to be subject to proper evaluation. As the Auditor-General found, your program was never evaluated. You kept saying you were going to do an independent evaluation and you never did. So it was an experiment where you didn't even have the guts to go and collect the evidence and the results. So instead we're still here, after all these years, dealing with innuendo, assertion and correlation, which is not causation—it's just disgraceful. But back to the point: the opposition spent years promising the world to these communities. They promised they were going to turn up with investments but they did nothing. Your second reading amendment—let's be clear—is, in practical terms, opposing $158 million of investment in these four communities. Speaker after speaker on that side is getting up and telling us about the social problems these four communities are experiencing. Yet their second reading amendment is really saying, 'We don't want to do anything about it,' because if the House voted for their amendment there would be no investment in these communities. The members who spread this nonsense should come in here, apologise and correct the record—or, at the very least, fix their ridiculous second reading amendment. Those opposite had no plan for funding services beyond 30 June this year. The few services they did put in lapsed on 30 June this year—just like myGov, My Health Record, the critical national cultural institutions and all the other things we heard about during question time. It's another example of how they booby trapped the budget. They created fictional surpluses in the out years by not providing funding in years 2, 3 and 4 for things that were critical and had to continue. In the East Kimberley region there are now a total of 11 support services funded by DSS, including the Strong and Resilient Communities Program, A Better Life, the family safety national plan, the Children and Parent Support services. The amendment the opposition has moved would see that funding stop. In the Goldfields, Anglicare Western Australia is funded for social and emotional wellbeing through the Strong and Resilient Communities service. Funding for this service is about $450,000, and it will be extended until 24 June if this bill passes without the second reading amendment. In Ceduna there are 15 support services funded by DSS. In the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region there are 17 support services funded by DSS. So let's be very clear—I'll make the point one more time, Madam Deputy Speaker: what has been said by the opposition in debate, and what has been asserted by the opposition in the second reading amendment, is demonstrably false. I'm not allowed to call it a lie, so we'll just stick with 'false'. That's what it is, and they should withdraw or, at the very least, change their amendment and correct the record. If they vote for their second-reading amendment, they are voting to not provide funding to these communities. That's the choice they're making; that's the proposition which they're putting forward. I don't know—you could muse on one hand that they're just stupid and don't realise the practical impact, or you could muse on the other hand that they do. I'm not sure which is worse, but we'll leave that as a point of reflection. I'd also note that under the government's approach the new, enhanced services smart card will not be privatised. Services Australia public servants will provide all aspects of the client interface under the government's new approach. People will interact with a government department, not a private financial services business who knows their details. When they want to change their PIN, check their balance or seek permission for things, they'll deal with a public servant, not a private company. The final thing I'd just note is the Greens amendments. Look, they're typically populist. They no doubt will play well to a certain section of the community on social media, and the meme machine will crank up. Apparently that's the entire point of parliament for the Greens political party, to get social media memes to pump out. Occasionally they move a ridiculous amendment where the Liberal and Labor parties have to vote together because it's just so patently ridiculous. Then they get that little photo each week they put up, 'The old parties are voting together.' We know the business model. It's similar to Pauline Hanson's, actually. They hate hearing that. But the practical impact of their amendments, let's be clear, pre-empt community consultation. They don't want the government to sit down with Indigenous communities across the Northern Territory, if the Greens party get their way. They don't want the government to actually go out and finish the consultation on income management that we committed to and are undertaking. Bizarrely, they also pre-empt their own Senate inquiry, the one they established with the opposition. They've set up a Senate inquiry to look at this, but now they're moving amendments in here which would undercut their own Senate inquiry and community consultation. But that doesn't matter, because all those words won't fit on a meme, will they? They'd also mean that about 4,000 people in the Northern Territory and Cape York would be exited against the community's wishes, ahead of consultation—not a properly planned exit; just kicked off. They don't allow for the important referral pathways which really matter for states and territories. The Greens amendments would see the role of the Cape York Family Responsibilities Commission undermined. I had a Zoom with Noel Pearson, actually, before the election, when I was working on the policy around the abolition of the cashless debit card, and we provided assurances—we talked this through—that those collective decisions through the FRC would continue. They can under the government but not the Greens. They'd also see the child protection authorities in states and territories no longer able to make referrals. They're critical referrals made for the benefit of individuals and contributing to meeting the needs of children under their care. They'd no longer see the people on the banned alcohol register in the Northern Territory able to be referred. I do encourage the Greens not to persist with these ridiculous amendments. Accept that they're a stunt. Stick to your own process. Just be consistent with yourself. Wait for the community consultation and the Senate committee report. I commend the bill to the House, condemn the opposition's second-reading amendment and ask them to do better. 16:32 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I'm happy to speak on this bill. We don't oppose this legislation, but this is change for change's sake. It shifts people from the BasicsCard to the smart card. It shifts people from income management to enhanced income management, whatever that means in practice. It is what comes next that is of greatest concern for electorates, like Nicholls, that have high levels of disadvantage. This bill extends the enhanced income management regime to include all of the measures that are already in place for the income management regime, and it gives people subject to income management the choice to move to enhanced income management and the choice to move from the BasicsCard to the smart card with an associated bank account. The bill directs all new entrants to the enhanced income management regime while further consultation is undertaken on the long-term future of the income management and enhanced income management regime—yes, I'm tired of saying it already. But that's the sting in the tail, and those opposite have put their cards on the table. They are against compulsory income management and want to it be entirely voluntary. A voluntary component must remain an option. Greater Shepparton in my electorate was part of the extended trial of income management from July 2012. The feedback I have is that voluntary participants have benefited from income management by better managing their regular bills, removing the stress and anxiety of unpaid bills, forming good financial habits and generating savings for discretionary items or to cover unexpected emergencies. There is a clear pattern of people staying on income management once their finances are under control because they see the benefits and they know it works. The history of income management is not based on a voluntary system. It was compulsory, and it was mandated for good reasons. Under the coalition government, there were two different cards provided to different groups of social security recipients: the BasicsCard and the cashless debit card. Both were compulsory for the specified groups of social services recipients and the means for payment of social services payment. The BasicsCard goes back to the Howard government's intervention of 2007. It has limited functionality—for example, it has no tap-and-go functionality and can be used for only around 18,000 merchants. Those on this card are referred to as being 'under income management'. During the Senate community affairs estimates on 15 February 2023, officials admitted that there is no technological difference between the cashless debit card and the government's new SmartCard. The cashless debit card was introduced in 2016 and had greater functionality than the BasicsCard. For example, it allowed product-level blocking and could be used for around 900,000 merchants. Labor has legislated the scrapping of the cashless debit card, with approximately 17,400 participants given a choice: they could receive their social security payments like other participants or they could have it paid onto the government's new SmartCard. We have legislation to transition around 24,000 people from the BasicsCard, most of whom reside in the Northern Territory and 84 per cent of whom are Indigenous Australians. The BasicsCard has been used in my electorate since 2012. It was one of the five regions chosen by the then Labor government, based on statistical indicators of disadvantage. From perusing various papers examining the trial, it is clear that compulsory participants experienced a higher level of stigma than voluntary participants and both cohorts had issues with the practical use of the card. There was also the view that applying compulsory income management across whole cohorts without regard to their individual circumstances and capabilities was not an effective application of the policy. This is an argument for reform, not an argument for abolition. It also raises broader questions. It's easy to categorise, even demonise, compulsory income management as punitive, but this ignores the original premise—that income management was about helping the most vulnerable. While the government has not been clear, it is likely it will abolish compulsory income management. This will mean that people who are presently on the BasicsCard or who moved from the BasicsCard to the SmartCard will likely be given the same choice as was given to those on the cashless debit card: to have their social security payment paid into a bank account in the normal way that it would be paid for others. Compulsory income management has enjoyed bipartisan support since 2007, and it covers some of the most vulnerable in our society, including those who have drug and alcohol dependencies and children who are the subject of abuse and neglect. Labor labelled the cashless debit card a 'failed program', yet they are shamelessly relaunching the same service to provide voluntary income management to vulnerable communities. Since the repeal of the CDC, at a cost to the budget of more than $200 million, we have seen vulnerable communities feeling the devastation through a spike in crime, gambling, alcohol fuelled violence and child neglect. Removing the compulsory nature of this income management service is not going to change these circumstances or provide vulnerable people with the assurance and the assistance that they need. Already, Labor's SmartCard is beset with problems in implementation and transition, and that is despite the admission by department officials at the Senate community affairs estimates on 15 February 2023 that there is no technological difference between the two cards. In fact, the same company will deliver it. It might be unfashionable to say this, but the Australian taxpayer also has a stake in this system. There is a view—and I don't share it—that using support payments to impose financial management is unfair and discriminatory. The original intent is contained in the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Act 2007, and the stated objectives are: (a) to promote socially responsible behaviour, particularly in relation to the care and education of children; (b) to set aside the whole or a part of certain welfare payments; (c) to ensure that the amount set aside is directed to meeting the priority needs of: (i) the recipient of the welfare payment; and (ii) the recipient's partner; and (iii) the recipient's children; and (iv) any other dependants of the recipient. Surely taxpayers who foot the bill to provide a safety net—a welfare payment that provides for priority needs of the vulnerable, can have the expectation that the money is indeed spent on the basics of shelter, food, clothing and education. Just one day after the publication of an Australian National Audit Office report in June which reaffirmed the Auditor-General's view that valuations of the cashless debit card program failed to provide evidence that it was effective, the social services minister announced that she was in the process of being briefed by her department on how the program could be terminated. The ANAO report did not recommend that the government abolish the CDC, nor did it say it wasn't effective; it was just that evaluation measures needed to be improved. Once again we are in this place debating the implementation of ideology, with no regard to the consequences for our fellow Australians. If the SmartCard is a step along the path to scrapping compulsory income management, then those opposite had better be prepared to deal with the inevitable tragic consequences for the most vulnerable in our society. 16:40 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I've been listening to this debate on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income management Reform) Bill 2023 for a little while, and the ability of those opposite, the former federal government—the coalition—to try to privatise any government services at all just never ceases to amaze me. Mr Pitt 148150 You made exactly the same card, you just made it blue! Mr GOSLING 245392 I'll take that interjection, that the card is the same. Except, of course, that the private company which was running the card may or may not have had various relationships with those opposite, and that's a matter for the public record— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order, the member for Solomon will resume his seat. Member for Hinkler, is there a point of order? We're less than a minute into the member for Solomon's speech. Mr Pitt 148150 The member is reflecting on members opposite. He is indicating and suggesting that we are corrupt and taking payments, and I ask him to withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The member will resume his seat and the member for Solomon can continue. Mr GOSLING 245392 Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Those were the words of the member opposite and not mine. But I do commend the bill and I commend the minister, the member for Kingston, on her work in this very important area of public policy. This bill delivers on our government's election commitment to reform income management. It's a product of meaningful community consultation and proposes amendments that will give effect to the broader rollout of enhanced income management, focusing on expanded access to a modern financial experience provided through the enhanced income management regime and the SmartCard. It also takes further steps to address the clear message given by the Senate legislative committee that the BasicsCard is out of date. The government has listened to feedback from communities that the BasicsCard technology is out of date and does not meet their needs. The service offering of the BasicsCard has become increasingly out of step with modern expectations. The former government, those opposite, didn't invest in the BasicsCard because they were focused on pushing more and more people onto their privatised cashless debit card. This bill will give access to a modern financial experience for all new income management participants by providing a contemporary debit card and associated bank account. This bill provides all existing income management participants a choice to move to the enhanced technology until a decision is made on the future of the BasicsCard. Users currently on the BasicsCard will have the choice to transition to the SmartCard. This bill also ensures that new entrants will not be placed on the old technology of the BasicsCard. That's a very good thing, because it is out of date. The BasicsCard is only accepted by preapproved merchants, limiting where people can shop and restricting where people can spend their money. Currently, if a BasicsCard holder attempts to shop outside the available permitted merchants, they are often shut out of legitimate transactions purely because of the restricted technology. That can stigmatise BasicsCard users unfairly. The SmartCard will give participants a better experience, with increased choice on how and where they can spend their money. The more modern SmartCard also provides banking functions, including the tap-to-pay payments that we all take for granted, online shopping and BPAY bill payments—and we all know how handy they are. Importantly, the SmartCard is delivered by Services Australia and has a PIN for added protection. The updated SmartCard technology reduces the likelihood that a welfare payment recipient will be subject to undue harassment or rejection of a legitimate in-store payment because of their welfare status. Card users shouldn't be rejected simply because that business has not been signed up to accept the BasicsCard. With this bill, the Albanese government will deliver more choice through the SmartCard, which is a better product, with modern financial technology that will meet community expectations and do so at a cheaper cost than the previous cashless debit card. The privatised cashless debit card has now been abolished, and that is a good thing. All compulsory welfare quarantining in cashless debit card regions has ended, and on 6 March former cashless debit card participants in the Northern Territory and Cape York and Doomadgee region transitioned to the new, enhanced income management program. Our work now is to support these communities and always continue to consult. The October budget allocated $217-plus million to abolish the Cashless Debit Card program and fund support services. The sum of $158.4 million, over 70 per cent of this funding, will be used to provide support services to people in former Cashless Debit Card program communities. We will not abandon these communities—quite the opposite. After consulting with them, we are supporting them. This includes support for a youth mentoring program in Ceduna, which runs activities including after-school and holiday care; parenting education and support in Wyndham; community navigator programs; and financial literacy and digital literacy. Coming from the Northern Territory, I know how important these services are and how important support is to communities. We're empowering them with better technology, but we're also making sure there's a proper use of taxpayer funds in supporting these communities. The government is also investing $17 million for an economic development grant round, which is currently underway, to implement projects to create sustainable jobs in Ceduna, East Kimberley, the Goldfields and Cape York, and $1.5 million for immediate community priorities in this region—real money backing sustainable futures and pathways for these communities. Our government understand the decisions that impact First Nations people must be made in the spirit of real partnership. Our government is working with communities on what the future of income management looks like for them. I look forward to the future voices of people in First Nations communities making sure that we are doing the right thing, as advised by them, and making sure that the data, the evidence and the information provided by those who are looking at this program stays relevant and responds to feedback and so forth. Any decisions about the future of income management will be based on that genuine consultation with communities, state and territory governments, and experts in the field. We'll keep getting on with the job and we'll reform income management to provide a better experience for participants into the future. This legislation is simple and directly responds to the clear message from individuals and communities where income management operates that the BasicsCard was out of date and no longer meets their needs. That is why, as I have highlighted, this bill will ensure that no new income management participant is issued the out-of-date BasicsCard. It's important to note that, while the bill offers existing participants a choice to access enhanced income management, it does not expand on the existing legislation. Existing income management participants will have the choice to move to enhanced income management and will receive the necessary support from Services Australia when they choose to do so. Services Australia currently supports income management participants and will continue to do so for all who choose to move to enhanced income management. Services Australia is providing all aspects of client interface for enhanced income management. This is a significant change from the Cashless Debit Card program, the privatised program, as individuals will interact with government rather than a private business to check balances, to get replacement cards or to get advice on how to set up a regular payment. With Services Australia delivering an enhanced income management, rather than a private, third-party interface, this support will be available to provide not only income management support but also support in other areas. Individual support, tailored to the needs of each participant, will include assisting them to set up new regular payments for bills or other essential services. For many people, moving to the SmartCard may mean that they need help to learn how they set up their rent payments and other deductions, and that is where Services Australia support is essential. This bill is an important reform for thousands of Australians. Our government is committed to giving more choice to the nearly 25,000 participants currently on income management to access this superior technology. These changes will benefit the more than 22,400 people in the Northern Territory, where I am from, who are presently on the out-of-date BasicsCard. It will benefit the nearly 5,000 of those Territorians who are vulnerable and disengaged youth whose access to modern financial technology is delayed by the out-of-date BasicsCard. Moving to the SmartCard will have a long-term positive effect on their financial literacy. That is very important. This reform will have a long-term, intergenerational impact on communities in the Northern Territory and across the country. I note that this bill does not remove the income management program or amend the underlying policy. The same existing restrictions apply to an individual's welfare payment where they meet specific eligibility criteria to ensure a portion of their payment cannot be spent on restricted goods. Nor does the bill change the eligibility criteria which determine whether an individual is placed on income management. As such, no participants will exit the scheme who would otherwise be subject to income management. When it comes to income management, the rules and the laws applying in Alice Springs and the Northern Territory have not changed. What has changed is that the users of the SmartCard will have a superior experience to the BasicsCard technology. They will have access to cutting-edge financial technology like that which most of us enjoy. They will have more choice over how and where they can spend the money, and they will have an enhanced user experience with Services Australia. It is an important piece of legislation for communities in the Northern Territory and around the country, and, again, I commend the minister and I commend this bill to the House. 16:52 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I rise to speak to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023. It is a bill that I feel very passionately about, and, while we are supporting the legislation to go to the SmartCard, I want to use this opportunity to again speak about my immense disappointment with the government's abolishment of the cashless welfare card, and the reasons why I am so upset for the communities affected. I'm especially upset for the women and the children in those communities where the cashless debit guide has been abolished. Let's do a quick recap. What was the cashless welfare card? Trials were run across four communities, three of them very remote communities, where, when you look at the statistics, there was great dysfunctionality. There was a very high crime rate and very high incidences of people with alcohol problems and/or gambling problems. When you looked at presentations to hospitals and when you looked at school attendance, those communities were suffering. What was brought in as a trial was to say, okay, we have a few communities here under great duress and great stress. The most vulnerable people in those communities were children. In some of these communities, a very high percentage of the population moved onto these cards. The cashless welfare cards worked on the premise that everyone on that card would get 80 per cent of the welfare paid to a debit card that meant that they could not purchase alcohol and/or could not purchase gambling products. I know one of these communities very well, the community of Ceduna, which I grew up relatively near to. I know people there and I have been to Ceduna a number of times as well. Virtually every person I knew and spoke to about this card said it changed almost overnight. As soon as people could not go and purchase alcohol, could not go and purchase gambling products, the atmosphere changed and it was safer. In some of these communities children were on the streets at night because it was not safe in their homes. During the daytime people with drinking problems are obviously a problem for the community and it makes the community feel very unsafe. What this card did was change that. Was it perfect? No. Was it a thing that you would elect to do? No. But what it did was make women and children feel safer. So I have never really understood the ideological obsession of those opposite to abolish the cashless welfare card. In a perfect world I know you wouldn't need it but it was having a real, tangible impact on the ground. If there is one thing you want to do as a government it is that you want to have tangible influence on the ground and you would want it to work. When I hear others saying it will be more efficient, or there are going to be mentoring programs, that is good, but it is really hard. Alcoholics are alcoholics. When you have the cashless welfare card, you also want to incorporate programs with it. People need help when they are coming off any sort of addiction. But when an alcoholic goes from not being able to get cash to being able to get cash, guess what? They are going to start drinking more. All of the dysfunctionality of the behaviour that comes from that will happen. We had a representative group here today in this building talking about exactly this. I was also surprised that the new government felt that this was a priority. This was not something they did a year or two after coming to government or did some consultation before they did it. One of the first things that those opposite did when they came into government was to abolish a card that meant alcoholics couldn't get money to drink. Especially in some of these remote communities where there is a high percentage of people on these cards, straightway the atmosphere changed. I really made sure I spoke on this bill. We don't all speak on every bill that comes through this chamber, but I really wanted the opportunity to speak on this bill and take every opportunity to speak on this issue because it is a great shame on those opposite that they have done this. I think about the ideological obsession of those opposite. I heard when the bill to abolish the card went through this chamber that some on the other side said, 'People need more cash. Twenty per cent of cash is not enough. You need to buy some potpourri at the farmers market.' This is rubbish. These people are not spending money at farmers markets; these people are alcoholics. These people are spending money on booze and these people are now dangerous. These children are now not as safe as they were when the cashless welfare card was in place. Ms Kearney LTU You're despicable for saying everyone on the card is an alcoholic. Mr HOGAN 218019 I am hearing interjections of the word 'despicable'. What is despicable is the fact that you as a government thought that you could abolish something that was keeping families and children safe. If you think that is a good idea, well, you are missing— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Direct your remarks through the chair. Mr HOGAN 218019 What I am saying is you might want to go to some of the communities. I ask the member opposite: have you ever been to any of those communities? The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I remind the member again: remarks are through the chair. I will ask the member to cease interjections. Mr HOGAN 218019 I stand by the statement and I stand by the people I have spoken to. I stand by the statement that I have made, that the communities where the cashless welfare card has been demolished are now less safe. There are children who are not safe in their homes who were before, and there are things happening in those communities where the whole community doesn't feel safe. You might have an ideological obsession with abolishing the card, but to say that— Mr HOGAN 218019 Well, Ceduna isn't. Ceduna isn't a dry town. This town is now more unsafe, and many people feel more unsafe in these communities because of what this government has done. This government has made a lot of mistakes in the first 10 months, but I put this up here as the worst decision—and there are a few vying for that position. You can disagree about economic things, you can disagree about union involvement, you can disagree about taxation, you can disagree about whatever, but to make a decision that has meant children and women are not as safe as they once were is a great shame on this government. As I said, we will support this bill. Obviously the government has a complete ideological obsession about not having compulsory income type policies. They want everything about this to be voluntary. I say to those opposite: the children and women who are now in danger and weren't have you to thank for that, and your ideological obsession with the cashless welfare card. 17:00 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Today I rise to speak in support of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023. This bill is the next step the Albanese government is taking to reform the previous government's failed income management program. I've been fascinated to sit here for a little while and hear some of the arguments we've heard from the other side. On the one hand we hear from the previous speaker that this is the worst decision ever made, yet on the other hand we have the member for Deakin saying this changes nothing. Somewhere in the middle there, I guess, is the truth. At its heart the purpose of this legislation is to provide choice for more Australians. When implemented, this legislation will allow those on the BasicsCard to transition to the SmartCard. At the same time it will ensure new entrants to the income management program are not placed on the old technology of the BasicsCard. Let me speak a little about some of the issues we've had with the BasicsCard—and I can assure the previous speaker that it had nothing to do with potpourri or farmers markets; I don't know where he got that from! The BasicsCard is only accepted by preapproved merchants. What this means in practice is that it severely limits where people can shop, irrespective of what they're attempting to purchase. Currently if a BasicsCard holder attempts to shop outside the available permitted merchants they are shut out of these often legitimate transactions purely because of restricted technology, and, therefore, they can't shop around for price. We heard complaints about the stigma and the lack of privacy of having a BasicsCard. We heard complaints about different prices for those on the BasicsCard. The BasicsCard couldn't enable tap-and-go or BPAY payments—fairly standard processes in modern Australia—and didn't even have a PIN for security. We heard complaints of people's BasicsCards being taken and used by others, leaving them completely without money. Basically, the BasicsCard just made people's lives that little bit more unnecessarily difficult. It was disempowering and humiliating. This legislation will replace the Basics Card with the SmartCard, which is a much improved product. It features technological improvements that incorporate modern financial technology in an effort to meet community expectations. It looks like any other debit card, so it doesn't breach the privacy of the user every time they use it. This was a crucial bit of feedback from individuals and communities in areas where income management operates. Stakeholders said that the BasicsCard is quite simply out of date and insufficient to meet their needs. Submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill which repealed the cashless debit card last year also gave us the clear message that the BasicsCard is out of date and not sufficient to meet the needs of people in the communities. The Albanese government is taking action to improve the operation of this scheme, to ensure it actually helps support those who wish to use it. We heard from the member for Deakin that he believes this bill is nothing more than a rebranding exercise—not the worst thing ever but a rebranding exercise. It is a $217.7 million rebranding exercise, according to him. Yet what we understand from the evaluation of the previous cashless debit card trial sites is that it was the support services provided alongside the cashless debit card that were what was making the difference. But guess what? Those programs were not funded by the prior government past 30 June this year. So in this bill, of the $217.7 million, 70 per cent—$158.4 million—actually goes to refunding those support programs across the four existing trial sites. The member for Deakin's amendment, should it get up, would see these programs end when the funding ends, as they had allocated, on 30 June. This is quite a stunning level of politics above what's actually right for the community. The smart card is designed to operate in the same way as any contemporary credit or debit card. It allows for modern payment functions that include the ability to make tap-and-go payments, to shop online and to make BPAY bill payments. In this day and age that is pretty standard functionality. It will also be delivered by Services Australia, not a private for-profit provider, and it will have a PIN for added protection. It will help avoid awkward discussions about paying for products in shops. It will enable the user to maintain privacy about their financial arrangements. It will expand the choices available to those on income management, and all of that is a good thing. The whole premise of this government's approach to income management is to empower individuals and communities and to support them in gaining the skills they need to better manage and make decisions in their own lives, alongside refunding support programs that actually made the difference to the community. Sadly, the former government did not invest in this technology, because they were too focused on pushing more people onto their privatised cashless debit card but not funding the support programs. Under the Albanese Labor government Services Australia will be providing all aspects of client interface for enhanced income management. This is a significant change from the cashless debit card program, as individuals will interact with government, rather than private businesses, to check balances, get a replacement card or get advice on how to set up a regular payment. With Services Australia delivering enhanced income management, rather than the private third-party interface, this support will be available to provide not only income management support but also support in other areas where Services Australia can assist. The private cashless debit card has been abolished. On 6 March former cashless debit card participants in the Northern Territory, Cape York and Doomadgee regions transitioned to the more enhanced income management program and all compulsory welfare quarantining ended in cashless debit card regions. Our work now is to support these communities, and that's why the government is investing $17 million for an economic development grant round currently underway to implement projects to create sustainable jobs in Ceduna, East Kimberley, the Goldfields and Cape York and a further $1.5 million for immediate community priorities in the Goldfields, East Kimberley and Ceduna. This bill offers that same choice to use the contemporary technology to more than 24,400 existing income management participants in the Northern Territory and the other place based locations nationally. It also ensures all eligible participants will be part of the enhanced income management and no new participants are given the BasicsCard. This bill does not change the portion of payment which cannot be spent on restricted goods, which will remain the same on enhanced income management as it was on the prior income management, dependent on the person's circumstances. It also does not change the items to be restricted, which are alcohol, gambling products, pornography and tobacco. The Albanese government is working with communities on what the future of income management looks like for them. Any decisions about the future of income management will be based on genuine consultation with affected communities, state and territory governments and experts in the field. The amendment moved by the Greens would eliminate this important consultation if passed—the basic respect of consultation, of asking the people affected what they want. I'd really urge them to rethink this amendment. We have committed to consulting on the future of income management, and we must consult with participants, communities, women's groups, First Nations leaders and service providers. The feedback from First Nations community leaders told us more consultation was required on this future. We'll keep getting on with the job, and we'll continue to reform income management to provide a better experience for participants. The October budget allocated $217.7 million to abolish the cashless debit card program and to fund support services. Of that, $158.4 million, over 70 per cent, will be used to provide those important support services which we know are the things that actually make the difference and work in former CDC communities. This investment is being directed to services to support people, like a youth mentoring program in Ceduna which runs activities including school and holiday care. There's parenting education and support in Wyndham and a community navigated program in financial literacy and digital literacy. This is because the consultations showed that the support programs which empowered communities and individuals were the ones that made the difference to the community—to help the community develop antiviolence measures. It's really critical that these programs continue. This government is serious about working with and for communities that need support. That's why we are implementing this policy, and I encourage all in this place to support it. 17:10 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023. Today we've seen leaders from communities in Western Australia come to this parliament and meet with the opposition leader, other senior shadow ministers and members of the coalition from Western Australia to talk about just what the practical impacts have been in their communities thanks to the abolition of the cashless debit card. It was a very sad day in this chamber when, ultimately, the parliament and the Senate passed legislation to repeal that program. That's because it was such a vital tool in helping to address some of the most significant challenges, particularly in the communities that it had been trialled in. They were struggling with serious issues, particularly around alcohol and other substance abuse. As we know, it was a very simple proposition: to provide welfare support payments through the system with the cashless debit card. It meant that all sorts of purchases could be undertaken through that scheme without allowing purchase of certain prohibited items, like alcohol. Of course, participants were not able to remove cash and turn a welfare payment into cold, hard cash. That was not just to prevent it being used on alcohol but, potentially, for other substance abuse and things that, frankly, were the source of the most significant challenges in those communities. It has been heartbreaking to hear from people from those communities first hand. In the case of Western Australia, some have come to this parliament today, in desperation, to share their story of just what impact this decision has had on their communities. They're not motivated by anything other than wanting to do the best thing for the communities that they live in—to have all the tools at their disposal to manage some of the challenges that have befallen their communities. Of course, they support the cashless debit card wholeheartedly. What has always surprised me about the cashless debit card is that every local member of parliament who had a trial site in their community supported it. When they spoke in this chamber about the cashless debit card deployment in their communities, they talked about the benefit that it had in managing the serious social challenges in those communities. If we, as a parliament, are not prepared to listen to local members with real on-the-ground experience, and the feedback from their community leaders about such a program, then what exactly are we doing here as the House of Representatives? Those representatives, the ones who actually knew what they were talking about when it came to the success of that program, were all utterly in favour of its continuation. Yet now—and, I suspect, because of certain groups of influence foisting this policy on to the now government and the then Labor Party opposition—those opposite now have to pretend that this is something which has community support and has not had a diabolical impact on the communities that have had it taken away from them. We know that's just not true. That evidence is from the leadership that is taking significant steps to reach out to this building by physically attending here and doing all that they can to try to get access to decision-makers in government. I believe the Prime Minister indicated in question time that the minister has agreed to meet with that delegation from Western Australia, and that is a good thing. That is a relief. Hopefully, she doesn't just meet with them; hopefully, she listens to them. Hopefully, she listens to their stories and their explanation of why the cashless debit card was making such a difference in their communities. I'm from South Australia, and in the electorate of the member for Grey, which covers about 90 per cent of our state, in Ceduna one of these trials was occurring. Allan Suter, the now former mayor there, was renowned for doing all that he could to embrace any opportunity to make a meaningful difference in his community, and he embraced significantly the opportunity of the cashless debit card and, of course, espoused its success. Rowan Ramsey, the member for Grey in this chamber, of course was in a position to report very clearly and very directly to us, as the local member for that electorate, as to the value and benefit of that scheme there in Ceduna. I've travelled to Ceduna once or twice in my life. I remember being there in 2013 and observing the very significant issues, particularly with alcohol abuse, in the Ceduna community. One of the most heartbreaking examples was that a young man whose principal place of residence had become the local sobering-up centre, he was on such a permanent rotation of inebriation, being taken to the sobering-up centre, then leaving that sobering-up centre and again embracing alcohol on a daily basis. When the police would ask him where he lived when they had to very regularly intervene in issues of his public disturbances and ask for his address, he would give his address as the local sobering-up unit because he lived there. He was there every day, continuously, repeatedly. That young man is an example of someone who was, regrettably, able to use his welfare to feed that alcohol addiction. What the cashless debit card was achieving, which is exactly what the communities were embracing, was breaking that cycle of people being able to use their welfare to fund certain habits that might have included but were not limited to alcohol and drug abuse et cetera. Of course, apart from the damage they were doing to themselves through that addiction, which was significant in its own right, it flowed on to impact on other people, the public peace and the community. Ceduna was just one example where the community, having operated that scheme as a pilot for several years, embraced and supported it. Obviously, like any program, there was a need to consider, fine tune and look for opportunities to improve the way in which it operated, and that was the case in many of the sites. Local businesses had to adapt and understand how to properly interface and interact with it. But it is a great loss, and this bill that we have before us is really a continuation of this agenda that the government has to remove from the community the tools to fight against some of the significant social challenges that they have. We very much regret the repeal of the cashless debit card. As the lead speaker for the opposition, our shadow minister, had indicated, we are not going to stand in the way of this bill passing, subject to the very sensible amendments that we are proposing. A lot of money has been spent. It seems that we are getting a card with a new name and some kind of payWave capability for more than $200 million, which is a spectacular cost. So the value for money within this proposal interests me greatly. But, as I indicated, we in the opposition are prepared to not stand in the way of this bill passing, subject to our sensible amendments being approved. But we note with great regret the aftermath of the repeal of the cashless debit card and that this is, of course, part of the implementation of that policy platform and it is causing heartbreaking consequences in the communities that have been using it. It's a lost opportunity for the communities that hadn't been using it to have access to it. It's a lost opportunity to be able to make sure the support programs, the welfare programs and the welfare payments that are provided to people are indeed actually used for the purposes in which they are intended, and that communities can be empowered to not need to deal with those additional challenges that the free use of cash from welfare can create when those social problems exist. With those comments, I urge the government to strongly consider supporting our amendments so that we can co-operate and progress this bill through the House. This area of policy and the consequences that we are seeing are very regrettable, as is the re-emergence of problems that had started to be dealt with in those communities where the cashless debit card was rolled out. I hope the government will listen to the community leaders that are making such important and vital points about what the aftermath has been in those areas that have now lost the use of the cashless debit card. We hope the government will reconsider this area of policy. We hope they support these amendments. I commend those amendments to the House. 17:21 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash This address is not only to this parliament, but it is to all of those people listening across Australia that actually listen to the broadcast of parliament. I think there is a whole lot more, from my experience. You listen to these addresses live. There were two addresses today that made a fine contribution to this debate. One was from the shadow minister himself, Mr Sukkar, member for Deakin. The other, from the opposition leader of the House, Paul Fletcher. They, as government ministers at the time, lived through the processes, the intricate policy statements and the criticism they received as government members for what they put in place with regard to the cashless debit card at that time. Because I was only an observer—why was I an observer? I have great respect for senators and members of this House. When they ask me, 'Why do you get on so well with Llew O'Brien? He's a nat.' He is a representative of his community. Why do I see the member for Dunkley re-elected? Because she has established herself very tightly with the community of Frankston and the surrounds that she represents. I reflect the electorate of Monash. I think I do—white cut for toast, bit thick. Making a contribution to this debate is more than just consideration of some policy. It's actually about people's lives and how they live them. The passionate addresses by some in the House and what has conspired over these last few months after the election of this government has been a real eye-opener for me. It has been a great support for me, because what I have always done is listen to the members of parliament that represent their areas. I have great respect for the members of parliament that represent these areas, particularly the former member for Lingiari and the current member for Lingiari. I don't know the new member very well, but I knew the previous member very, very well. Their commission was to bring the difficulties around Indigenous policy to the House. Before the election—I've got to explain myself first, in saying this to you—I was not a supporter of bringing in the cashless debit card. I wasn't vocal about it, but I just wasn't a supporter of it, for the all the reasons to do with not interfering in people's lives. The best philosophy that I can live by is that Australians have equal freedoms in all that they do and in all government services, and I felt that that card was a restriction on those freedoms. But this is what the communities were asking for. This is what the members of parliament on my side and the Labor side were asking for. They said, 'This will work,' and they gave me the reasons that it would work. I have Indigenous communities within my electorate. I try to address their concerns in everything that I do, but I listen to those that have got a lot of Indigenous people in their communities because they're the ones who are closest to the people and they're the ones who know who the strong Indigenous leaders are in their community. We have heard stories from both sides of the House about strong Indigenous leaders—in Ceduna, for instance, as we just heard from the previous speaker—yet before the election we had the then Labor opposition taking the very high moral ground on this issue, saying, 'We will abolish this card on coming into government.' And they did, until their own people came to them and said, 'We have made a terrible mistake.' This is now what has been happening in our communities since that time, even though we put into place some hundreds of millions of dollars worth of support services. But, quite often, support services are putting ambulances at the bottom of the hill, delivering after the fact of the problem. We don't just do it in Indigenous affairs; we do it in lots of portfolios, where we say, 'Because we have this problem, we will put more ambulances at the bottom of the hill, rather than dealing with the issues within community that we need to deal with so we are not faced with this.' To me, the Voice is a part of that, but you all know where I stand on that. This is what I will put to you: had we listened to the Indigenous representatives here in this House and in the Senate and had we listened to what their communities were saying, we wouldn't have gotten ourselves into the debacle that we now find ourselves in with this legislation, which is trying to roll it back and say, 'We'll give it a new name; we'll call it the SmartCard,' while the underlying thrust of the policy is exactly the same. The member for Deakin, the shadow minister for social services, was criticised because he said, 'What's changed?' Well, what has happened in these communities is a change all right, and, as has been described by many members today, that change hasn't been just a little change. That change has been a quite destructive change. In fact, the change has been so great that it has exposed not only those being affected by the alcohol, violence, drugs, stealing and money being ripped off from one another, as was the case beforehand; it's actually affected the lives of the authorities—the police and the welfare agencies. You've put enormous pressure on the services that you have provided as well. What are you going to do, have another intervention? How long, as has been explained here—even though you've now allotted another $150 million—just for the process to go through to put the new card in place? It's the same as the old card. An opposition member: Different colour. Mr BROADBENT MT4 Different colour, different name. That's going to take quite some time to put in place. And there has been a question mark: are there enough people left in the services that the government provide to actually implement it? Have they got the expertise to implement it and how long will it take? How much damage is going to be done in those Indigenous communities before the card comes into play? Are there no interim arrangements? Can people not choose very quickly? Can community leaders in given communities say, 'We want our people to stay on the old card', or is it too late for that? Have they gone? I don't know. I don't think anybody knows. What I know is the government has got itself into a terrible pickle and it's trying to put lipstick on the pig, and you can't. Go and ask any of the members of this House that have major Indigenous communities in their electorates. Go and ask them. Go and ask them what they think. Go and ask the member for Grey. Go and ask Mark Coulton. Go and ask what they think. They just might happen to know what they're talking about, because they deal with the Indigenous leaders in their communities. They know them as friends. They know them as colleagues in their community and they work with them. They always have. They're long-serving members. They understand the issues. I know—politicians don't understand anything! No! When we try to inflict upon the Australian communities things that we think should be done, from here in Canberra, how often does that fall in a hole? How often do you hear somebody say, 'Oh, we've had years of inaction here.' No, we haven't. We've been trying with the wrong policies for a long time. We have failed to listen to what Indigenous people say to us. We have failed to listen to what Indigenous communities say to us—failed. And the outcome is that something that was working quite well, as I hear from the members, is no longer working. Mr Ramsey HWS And supported by the community. Mr BROADBENT MT4 And supported by the community—all the community, whichever colour they were. It was supported by all of them. There's always more to the story. My uncle Keith Skinner was the lighthouse harbour master pilot for Ceduna port. My Aunty Loris and Uncle Keith lived over there after he came off the Lighthouse Supply Ship Cape York as the deputy mate. He went to Ceduna and he brought all the ships into the harbour. I only ever heard these wonderful stories about this beautiful place—Ceduna—yet in this parliament today, what do I hear? I hear shocking stories about what's going on in Ceduna. I hear the complaints that are coming to members. I hear the difficulties that the police force and all the agencies that support the Indigenous communities are now having. That doesn't paint a beautiful picture of a wonderful city. That doesn't mean you should have guard fences and barbed wire for protection. That doesn't mean people are being exploited for their weaknesses. Goodness! We do that right across Australia. What it does say to me is, 'We've made a mistake.' And no-one's been brave enough to say, 'Yes, we have made a mistake, and this is the legislation we're putting in place to fix it.' If that were the case, I'd be totally supporting you. We're not opposing this legislation, but we are making the point that people with a certain ideology and process, within the parliament, make big commitments in election campaigns without addressing what the people actually need and want, and what a difference it's made in certain communities, and what a blessing it's been to a lot of women and children who were better off under the old scheme. Does anybody think of that? I'll say that again: women and children. They're real people; they bleed. They could be my kids or your kids. It could be your wife, your sister or your family. And what do Indigenous people hold most sacred? Family. What we can do for family, as a nation, is get on with this legislation. We can recognise we've made a mistake and get this over with as quickly as possible because we may just save one life. 17:36 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I'm grateful for the member's comments. I also support the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023, which provides an improved card to replace the BasicsCard, it must be said. However, the tragedy is that the SmartCard is, by any measurement, a direct replacement for the cashless debit card; it's just without the compulsory component. As it's just been explained to us, about the only thing different is its colour and its name; it's now the SmartCard. Even the technology is provided by the same provider, Indue. You, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, and other members would have heard government members railing against this injustice that the government should be wasting its money—millions of dollars—with a private provider, Indue. When they've tried to come up with a new card themselves, they've had to retreat to use Indue to provide the technology to run the card. For goodness sakes! It is beyond comprehension that they didn't think to check those details before they threw rocks at the glasshouse. After trashing the card—this is the cashless debit card—last year, it's back. Or it's going to be back—hopefully, if they can ever get it organised—with a different colour and a different name. It reminds us of that great mistake the government has made—that is, the abolition of the cashless debit card. It is, without doubt, a graphic example of ideology overcoming reality. When this was being proposed by the minister I made some warnings, and I'll come to those in a minute. On the weekend I picked up the Weekend Australian—as, hopefully, another three or four hundred thousand Australians did—and there was an article by Ellen Whinnett, to whom I'm indebted; thanks, Ellen. She had been out to Ceduna and talked to lots of people on the ground to get a handle on what is happening there. I remind the House that Ceduna was the first community in Australia to stick its hand up to take on the cashless debit card, and it's been a very good period of time in Ceduna as that place has improved under it. This is what she found: South Australian police data show 111 offences were recorded in Ceduna—population 3000—in January. This is almost double the number of offences being recorded monthly when the card, which quarantined 80 per cent of welfare payments for some vulnerable recipients—was abolished four months ago, and is almost triple the crime rate of the previous January. That was when the card was in place. Now, I didn't want to mislead the House, so I checked the police statistics and confirmed that those numbers are correct. There are some more numbers they provided. When Chris Lovell addressed Ceduna council he noted that police had been tasked 422 times in December, when there were 146 victim-reported crimes and 42 people arrested. In January police were tasked 418 times, and there were 200 victim-reported crimes and 50 arrests. Between 1 February and 3 March Ceduna police had been tasked 381 times, with 138 victim-reported crimes and 25 arrests. That's in three months. About 1,200 tasks would be one in three people if it were somebody different every time, for a population of a bit over 3,000. They are appalling statistics, and the crime of it is that those numbers weren't happening when the card was in place. When I asked Minister Rishworth in this House about the deterioration of social behaviours in Ceduna, she said that Ceduna had been dealing with a funeral on the day she was there, so that's why there were fights. Of course you have fights at funerals. In the Goldfields she said there were too many visitors. In East Kimberley she said there was a flood—not in response to my question but at various times. You can't explain this stuff away. These were the very things I warned the minister about before the government made this move. I said, 'You will own the result.' I warned her privately, I warned her in this place, in the House, and I warned the government in the press when I put out press releases, spoke on radio and whatever. These numbers I've just given to the House are exactly what I predicted would happen. It doesn't give me any solace to say, 'I told you so.' I am grieving for this community, which is dealing with some serious issues here. In the period before we had the cashless debit card in Ceduna, many of the shops, at least in the main street, had bars over the windows. Over the four years of the card those bars disappeared, but they're coming back. I understand the butcher's shop main window has been broken three times. To give people a bit of an understanding of what's happening, a personal story on the ground, I'm going to do something I don't normally do in the chamber. I'm going read a letter from Allan Suter. Allan was mayor of Ceduna when the cashless debit card was introduced. He was appalled by the carnage that had happened over there, the six untimely deaths caused by alcohol consumption that led to a state coroners report. Of course that eventually led us firstly to the BasicsCard and then to the cashless debit card. While he's the former mayor, he still lives there and he is still vitally interested in what happens in his community. I'd like to thank him for the work he did through that period of time. This letter will take a little while to read out, but I've got time to do it and I think it'll be worth the House's time to hear it: We are experiencing a growing problem within Ceduna partly due to the cancellation of the cashless debit card. At the same time, we have a very good situation with our local Ceduna/Koonibba Indigenous population because of their capable leadership and generally excellent relations with local people. Almost all trouble is caused by people from remote communities who are predominately in Ceduna to drink and have absolutely no concern for this community. Many of these visitors have abandoned housing and children in their communities to sleep rough in Ceduna in order to cater for an addiction to alcohol, gaming or drugs. There are unsupervised gangs of children roaming in those communities. In the past weeks our next-door neighbour has had his home broken into 3 times. Our whole neighbourhood has endured sleepless nights because of drunken revelry. Our local golf course and adjacent land has numbers of rough sleepers and in some areas is more like a rubbish tip than anything else. At times our central business area is inundated with visitors waiting for an opportunity to get a drink, humbug people or whatever. We are spending $13,500.00 on security shutters on our house because it seems necessary for the first time after 44 years living here. We would like to see this repaid to the many locals who also have needed to instal security since the card was cancelled. Tourists are advising all who will listen to avoid Ceduna at all costs because it is dangerous. I heard such a discussion in Streaky Bay between a group of young visitors who were going west. During last week we had 42 homeless people arrive on a bus with no arrangements to accommodate them and I strongly suspect the cost was covered by a government agency or by a government funded agency. These people were camped in the Adelaide parklands and were certainly not welcome visitors there. I might add that this was during the festival of arts. He continues: I believe that they may be here to attend a funeral, but they will remain in the longer term. This has solved a problem for Adelaide by dumping it on us. I am concerned that the above trends will adversely affect Ceduna residents and that this may only be the "tip of an iceberg". It is my opinion that many of these problems are being caused by Government funded agencies or Government agencies making it very attractive for visitors to stay in Ceduna in order to drink or cater for addictions. Some examples of the problems and cause are as follows: Free coffee is being provided by the Red Cross and others including Drug and Alcohol services. This is available all day and is provided in take away containers. This is leading to a major issue with litter and the containers are being used by many to surreptitiously consume alcohol in our dry area. This makes it extremely difficult for Police to enforce the dry area rules. It is also an attraction to visitors who are sleeping rough in order to be able to drink. I have written to Council suggesting that take away containers should not be given out and replaced by containers to be consumed and to remain on the premises. There are 42 bodies providing services to these visitors and many (including me) believe that the level of services available are attracting growing numbers of visitors. The provision of free food and drink and other services certainly would appear to incentivise staying in town in order to drink, gamble or access drugs. Most State Government Agencies, (particularly Health) operate behind a wall of secrecy and cite "privacy" as an excuse. The provision of general statistics has no implication about privacy and would greatly assist with the assessment as to where the problems exist yet are hidden from view. Why is this so? Some agencies provide tents to rough sleepers despite the availability of accommodation provided at great cost to discourage rough sleeping. This accommodation is not used by some because they cannot drink there. I have photographs of a brand-new abandoned tent which appears to have been used once or twice before being left in an unusable condition. We now have 2 groups of rough sleepers from Yalata camping illegally in Kuhlman Drive beside the Eyre Highway. This road is used by all heavy vehicles travelling along the highway together with many cars. The mess created by this camping area is disgraceful despite 2 thorough clean-ups by Council at the cost of local ratepayers. There is a high danger of a tragedy with heavily intoxicated persons sharing the highway with trucks and cars. As a typical example of what our community is enduring at 10.14a.m. I saw four intoxicated persons pushing a purloined supermarket trolley containing an open carton of West End Draft cans together with a bag of other drinks (no food) while drinking from open cans of beer. This being in a dry area which is not respected by many of our visitors. During dinner involving many locals I was told that quite a few decent citizens pick up rubbish from the foreshore and other areas every day. This was not necessary when the Cashless Debit Card was in place and is causing much resentment. I shudder to think what our town would look like if it was not for the efforts of good local citizens and Council. It was suggested we should send Minister Burney a bill to lighten the load on our community. It would certainly seem that our efforts to protect rough sleepers may have the undesirable outcome that growing numbers are finding it better to sleep rough in Ceduna rather than remaining in community. This is harmful to women and children including the children left to roam community streets at night. It also has the effect of increasing drinking, gambling or drug taking. It may ultimately result in a tragic loss of life as has happened in the past. We did not have this level of problems whilst the cashless debit card was in place. My suggestion is that the level of services provided to rough sleepers by Government Agencies and Government funded agencies should be reviewed as a matter of urgency with the aim of discontinuing those services which encourage rough sleepers to stay in Ceduna and achieve very little else. Providing such services within remote communities would be much more helpful. If these issues are not addressed as a matter of urgency, many valued citizens may decide that Ceduna is no longer a great place to live. Allan Suter That was written on 15 April. I think that's a very powerful letter. It is from someone who loves their community and has a very good relationship with the Indigenous community. Indeed, he worked very hard with the Far West Aboriginal Communities Leaders Group to build support for the card in the first place. Those leaders have been vocal in defence of the card in the past, but they are simply worn out. They are sick of having to fight the same battles. They have to come here to Canberra and fight the same battle for a decision that they have already made. As a government, we put forward in the last parliament that this card should become permanent, but those who sit on the other side of this chamber now, the government, refused to back that point of view. Eventually, we got a short extension, just until they got into government and could cancel it. They made it one of their first actions in government to get rid of the card—to get rid of the card so people could drink more, gamble more and take more drugs! That was more important than a host of other things that the government had to do when they got into power. Quite frankly, they've created a hell of a mess. I know Ceduna is not the only community dealing with this. We feel like we are going back further and further into a dark time. The resentment will build in the community among those good people who are doing the right thing but getting dragged down by these visitors who come in and just will not go back to the homes in their communities that we have provided for them. 17:51 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I too rise tonight to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023. While he is still in the chamber, I'd like to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Grey and his commitment to his vast electorate, but particularly to Ceduna. I can't remember the exact time, but I was in Ceduna with the member for Grey at the start of the process for this card. I met Allan Suter, the mayor at the time, and a couple of the Aboriginal leaders in the community. I can't remember their names, but they were an impressive young group of people. They went through enormous personal challenges and attack from within the community to bring this into place. They had a belief that this card—and, at the time, that having Ceduna as part of the original trial—was going to benefit their community. Through that enormous show of strength of leadership, they did prove to be correct; it did make a big difference. Ceduna is a beautiful place—when I was there I thought what a wonderful place it was—so I can understand the member for Grey's frustration. One of the trial sites at that time was to be Moree, in my electorate of Parkes. The reason I thought Moree would be a good one and put it up for consideration was that the recipients of welfare in Moree are about fifty-fifty Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. I think one of the big mistakes in this whole argument is that the race card has been played—that this was actually a racist thing to do. The member for Hinkler is here. I'm sure his contribution will talk about the positive outcomes in his area, so I won't go there, but the member for Hinkler's constituency and mine were somewhat similar in that they weren't entirely Aboriginal communities. Minister Tudge at the time agreed that Moree could be a trial site, but one of the criteria for having the card was that it had to be accepted by the community. We sent officials from the department to Moree but, once word got around that Moree might be a trial site for the welfare card, the activists in the community whipped up a lot of fear that it would be a racist thing. There was quite a lot of intimidation in the community, particularly towards the council, who had to tick it off. At the time, the publicans also led a major attack against it. Indeed, one of the publicans came into my office and wanted to know how much compensation there would be for his business if this card came into play. That means that the business plan for his hotel involved people spending money that came from the government that was designed to feed, clothe and educate their children and give their families a quality of life that was somewhat acceptable. The fact that the money going to these families was going through the bottle shop and through the poker machines indicated to me there was a reason why we should have the card there. As it turned out, the council changed its mind and we didn't get the card to Moree. Interestingly, one of the loudest voices against the card said to me a couple of years later, 'Maybe we were a bit hasty.' Maybe we should have looked at this a bit closer now that Moree and other communities in my electorate are dealing in particular with lawlessness. One of the reasons that young kids are roaming the streets at night-time and getting into trouble is that it's not safe at home. Home is where people are drunk, they are stoned and there's no food. The police, for instance, tell me that quite often when young kids get caught stealing, the first thing that they are stealing is food, because they're hungry, and one thing leads to another. I've listened to Minister Rishworth's contributions to this place in question time, and it's absolutely amazing how out of touch the ministers, the people in charge of these departments, are with reality. Sadly, we're starting to see a fair bit of that in this parliament. I'm getting lectured by members on the other side, who have got 0.05 of a per cent of the population as Aboriginal, about what we should be doing. After the Northern Territory, the Parkes electorate has the next highest percentage of Aboriginal people. It's a great privilege to represent Aboriginal communities. They support me, and we have built up a relationship over the last 15 or 16 years. It gives me and other members of this side the ability to stand here and not speak on some philosophical, ideological rant like we were still at some university debating club. We're actually talking about people's lives here. I think it goes right back to what you think welfare is. Is welfare pay for not working or is welfare assistance from the taxpayers to their fellow Australians who are doing it tough, making sure that we don't have people living on the streets, that they can feed their children, that there is money to educate people? That's certainly my idea of what welfare is. It's not pay that the adults in the family can decide to drink, gamble or whatever. So I think there's a big philosophical difference here. I personally am very supportive of helping people who are doing it tough. I think we're a very generous and caring country. But part of that is changing the circumstances of those people so they're not there for their entire lives. Right across my electorate at the moment, we have people doing incredible work with young Aboriginal people to help them have a better life and we have seen great results. Last year over 70 Aboriginal kids did the HSC in Dubbo; that's an enormous increase. These young people are going off and joining the police force and the military. They're working in local trades. Some are going to university. Some are working in the meat processing sector or whatever. One of the great frustrations—and I don't want to go too much into the issue around the Voice, but that's had a lot of discussion in this place. The Aboriginal people in the Parkes electorate are people in the community who are not leading separate lives; they are just getting on with it. And it's not just an Aboriginal problem. That's why I think the welfare card should not be considered an Aboriginal card; it should be considered a card for people on welfare. We've got young people from all backgrounds falling on hard times because they're getting caught up in meth and alcohol, and the lawless activity that comes from that. In some ways I'm actually pleased the government has seen the error of its ways but it's a shame we had to go through this level of hardship where the genie is out of the bottle and it's going to be very hard to put it back in, as the member for Grey indicated. Hopefully the government has learnt a lesson from this—that it should be listening to the people in the communities. That's what the members on this side do. I spent the week before last out in my river towns speaking to members of the tribal council, the cultural centres and the Aboriginal medical services, just chewing the fat and getting a feel for what the big issues were. I will finish on another matter. The member for Bruce spoke earlier. The document that he was quoting from was Niki Savva's novel. Seriously, that's his reference point! The scare campaign that the member for Bruce ran before the last election to scare the most vulnerable members of our community—that their pensions were going to be taken away from them and cards would be given—was completely baseless. One of the reasons when opposition becomes government—they've actually laid groundwork where they have to save face, on the ridiculous statements they made in opposition, by changing these things. The Minister for Social Services's contributions to this place have been absolutely ridiculous in their nature, in their lack of understanding of what the changes in policy have meant for people. I have a lot to do in my communities. Quite often it's the elderly, the grandmas and the aunties that are keeping the families together. They are not opposed to having their welfare on a card to protect them from humbugging from people, because if you've got cash you are vulnerable to being humbugged for that money. I will support this legislation. I hope the government has learnt a lesson on this—that we don't live in an ideologically driven landscape that's completely removed from reality, that we do things in this place that sometimes are not easy—and you have to fight for them—but make a difference in people's lives. These cards made a difference in people's lives. The government have created chaos with their changes. I will support them to try and get this back on track. 18:04 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler To those who might be listening to this debate at home or elsewhere: you might think that the cashless debit card trials were only in Aboriginal communities, but they were not. In fact, the biggest trial site in the country was in my electorate of Hinkler. At one stage there were over 6,000 participants, roughly the equivalent of the other three trial sites put together. Those numbers change over time—they move up and down depending, particularly, on youth unemployment—but the trial site in my patch was very, very different to the other three. Roughly five per cent of the community, that's all, identify as being of Aboriginal heritage. The trial was for those aged 35 and under in the electorate of Hinkler, who were on four payments: Newstart, youth allowance, parenting payment single or parenting payment partnered. It took literally months to put this in place. There was a significant plan and there were significant support services. We had support services both online and face to face in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. If anyone had any challenges, they could talk directly to somebody. Do you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker? After a very short period of time, those services hardly got used. But what did get used was the cashless debit card, to make a real difference for people who found themselves in difficult circumstances. I had never before dealt with any policy that had such strong support in the electorate; in fact, no matter what you looked at, it was almost 70 per cent supported. We had media doing ReachTEL polling and we had what we did locally. There were all sorts of claims all over the place, but ultimately my community supported this. They supported the cashless debit card rollout because they wanted to see change. They know change is difficult, they know this is tough policy and they know it is necessary. Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, I know you get similar things in your electorate. There were a number of times when a constituent would come in and yell—you can tell when there's potentially a spray on its way—but overwhelmingly people would say, 'Keep fighting for this.' They'd talk about their aunties, their uncles, their cousins—their grandchildren, in particular—who'd had enormous benefit from the card being in place, because they simply couldn't spend all of their support on alcohol, drugs or gambling products. I know it's tough—there's no doubt about that, and I have said it many times—and I know there are no silver bullets, but the reason we fought so hard for this is that it works. If there is one kid who gets fed because we put this in place, I'll continue to fight for it. I'll tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are a lot more than one. There was feedback from teachers and school principals, all of whom, as you know, can't talk about this publicly because they are prohibited from making those contributions by their agreement with the state, as state school principals and state schoolteachers. Police very rarely can go on the record. They are all enormously supportive because it works. We had feedback on rent rolls improving and being paid. I had produce agents tell me people whom they'd never seen before were coming in regularly to buy food for their pets. We see that those opposite have knocked this out based on an ideology, based on the socialist alliance of the people in Sydney and Melbourne. It's not those people who live in these communities. It's not those people who need to make changes. It's not those people who see the consequences. On the other side of the chamber we have an absolutely idealistic government that rubbed this out because it didn't like it. That's what it comes down to. I go back to the commentary from the Minister for Social Services, Minister Rishworth. In an interview on 23 June 2022 she said, 'The government wants to talk about the transition and the pathway forward because we have said that we're getting rid of this privatised card.' In the same interview she said, 'So we're getting rid of the privatisation element of it.' I'll go to another statement, on 4 June 2022: 'We are abolishing the privatised cashless debit card.' On 2 August 2022, in the West Australian, she said it was: … privatised welfare that was born of a Liberal Party ideological obsession forced on communities … …   …   …    It was privatised welfare. On 30 June 2022 she said it was a 'privatised compulsory cashless debit card', and on 28 July 2022, once again from the now minister, we had: 'That was privatised welfare.' Yet what do we see, Mr Deputy Speaker? I draw your attention to the estimates hearing of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee on 15 February 2023, where officials made some statements under questioning from Senator Ruston. She asked: I'm just wondering if you could give us a quick rundown on the functionality differences—that is, the technical functionality of the SmartCard versus the BasicsCard. There was this contribution from Mr Thorpe: … the enhanced income management and SmartCard, which will be available from 6 March, works on a broader range of services. Well, it's the same range of services, because it's a debit card. It makes no difference whatsoever. Senator Ruston: I'm more interested in the technology that sits behind the card. On that basis, from the technology perspective … Mr Thorpe: The same organisation, Indue, is providing the banking services … The same one. The exact same one. What did it cost? Well, just under $12 million and, would you believe, it was a limited tender or a limited approach. In fact, it was exceptionally limited; they only approached one provider. Guess who that was? Indue. So Labor, by their own definition, have privatised welfare. Do you know what the only substantial change was, Deputy Speaker Buchholz? The card's going to change colour. It will be blue instead of silver, because silver is actually the most popular card colour. Call me a cynic, but Labor have privatised welfare by their own admission. It is exactly the same. The only difference is that it is not mandatory. I'm advised—I'll have to confirm these numbers—that in my patch there are now fewer than 30 participants on the card. Can you imagine the cost per card for that? For those opposite to rail against what we tried to do when we were in government, well, it was exactly what they are doing now. We tried to get people off the BasicsCard and onto the CDC because it has much better technology and it works. They are getting to the point where they can get down to product-level blocking, which is so much better. The technology works. It is a debit card. It is much better for those individuals. What we saw throughout the election was a scare campaign run by Labor, who have now done exactly what they said they weren't doing. So, if it is privatising welfare, I come back to the same point: by their definition Labor have privatised welfare—the same card doing the same things from the same provider, except it has changed colour. We had all sorts of information coming through the office over a period of time about breakfast clubs having less demand, about kids going out on events and excursions—kids who never got do those things before—that were paid for. People had additional money. We have seen those horrible reports from places like Alice Springs. We have seen what's happened. We have heard from my good friends and colleagues, including the members for Grey, O'Connor and Durack. I would say to those opposite: this is lived experience. This claim is that it is about politics and that people hate it. Well, those members all got re-elected, as I did. They all got re-elected, and you don't get that unless you have the majority of your community onboard and they do, because what we did made a difference. You only have to listen. I heard the contribution from the member for Grey; he has actual numbers. There is a reason we couldn't get these numbers in Queensland, because the Queensland state Labor government wouldn't give them to us. We tried. If you look at the Auditor-General's report, it is scathing of the department for not delivering what the minister asked for—scathing. Yet my community still supports the rollout, still supports these changes. They want to see change in their community, because we have significant challenges with multigenerational welfare dependence. My patch still has, as far as I'm aware, the lowest per capita income in the country. It is not these remote communities; it is ours. These are large—very large—regional areas. We on this side put forward millions of dollars in support services. In fact, when an audit was done at the commencement of the cashless debit card, there were almost 70 providers providing support throughout my electorate—almost 70—fully funded. Yet what do we continue to see from those opposite? We see all sorts of claims about privatisation, all sorts of claims about scare tactics for pensioners. I don't see how you are an aged pensioner if you are aged 35 or under. That applied in the trial site in my patch—age 35 or under. While I have the opportunity, I want to thank the local community reference group in the electorate of Hinkler, who came under not only significant pressure but, in some circumstances, abuse from those individuals out there, those keyboard cowards who chase individuals down on Facebook and other social media platforms and abuse them simply for being involved. The reference group just want their community to be better. They volunteered and they did it pretty tough, I have to say. Even the location of an information session was attacked by these so-called activists online because the organisers dared to take the money from Department of Social Services to run an event to give people information. These were the types of things that we were up against, and yet my community continues to support it because it matters to them, to their kids and to their grandkids. We cannot continue to do the same things and expect to get different outcomes. If you want to make change, you have to make tough decisions—and these are tough but necessary decisions. I'll come back to where I started. For four of us on this side of the House these are lived experiences. We know what it is like to implement the trial. We know what it takes. We know how hard it is. We know that there are members of the community who are opposed. They are entitled to their views. I sat in here and I heard those opposite rail against this because they said there was no way off the cashless debit card. Guess what? There is a really simple solution. You can go to work. You can get a job—right now, we have an unemployment rate under four per cent—and you can do whatever you like. It's your money. We saw when this was implemented a significant change in youth unemployment alone. I want every single one of those kids to get an opportunity, I had one when I came out of high school. At the time, I did not realise how fortunate I was to be offered a trade. How was I to know there were 280 other kids lined up? I simply didn't know. But it was an opportunity that I was given and one which I utilised and, to be honest, took for granted for some period of time. I don't take it for granted anymore. I want those kids to have that same opportunity. I have to tell you that they are not going to get it while they continue to be isolated in multigenerational welfare dependent families. We need to do something about that. We are in the place where we can make a difference. We are in the place where we can make decisions that will help them. That is what this is about. It is not about being difficult. It is not about challenges for individuals whom we know have issues with alcohol and other problems. This is about those fundamental pieces of being involved in the community. You have to feed your kids. You have to take the opportunity of the support that's being provided to utilise it for the right things. Why do you think we have seen so many people come to this parliament from places like Laverton, Kununurra and the Goldfields over in the west? The biggest activist in my patch against the cashless debit card was an individual who would never be honest and who didn't live there, and yet over and over we saw those opposite take those types of submissions as reasons to make the decisions that they have. It is the wrong approach. The overwhelming majority of my community supports the cashless debit card. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame. They fought against us when we tried to do exactly what they are doing they did with the BasicsCard. They removed this without community consultation. It was an across-the-board decision—'We are doing this because we are opposed based on our ideology.' As the member for Grey has said, it has unleashed chaos in some of these communities. Mine is very, very different, but it works and I will continue to support it. 18:18 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I commend the member for Hinkler on his contribution. He is a man who wears his heart on his sleeve, He's a fellow tradie. He's worked assiduously behind the scenes in the party room. The member for Hinkler is someone who genuinely cares about his community and is here because he wants to make a difference. There are not too many people who could speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 with the same sort of authority. In fact, there are really only four people who could speak on this bill with the same authority as the member for Hinkler. I commend him for his great work in this space. I rise to speak on this income management reform bill with some concerns. These are concerns which have been raised by the opposition on behalf of wearied and worried Australian families. These are families who are barely making ends meet, families who have struggled over the last six months to put food on the table, to turn on their air-con, to pay for kids' sport and to keep their businesses afloat. As we speak, there are businesses across this country whose owners have their heads in their hands, wondering how they are going to make payroll on Thursday and how they are going to make all of the payments and deal with all of the bills. I've been there. I've been there in my own small businesses for over 30 years. I'll just dip into the overdraft one more time; I'll put it on the credit card—anything to keep the business alive. For those people who are out there tonight who might be listening to this, know that there are people in this chamber that understand your predicament, and we have been where you are. Every decision we make in this place—I know this is going to sound trite—but for every decision we make in this place we should have you and your families front and centre of our minds. Those people are, after all, the people who elected us. They are the reason why we are here. These are real people who, in my view, have been abandoned by this Labor government, a Labor government whose priorities are out of whack. They're out of touch of the needs of everyday Australians, and they are patently out of their depth on things that matter to everyday Australians. I speak on this bill concerned that this Labor government simply have no idea what they are doing—either that or they just don't seem to care. I'm not sure which one it is. Maybe it's both. While the coalition will not stand in the way of the government on this bill, we have a number of questions which those opposite have yet to this answer. Question one: when will this reform actually take place? It appears as if Labor don't know when the bill will take effect. Either that or they are keeping Australians in the dark, yet again. Regulatory impact statements help policy makers, in particular government, consider how proposals affect businesses, individuals and community organisations, as well as broader social, economic and legal impacts. This process must be entered into honestly and in good faith. Last year, the government's regulation impact statement for the bill abolishing the cashless debit card stated: Current income management participants will continue to use the BasicsCard, and move to a new card with enhanced functionality from 1 July 2023. Australians and the Public Service alike expect the government will keep its word when it says something like that. Australians rely upon that. Where they can't, where government can't keep their word, then Australians expect their government to be honest, to be clear and to give some sort of an explanation. That has got to be the bare minimum obligation on government. Yet, this government has not offered any deadline since that statement. The bill text, the explanatory memorandum and the government's material fail to mention any start date or firm time line. We are being asked to vote on legislation with a vague commencement date. While we do so in good faith, it is incumbent on this government to do their job and keep Australians and their elected representatives informed. The fact that those opposite haven't even bothered to tell parliament, much less some of our most vulnerable Australians on income management, when the transition will commence shows a complete disregard for the Australian people. It shows contempt. It shows arrogance and ignorance and, dare I say, incompetence. This Labor government are so blinded by an ideological crusade on income management that they are willing to risk the wellbeing and independence of vulnerable Australians in regional communities. Question two: how will they manage the transition? The Sydney Morning Herald on 5 March 2023 revealed that Services Australia had advised Minister Rishworth that meeting the government's transition deadline would be highly problematic, because of what it called IT issues. We are calling on the government to tell us what advice they've received on this matter. Do they share our concerns? Do they share the concerns of Australians on the capacity of their social services safety net? What is this government doing about it? Instead of answers and clarity and honesty, we've had ministers going to ground and throwing political darts. You can rabbit on about politics and play your nasty political games, but in the end it will be Australians who suffer the consequences. That is Labor's way: they play games, they make bold promises, and they rack up the bill for everyday Australians. In the end, average Australians pay the price. The opposition understands that maintaining the systems which support Australians to access the services and payments they need, including income management, is vital. We would be happy to work with the government to improve the efficiency and technical capacity of Services Australia, but technical capacity means attracting and retraining skilled workers. That's why it's very concerning that, instead of strengthening Services Australia's workforce, Labor have actually cut jobs. Can you believe that? For a party, an organisation and a government that have been so front and centre in saying they're all about jobs, they have cut jobs. In fact, in December the Australian people were told by an agency spokesperson that up to 1,000 specialist IT jobs had been axed. Under questioning in Senate estimates, Services Australia revealed that 1,024 contractor jobs had been culled by this sneaky Labor government. This exacerbates the brain drain in government services. They deprived Services Australia of the expertise it needs to support Australians, particularly those who will undergo this transition. The Community and Public Sector Union has been calling for years to cut the use of contractors. Once again, the federal Labor government is doing the unions' bidding, instead of listening to the experts and delivering for Australians in need. The fact is that the government haven't thought through the implications of this transition. Even the Office of Impact Analysis found that their assessment wasn't good practice and that the transition plans require more detail. Despite $150 million being allocated to manage this transition—$150 million in taxpayers' funds—Labor still can't answer whether Services Australia has the trained resources ready to deliver this program. Inefficient technical capacity, job cuts to appease the unions and a shoddy assessment process—we know where this goes. We've read this book; we know how it ends. It means budget blowouts. It means service cuts. It means panicked purchasing and Public Service bloating. It means the federal Labor government showing the Australian people just how out of depth they really are. Question 3: what will these changes do? The worst part is that, despite all of their investment, incompetence and intransigence, the government still don't actually know what the new program will do. Speaking to ABC Goldfields on 15 February, the Assistant Minister for Social Services said the new SmartCard will be able to be used for online transactions, 'which the cashless debit card didn't allow'. Let's fact-check that. That is fundamentally false. The Services Australia website says: You can use your CDC at over one million EFTPOS terminals around Australia and do your shopping online. In fact, during Senate estimates that same day, officials admitted that there is no technological difference between the cashless debit card and the government's new SmartCard. They're even run by the same organisation: Indue. The government labelled the cashless debit card a failed program, yet they are shamelessly relaunching the same service to provide voluntary income management to vulnerable communities. It's the same service with a different name. They rebrand; they rebadge; they reheat. They've treated their 10 months in office as though government is just another do-it-yourself project. They sand down quality policies, throw on a lick of paint or some tacky content and post it on Facebook, hoping that Australians will wear it. What was one man's treasure, Labor have turned into another man's trash. Removing the compulsory nature of this income management service takes away its major strength. It forced those who could not otherwise manage their income to confront the harms they are inflicting on others and themselves, but particularly their families. It made it much more difficult to fuel addiction and fund unlawful behaviour. I really, seriously wouldn't have thought that anybody in this place could have thought that blowing money on the pokies or on online gambling would have been better than putting clothes on your kids or feeding your kids. I've been very, very vocal and outspoken about our obligations as a community, particularly in relation to gambling, and if people have got such a huge problem with their gambling, blowing money that they can't afford, or if they can't look after their children, then government has an obligation to step in to look after those kids. Labor have taken the coalition's landmark income management program which was saving lives and livelihoods and they have dismantled good policy. They have shaved it down, they have broken it and now they are fumbling their way back to the drawing board. Since the repeal of the CDC, we have seen vulnerable communities feeling the devastation. Street crime, gambling, alcohol-fuelled violence, child neglect—no one is suggesting that these things didn't happen under our watch. No one is suggesting that. But why would we change something that seemed to be working? The definition of insanity is to keep doing what you have always been doing and expecting a different result. We introduced something different and we got good results, and those opposite have trashed it. What a waste of taxpayers' money! What a waste of Australia's goodwill! Question 4 goes to why this Labor government continues to turn its back on regional Australia. The continuation of the cashless debit card program was in direct response to calls from community leaders who told us that it was making a difference. The cashless debit card strikes a balance between allowing welfare recipients to make independent purchasing decisions and helping to create safe communities. The unions get what the unions want because the unions pay Labor's way to this place. The coalition saw lives being destroyed in vulnerable communities because of generational welfare dependence, child abuse, alcoholism and addiction. We took action because good governments take action when confronted with challenges. The cashless debit card was core to that response, and it worked. Ask the people of Ceduna. Ask the people of the goldfields. Or, close to my patch, ask the people of Bundy and Hervey Bay. 18:33 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Late last year, with a cross-party delegation, I visited Kenya in Africa, looking at the famine there. Four failed rainy seasons have caused such heartache, such hardship. Indeed, it has resulted in the worst drought in 40 years, and 942,000 children under the age of five are acutely malnourished. The delegation, which included Liberal members—Labor too—visited a refugee camp near Kakuma. Earlier, Deputy County Commissioner Mwachaunga Chaunga told us of the difficulty of the balancing act that the community and the leadership in that community faced when coping with the refugees, many of whom have been residing there for three decades—30 years. Many of those refugees are from war-torn neighbouring countries or other nearby countries experiencing famine and hardship, and have never known anything other than the confines of that refugee camp. Progress is being made to integrate outsiders, albeit slowly, Mr Chaunga said—those people from Somalia and other nations—and to allow them work permits. But while I was at that camp, I spoke to somebody who said to me that there was one thing that was working—in fact, a provision which was having some success. Food rations for refugees in the camp had been reduced when we were there to 80 per cent of the recommended amount, and recipients were receiving half their monthly handout as food and the remainder as a targeted debit allowance. We cannot make this stuff up: I said to him, 'What do you call it?' and he said, 'We call it a cashless welfare debit card.' Go figure! We had just abandoned that as a policy to help our most vulnerable here in this country, and yet it was working in Kenya. When I told this person that we had such a policy in our country but that we had wound it back, he just shook his head. He didn't need to say anything, he just shook his head. Ceduna has a population of 3½ thousand. It was established in 1898, so it's not a new town—not a fly-by-night community by any stretch of the imagination. It has been there since the late 19th century. We heard the member for Gray earlier talking passionately and powerfully about the benefit of the cashless debit card in Ceduna. There was an article in the Australian on 10 February by Ellen Whinnett, who, coincidentally, was with us on that trip to Kenya. The article talked about how residents of the remote town of Ceduna held a crisis meeting following the abolition of Australia's first cashless debit card program, amidst fears that it had contributed to a rise, to a spike, in alcohol abuse; regretfully, to child neglect; and, as was described, to absolute bedlam. The mayor, Ken Maynard, was there. We should listen to our mayors when they speak, because they're at the forefront of communities. They're the first level of government in this country, and when they talk about issues affecting their communities we should listen very much; we should meet with them as much as we can. I don't think that's happening all that often at the moment. I think that ministers should go out of their way to make sure that they don't talk at but that they listen to people such as Mayor Maynard. He said that he believed the abolition of the card had caused, in his words, 'some negative impacts'. His predecessor, Perry Will, said that the decision had led to problems on the streets, including drunken fights, vomiting, defecation and people accosting tourists for money. The former mayor said that he had run the visitor information centre for more than a dozen years but that he had retired, and he was just glad to be out of it. He was the one who used the word 'bedlam'; he said: By bedlam, I mean vomiting, urinating, defecating in the streets— It's awful stuff— around the business areas and on the lawns and on the seafront, fighting in the streets, smashing bottles and littering all over the town with alcohol and takeaway food containers. I'm not standing here and suggesting that the cashless debit card is going to solve all these problems: I am not. But, indeed, what they've seen in the community, and they would know—they live there and it's their lived experience—is that those problems, those very worrying and disturbing incidents, lessened when the cashless debit card was in place. I'll quote Perry Will: People begging, accosting tourists for money to buy alcohol. All this behaviour was at a minimum when we limited the amount of cash available and people still had money so that they could buy food and clothes, in particular for the children of dysfunctional families. That's what former mayor Perry Will had to say. Ellen Whinnett's article continues: Four business owners who spoke to The Weekend Australian but were too fearful of repercussions to be named publicly, said there had been an obvious increase in public drunkenness and anti-social behaviour in the town centre— in the central business district, since the cashless debit card had been withdrawn. One business owner said they had locked themselves in their shop and called police after a brawl outside saw locals throwing rocks at each other. You have to feel for the police; you really do. Their job is to obviously keep law and order, but when law and order unfortunately goes awry because of stupid policies, you have to feel for them, you have to feel for the communities, you have to feel for the families and you have to feel for the mums who are potentially facing greater risk of domestic violence. They want the best for their children; they do. They want to see their kids go to school in good, clean, new uniforms. They want them to go to school with breakfast in their bellies and with lunch in their schoolbags. If the money is being spent on things other than that, then what a shame that is. If the money is being spent on gambling or grog, what a terrible shame that is. This article by Ms Whinnett says: While the Labor Left had always despised the card— we know they did; my words, not the journalist's— some Labor figures have privately expressed nervousness about its abolition following the government's backflip to reintroduce alcohol bans in response to an explosion of crime and violence in Alice Springs. We know the cashless debit card worked because we've heard from the lived experience of the members for Parkes, for Hinkler and for Grey, but perhaps even more powerfully we've heard from the mayors, we've heard from the mums and we've heard from ordinary everyday Australians for whom the cashless debit card had made such a difference. It's not just the Australian; this is an article from the ABC, an interview: Once a Kimberley stockman, Kenneth Paul Green now lives on a disability pension—the product of a chronic back injury— life as a stockman can be tough; it's a hard life— in a home on Kununurra's fringe. …   …   … For Mr Green, he said he eventually appreciated the card, as it helped make sure he always had rent money, and— this is the critical part of this paragraph in the story in the ABC from 25 September last year— enough funds to see his kids through school— enough funds to see his children get an education— "To me it was a lifesaver … it controls my spending," he said. The article also quotes: Miriwoong woman Majella Roberts said the card helped her save money for her six children. "On pay day you save it for a couple of days … without people asking for it," she said. "Use it in the shops, clothing shops, even for cabs as well." Then it goes on to talk about: NT man Malati Yunupingu—a resident of Gunyangara community in East Arnhem Land—went on the basics card after cancer made him too sick to work. The Gumatj clan elder said the card helped him save money for food, and fears if it was ever removed— what must he be thinking now— completely, vulnerable children in his community would go hungry— would go without food— "It would make Yolngu people starve," Mr Yunupingu said. He also added: We are living in a different world now. Mother and father are playing cards, on drugs, instead of thinking about the kids. That's the saddest part of it. He was right; that is the saddest part of it. We would do well as a parliament sometimes to stop playing the ideology card, to stop playing the partisan card and to listen more closely to those people who come to this place in good faith and tell us of their lived experience in their communities. Canberra is a rather insular place. It's a wonderful place—it's the capital of this nation—but it's rather insular. When people from these remote communities take the time, the trouble, the effort and the expense to come here and tell us their stories, we should at least listen to them—not talk at them, not let them just talk to our advisers, but as ministers and shadow ministers listen to their wise words and heed what they say. Today we had representatives from Western Australia's northern Goldfields. They travelled to Canberra to have a roundtable discussion on what could only be described as the disastrous decision to abolish the cashless debit card. Patrick Hill, who is the President of the Shire of Laverton, and Peter Craig, who's the President of the Shire or Leonora, representatives with lived experience on the ground, provided real, passionate, experienced accounts of what we've seen as the impact since Labor removed compulsory income management. They attributed the card's removal to the chaos which is unfolding in their communities. They're very good communities. I've been to many of these communities in remote Australia. As the member for Hinkler said, it's not just remote Australia; it's his wonderful Queensland community as well. They are good communities and they are good people. Yes, they need help. They were getting it. The representatives unsuccessfully sought a meeting with the Prime Minister. I appreciate that the Prime Minister had former US president Barack Obama in Sydney, and that's important, but is it more important than the people who have taken the time and trouble to come across the country to see their Prime Minister? They're just as important, I would argue—perhaps even more so. Now, I know the Leader of the Opposition visited the regions in February. He heard firsthand accounts of the changes that were occurring in those communities because of the removal of the income management system. Labor was repeatedly warned that abolishing the Cashless Debit Card would lead to drug and alcohol fuelled violence, and you know what? It is happening. Now, we are calling on Labor in good faith. We are asking the government, having listened to the lived experience, having seen what is happening around this great country in those wonderful remote communities, to reinstate the compulsory cashless debit card, because it will not just save people's livelihoods; it will save their lives. 18:48 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies Thank you to all the speakers who have been before me, both those I have heard directly in this chamber and those I have tuned in to from my office between meetings. I remember when this was before this House before, and I'll be very frank: this isn't an issue that is directly relevant to a large majority of people in my electorate, but I recognise that all of us, the 151 members in this place, represent a little piece Australia with different experiences in different electorates. I remember watching those who spoke about this passionately, begging the government, 'Please don't do this.' There's no joy in 'I told you so.' There's no pleasure in seeing the consequences of what's happened. It would have a much better to have said, 'Actually, Labor was right, the government was right, it's okay and it worked out fine.' That's what we wanted. But here we are. Instead of actually listening to the members and the people who are speaking to them, this government are applauding themselves for other things they are doing. They are talking about a voice but not actually listening to the most important function of a voice, which is this place. That is what this building is. This building is a voice for the nation. Every single person in this chamber and those who represent the states in the Senate are a voice for each person in each electorate, whether they voted for us or whether they didn't, whether they can vote or whether they can't. That includes refugees, children and non-citizens. It includes people from every background, every corner of this country. Our job in this place is to be a voice for them. So when members come in here and plead with the government to listen to the people in their electorate, that is disappointing, because, by ignoring them, those opposite are not respecting the purpose of the voice in this place for every Australian. The continuation of the cashless debit card program was in direct response to calls from community leaders who told us in the coalition that it was ensuring more money was being spent on essentials and on supporting positive changes. It wasn't a top-down imposed program. It was in response to the community, because that is this parliament working at its best. In all of the discussions around the referendum this year, there are those who claim there is something flawed in our democracy that needs to be fixed. There may be other good reasons for the voice, and we will have that debate. There will be a committee, there will be a parliamentary debate and then the people will have the final say. But if those opposite are claiming that part of the justification is that our democracy is somehow broken, well, the closest you may get might be the actions of this Labor government; that is the closest. Even then, here we are with those opposite, who represent the people who are telling them that this is broken and not working, standing up in this place and being heard. The cashless debit card strikes a balance between allowing welfare recipients to make independent purchasing decisions and helping to create safe communities. There is a principle behind that we should never forget—that is, we should never make the lottery of life, the accident of who your parents are, be the decisive and only thing that will shape your destiny. That can't be what this country is about, because no child gets to choose the circumstances of their birth. Sometimes they didn't win that lottery, and whatever we can do to give them the best shot of life, we should grab with both hands. Despite the evidence that was put before this place when this was debated last year, Labor chose to end the card, which was at direct odds with the wishes of those communities. Labor are more focused on the opinion of those that they might see on social media than those who are actually experiencing it firsthand. We heard many members talking about lived experience. Lived experience isn't just a slogan that we throw out every time suits us; it is a reminder of who we should be listening to. This wasn't just a random decision. This was amongst one of the first decisions of this government. It said a lot about their priorities, what they thought was important. One of the first decisions was to abolish the cashless debit card. The consequences of that were seen almost straightaway, particularly violence, and we know the link between alcohol and violence. So vulnerable communities are feeling the devastating impacts since this repeal. It has unfortunately and tragically led to not only an increase in crime, gambling, and alcohol-fuelled violence, but also child neglect. The areas of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Leonora, Coolgardie and Laverton areas were affected by Labor's abolition of the cashless debit card and their mayors have reported the surge in crime statistics. The government can't just wring its hands and walk away from situations it has created. We hear a lot of talk about responsibility and turning up, but it's about what you do and not what you say. Again, the coalition warned Labor about these consequences, and, again, we take no pleasure in saying, 'I told you so.' We submit that this unnecessary transition, which was imposed for ideological, not practical, reasons, will generate many thousands of customer interactions with Services Australia, imposing extra costs for every taxpayer and creating a burden of time and anxiety for those being transitioned off the CDC. You can understand the frustration for a community that gets used to and familiar with the system to then have the rug pulled from them. You have to get familiar with a new system. So this is not a valuable use of taxpayers' money, especially during this cost-of-living crisis. Australians deserve a government that is not going to treat vulnerable communities as an afterthought. There are certain specific issues that we should address. The first is in terms of IT. The Sydney Morning Herald reported a few weeks ago that Services Australia had advised the minister that meeting the government's transition deadline would be highly problematic because of IT issues. The opposition has called on the minister to urgently explain what advice the agency has provided to the minister and whether those concerns are shared. The minister has gone to ground. We haven't heard anything from Mr Shorten on this issue. We ask: are these IT issues the reason why the 1 July deadline has been dropped from the government's talking points? It's a legitimate question that deserves an answer. The apparent IT issues that were identified by Services Australia beg the question about whether this is related to job cuts under Minister Shorten. Mr Tehan 210911 Job cuts? Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Job cuts. The opposition understands that maintaining the system which supports Australians' access to services and payments, including income management, is vital. That's why it's very concerning that, instead of strengthening Services Australia's workforce, the minister and Labor have launched a wave of job cuts, and that's often a criticism levelled on this side, but it's not one that's done in areas that create need and actually solve problems, and that's what we're concerned is happening here. In December the Australian people were told by an agency spokesperson that up to 1,000 specialist IT jobs had been axed. But, under questioning in Senate estimates, Services Australia revealed that this figure was actually much higher. We now know that the figure is at 1,024 contractor jobs, culled by this minister of this government. Of those, only 130 have returned to the agency. This is a significant brain drain, and you can't turn a tap off and turn it on again and not realise that there's a consequence for that brain drain and loss of corporate knowledge. The Community and Public Sector Union has been calling for years to cut the use of contractors, and the Labor minister is ticking off on that wish list. In the final few minutes I will talk about telephone support. Under Minister Shorten, Services Australia will struggle to manage the transition. Earlier this year it was revealed that phone wait times for Centrelink had blown out under this government. According to Services Australia, from 1 July 2022 to 31 January this year, it took an average of over 18 minutes for a person to be connected with a Centrelink operator. When people wait on the phone for a long period of time and then get to the end and it hangs up when they're told, 'I'll transition you now,' some people just give up. There's an assumption that people don't have other things to do or people to care for. Over 2.1 million Australians chose to terminate a call rather than wait. That's 2.1 million people who had a legitimate query and a problem to be solved that wasn't, and that cascades through their lives and through the lives of the people they are responsible for. This data, which was obtained from Senate estimates, also reveals that under Labor there has been a spike in wait times for Australians calling about the BasicsCard—again, flip flopping on programs. You can't just assume Australians, particularly vulnerable Australians, can just respond to what you're asking them to do. It's just not fair and it's not realistic. From July last year to January this year it took over 13 minutes on average for someone to be connected with an operator. It's just not good enough to take that long. Imagine what the wait time will be when this transition gets underway. We submit that this will create absolute chaos. So the opposition has lodged a series of questions in writing to the minister about how he plans to deal with telephone support under enhanced income management and it's disappointing that to date there has been no response. The people who call this line are among the most vulnerable in our society but this out of touch government doesn't seem to care. They do not have a plan to manage what will no doubt be a significant volume of calls coming through. I return to how I started, that the purpose of this chamber and this parliament is to be a voice for every single person in this country. Speaker after speaker who represent vulnerable communities in Australia stood up last year and begged the government not to take this course of action. They now stand up and say please, finally, listen to us now that you know the pain that it is causing. 19:01 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon What a fine mess you get yourself into when you let ideology rule over common sense, over practical outcomes, over keeping the community safe. That's exactly what we are seeing here, an ideologically driven decision to abolish the cashless debit card after years of planning, of community engagement, of consultation, of bringing people together—whether it be at the local government level, whether it be in some instances Indigenous leaders when it came to Hervey Bay, whether it be bringing other community leaders together to get outcomes which are making communities stronger, which are making them better places to work and to bring up families, which are making them better places for tourists to visit, which are making them better places for families to visit. And yet what we saw was ideology and ideology at its worst. We saw the cashless debit card abolished, and that has already had a huge impact on those local communities where it was working and working so well, whether it was the East Kimberley, the Goldfields, Ceduna, Bundaberg or Hervey Bay. We've seen a decision based on ideology lead to perverse outcomes and the wrong types of outcomes to what we are all looking for. And now we see the flow-on effects even further, because now what we see—or what the government is looking to see—is people moving off the BasicsCard and onto the so-called SmartCard. We know that the SmartCard is, for all intents and purposes, the cashless debit card. It's just another name. It's exactly the same, but for ideological reasons, again, we have got this pretence where they want to call it the SmartCard, even though it is the Cashless Debit Card under another name. And we've seen all this done at huge cost. We have seen enormous uncertainty, because we know that those who have now volunteered to stay on the cashless debit card are waiting to see what happens to them with the SmartCard. We know that when it comes to the BasicsCard people are now wondering when they are going to go onto the SmartCard. We know that the government has got themselves in a right royal mess, because they said it would all happen by this date and now no-one will mention that date, because they don't know when it's all going to happen. It is a bit like the $275 you were going to get cut from your electricity bill. No-one wants to mention it now. We get this bizarre game where, since the election, the Prime Minister has not mentioned it. Now we are getting the same with this date by which we are meant to have the SmartCard implemented. But the tragedy of all this is that this was a policy that was put together through consultation and through the hard work in particular of local members of parliament who wanted to do the right thing by their communities and they are now left with this mess. I want to recognise the member for O'Connor, who is here with us in the chamber, because he wanted to see action taken. He knew that this could be changed through consultation, through the community coming together. He wanted to see real change take place on the problems that he was seeing in his community to do with alcohol abuse and gambling abuse for those who were on welfare and he fought for it. He is still fighting for it. He had a delegation of his local mayors here today. Even though they have had to accept that all the hard work that was done by the community to put the cashless debit card in place has now been taken away, they are still here fighting for it. I asked them this question today: would you like the cashless debit card reinstated? Overwhelmingly they said yes. And it wasn't just the mayors. Indigenous community leaders, those who provide all the social services and those who provide that care when the time comes all want it back as well. I remember when I was social services minister visiting Ceduna. Some of the not-for-profit agencies there I met with said behind closed doors to me, 'Please make sure that the cashless debit card continues, because it is transforming lives; it is transforming our community.' I said, 'Can you come out publicly and say that?' They said, 'The trouble is when we come out publicly and say it we get smashed and it is not worth our while to do it.' Sadly, those who do the smashing on social media, such as Twitter, have won because the government, the Labor Party, capitulated to them and, as a result, these communities are suffering. We have seen the news about Ceduna. The crime rate in Ceduna, based on police statistics, has doubled since the abolition of the cashless debit card. What does that say about how erroneous that decision was? We have seen it in other communities as well. It is having the same impact. I appeal to the government that it is not too late for them to change their minds. It is not too late to say: 'We admit that we got it wrong. We took a decision based purely on ideology. We didn't go out and consult. We didn't go out and look and see what was happening. We just based the decision on ideology, and we got it wrong.' Stand up. I think the Australian people would applaud the Prime Minister for coming to the dispatch box and saying: 'Do you know what? I made an error. I got this completely wrong, and we are going to reinstate the cashless debit card.' In the meantime we've got this move from the Basics Card to the SmartCard. That is what this bill is about. Now we're worried about how the government is going to be able to do this transition. As I've said, the date for the transition to occur has changed, and there is a real concern about whether there is the IT capability to do it. There is talk of cuts. The Services Australia minister, Bill Shorten, is meant to have cut jobs in his own department. We didn't hear any of this before the last election. Those cuts have meant that they're really worried about how they are going to be able to implement the IT for this SmartCard—or should I say 'cashless debit card', because it is the cashless debit card by another name? We hope that the government will be able to get it right because what we do know is that there is a real cost to all this unnecessary change. It's $12 million when it comes to those who are on the cashless debit card voluntarily moving to this so-called SmartCard and then an even greater sum for those who are on the Basics Card going to the SmartCard. Those millions could have gone into wraparound services in East Kimberly, in Goldfields, in Ceduna, in Bundaberg and in Harvey Bay. That could have made a real difference. Instead, what we're seeing is the government spending money on IT solutions, which, ultimately, weren't necessary. Ultimately, they were only driven by ideology. Go figure. We could have been seeing—and there are many, many regional and rural communities who need this—the provision of alcohol related services to help people in regional and rural areas. But, no, the money will go on IT solutions—unnecessary IT solutions. It could have gone on rehabilitation programs. No, it will go on IT solutions to solve a problem where there was no problem. That is what ideology delivers. When you make decisions based on ideology, this is the outcome that you get. And it is very, very sad that we're here doing this. I understand that there were meetings with the minister today where the case was presented to see whether there could be a transition back to the cashless debit card or whether the government could come forward and start providing the necessary services to the communities that have been impacted by the removal of the cashless debit card. We wait to see what the outcomes will be of those meetings. My hope is that we will now see recognition from the government of what their ideological based decision has led to, and then we will see them at least providing additional services into those communities to make up for the fact that we've seen crime rise, we've seen drug use rise, we've seen alcohol use rise and we've seen gambling rise. That, at a minimum, is what the government should be doing, because, when you make an ideological based decision that has such a detrimental impact on these communities, the least you can do is step in and put additional services in there. Hopefully this would happen on their pathway to acknowledging how important the cashless debit card is for those communities and how, if the government had built on the legacy that had been put in place through consultation over many years, they could have enhanced the cashless debit card. The thing is, the improvements in technology means that you can continue to develop this policy and make sure that it continues to deliver for communities. It was the position of the former government to build on the cashless debit card. My hope is, as we go through our policy development processes, that you will see us take the cashless debit card to the next election, because we know that it gets the outcomes that communities are looking for. We know that people, and especially the most vulnerable, are protected if you can make sure that welfare doesn't lead to alcohol fuelled violence, doesn't lead to people spending all their money on gambling and doesn't mean that people spend all their money on drugs. The cashless debit card, and this is where it was such a simple solution, meant that income was quarantined to make sure that it would be spent on food—food for kids, food for families. That's pretty simple. What it meant was that income would be protected, so that it could be spent on food. It could also be spent to ensure that there was enough to pay the rent or enough to pay the mortgage, so that people had a roof over their heads. That's what the cashless debit card was all about. It's funny, because people say about us on this side, 'They're cold and they're heartless,' yet, at its very essence, the cashless debit card was about making sure that communities and families were protected and that children were safe. It was all about ensuring that we got the best outcomes for our community. It was about having a heart. It was about making decisions that brought the community together and that got outcomes which strengthened communities. It was all about ensuring that young children had the best opportunity they could to get to school—and to get to school fed—so that they could get an education and flourish. It was about making sure that communities could flourish. Mr Deputy Speaker, you heard Rowan Ramsey, the member for Grey, talk about Ceduna and how that community was transformed—how tourists started going back there again, how kids were going to school again and how people felt safe in that community—and how all that, sadly, has changed. This policy, at its heart, was about getting the community together, facing the problem, which all communities face in one way or another, of people being addicted to alcohol, drugs or gambling, and coming up with a solution. It is so sad that ideology has destroyed that. It is so sad that that's where we're at. I do hope that the government will be big enough to say: 'We got this wrong. Our ideologically driven, cold-hearted approach has had a devastating impact on these communities.' Instead of a program which could have continued to be rolled out, we now have a situation where we're scrambling to invent a new card, the SmartCard, which is just like the cashless debit card. We're paying money on IT, which is money that should be going to these communities to help provide additional services. Basically, what has happened is that the government have created a mess of their own making, and all because they took an ideological decision. 19:16 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise this evening to support the government's bill, the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023, but also to support the amendment moved by the shadow minister, calling for the reintroduction of the cashless debit card across the current trial sites. This is very close to my heart. The Goldfields and the northern Goldfields are a part of my electorate and I have worked with those communities since late 2015 for the introduction of the card. I've watched this debate and I've watched members from the other side, including the assistant minister, make statements that are completely untrue. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they made those statements out of ignorance, as opposed to some other term which, as it's unparliamentary, I can't use in this place. One of the furphies I've heard over and over again is that the card was imposed on these communities. Nothing could be further from the truth. In late 2015, when I was in Leonora one evening, a wonderful, beautiful Aboriginal elder, Nanna Gay Harris, approached me to say that there had just been two teenage suicides in the town—that two young females, sadly, had taken their own lives. She pleaded with me: 'What can we do about this? What can you do?' I said: 'Look, I haven't got all the answers and I don't even know if I have got an answer, but I know that we're trialling a cashless debit card in Ceduna, which would restrict the amount of money that a welfare recipient would receive. Eighty per cent of that money would go on their card, and that money wouldn't be available to buy alcohol or drugs or for gambling. I don't know whether that is the answer, but we can give it a go.' She said: 'Please. We need to do something in our community.' It's also a furphy that these communities weren't consulted. This was followed—and these are Department of Social Services figures—by 270 consultations across the northern Goldfields part of my electorate. I attended some of them. We travelled all across the Goldfields with people from DSS to explain how the card would work, and most of the communities embraced the cashless debit card. It's a mistake to say that we forced this on the communities. We travelled to places like Tjuntjuntjara, 600 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie in the Menzies shire. The people there made it very clear they didn't want the card. 'We don't want this Indue fella,' is what they said. We carved the shire of Menzies, in which Tjuntjuntjara sits, out of the legislation. The town of Menzies would be in the card trial, but the community of Tjuntjuntjara would not be in the trial site. To the north, the Ngaanyatjarra Council made it very clear they didn't want the card, so they didn't get the card. No community in the northern Goldfields who wasn't crying out for the card had the card imposed on them. I want to put that furphy to bed very early on in my speech tonight. When the card was introduced, we saw some amazing results, anecdotally. In towns like Coolgardie, where there's one store, one side of the store sells groceries and household items, and the other side of the store sells alcohol. Once the card was introduced, all the people that were queueing up on one side queued up on the other side. Children were being fed and going to school with lunch. The demand for breakfast services and others diminished considerably, because, all of a sudden, the money wasn't being spent over here in the bottle shop queue; it was being spent over there in the grocery queue. Rents were being paid, the power bill was being paid—all the sorts of issues that create dysfunction and instability in families because all the money is being spent over here at the alcohol till. That was repeated right across the trial sites, whether in Kalgoorlie—which is a much bigger town of 30,000 people and it's much harder to identify the individual outcomes—or in Laverton and Leonora, back to towns with one store. Des Cannons, the owner of the Laverton general store, told us just the other day, when the Leader of the Opposition visited the northern Goldfields, that the difference is dramatic. From pre the cashless debit card to the cashless debit card, the shopping patterns are dramatically different. Of course, now we're back to no cashless debit card. So we're seeing massive dysfunction returning to those communities, particularly in the northern Goldfields. The leaders of those communities travelled to Canberra this week. I welcome them into the House: Peter Craig, President of the Shire of Leonora; Patrick Hill, President of the Shire of Laverton; and Marty Seelander, who is the CEO of the Pakaanu Aboriginal Corporation. They have travelled a long way, believe me. It's a thousand kilometres from Laverton to Perth. Then you get on a plane, and you fly from Perth to Canberra. It's not easy to get here. These people didn't come because they wanted to take a week away from their very busy work and their jobs. They came here to tell people in this place what life is really like on the ground in their communities. We were in government for nine years, and I can't remember an incident where a member of the previous government disrespected people of my community, like the assistant minister disrespected these people in a radio interview on ABC Goldfields on 15 February. In response to a question from the presenter, Ivo da Silva, about Patrick Hill talking about the dysfunction in his community since the removal of the cashless debit card, the assistant minister said, 'I don't think this is the time to play cheap political games.' This is the shire president of a community that's in crisis, who is much loved across the Goldfields. I listened to that interview, and the presenter, Ivo da Silva, was very much taken aback by this attack on someone who is so well regarded and so well loved across the Goldfields community. The minister went on to say that, basically, Patrick Hill was wrong, that there are many complex matters and that many people on the ground told her that the cashless debit card didn't actually make that much of a difference. What would have stung about that for Patrick Hill and the other members of the Laverton Shire Council was that the following evening, when they all walked out of the shire council building at nine o'clock after their shire council meeting, there was a woman lying on the street right outside the shire building—and I know this because I saw the bloodstain on the road when I arrived there a few days later. She was badly beaten and bleeding profusely. Of course, they administered emergency first aid. They called the police and the ambulance, and the woman was flown to Perth. Subsequent CCTV footage revealed that the man sitting just up the road a way had systematically beaten and kicked this woman for an hour and 10 minutes. An hour and 10 minutes! He had kicked her in the head so many times that half her scalp was missing. If people don't believe that this happened, it happened right outside the shire building the day after Justine Elliot questioned these people about whether they were making up or exaggerating the problem in their town. I just think that it's an absolute disgrace that they were disrespected in that way. I certainly hope that the assistant minister apologised to them this afternoon when, apparently, she met with them. So here we are, in the situation where we're seeing the outcome of what is, effectively, policy by Facebook—policy by social media. There are some people who are active on Facebook who managed to get the attention of the member for Bruce and others. They ran a very successful campaign denigrating the cashless debit card. These are people who I have to say live a very long way from Laverton or Lenora—a long, long way. They denigrated the cashless debit card and the Labor Party saw a political opportunity to campaign. They made up this complete nonsense that there was some plan to introduce a cashless debit card for pensioners and they refused to vote on a motion put to the Senate by Senator Anne Ruston, who was the minister at the time, basically saying that the cashless debit card would never be introduced to pensioners. That would have been inconvenient for the lie that they were spreading around the place, but they got some political advantage out of it—no question. I would venture to say that there were probably votes in it in some electorates—probably quite a lot of votes. But the people who paid the price for that were people like the woman outside the Laverton shire buildings on the evening of Thursday 16 February. They're the people who paid the price. That's the blood money that she paid for a few extra votes. So I'm here tonight to plead with the government for the Prime Minister and the minister to come to the dispatch box and take a leaf out of Peter Beattie's book. He made a political art form out of saying, 'I'm sorry.' Come, because you got this one wrong. Come to the dispatch box and say that you're sorry. Say that you're sorry you got it wrong and that you understand now that there are people who are really suffering because of the decision that you made. This isn't just student politics anymore, there are real consequences to the decisions being made in this place. Those consequences are being played out in towns like Laverton, Leonora, Coolgardie, Kalgoorlie and Menzies. That's where the consequences are playing out. It isn't too late, though; those communities were making progress. Things had stabilised and there were fewer alcohol-related incidents. We saw over the weekend reports in the national newspaper that crime statistics in one of the other trial sites, Ceduna, in the seat of my colleague the member for Gray, have risen by 100 per cent. They have doubled. Those people are paying the price for the decisions that were made here in this place. As I said, it is not too late for the government to do a Peter Beattie here and to admit they got it wrong. The Prime Minister could come in here along with the minister and say to the people of Laverton and to the people of Leonora: 'We're sorry. We got this one wrong and we're going to reinstate the card.' Call it the SmartCard; call it whatever you like. It's still being run by Indue, contrary to many of the minister's statements. Call it what you like. Reintroduce the SmartCard. I'll be the first to get on my feet and congratulate the government for making a courageous move. Given that we've now hit 7.30 pm, I will conclude my comments. But, to the Prime Minister and the minister, please consider— (Time expired) Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 118 ADJOURNMENT Queensland: Infrastructure 118 19:30 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher One year ago today, the member for Fairfax and I stood up in Maroochydore and announced the largest infrastructure project ever undertaken on the Sunshine Coast: $1.6 billion committed by the then coalition government towards a total of $3.2 billion to build 37 kilometres of rail line from Beerwah to Caloundra and Kawana and then terminating in Maroochydore. This is a project that would have changed—and will change—the lives of nearly half a million people living in South-East Queensland. We made that commitment. It is not the Commonwealth government's responsibility to fund rail, but we—the member for Fairfax and I—worked assiduously for six years. We dragged minister after minister up to the Sunshine Coast to show them how gridlocked the Sunshine Coast has become with our burgeoning population. As I said, 12 months ago we were able to make that announcement, prior to the last election, with $1.6 billion being committed to Sunshine Coast rail. It was a great day—an amazing day. But what's happened since then? Twelve months have passed, and what have we heard from the Labor state government? Crickets. There have been absolute crickets until today. Today, because this issue ended up on the front page of the Courier Mail, the Premier was pressured into coming out and coming clean as to what her government is going to do—whether they're going to meet the federal government halfway and fund their $1.6 billion on their asset, owned 100 per cent by them. And she's come out today, according to the Courier Mail, and said, 'Well, I'm not guaranteeing anything.' This is not a nice-to-have project; this is a must-have project for the people of the Sunshine Coast, just to be able to move around. We can't keep adding lanes to the Bruce Highway. We can't keep adding lanes to already congested roads like Caloundra Road, Kawana Way Link Road and Nicklin Way. All these roads are absolutely at their capacity. We need mass transit. We need heavy rail that goes to the coast. This is a project that has been on the books for more than 20 years. We have a dedicated corridor, the CAMCOS corridor. It's been allocated already. There would be minimal resumptions. All we need is for the state Labor government to get on board and match the $1.6 billion that the coalition offered. The state LNP are on board; they've committed. We've even been able to convince the Labor federal government to keep the $1.6 billion—and all credit to the infrastructure minister for having done that. I just hope she keeps to her word. But this is a project which is absolutely vital for the people of the Sunshine Coast. Every moment that this Queensland Labor state government delay this project, the costs are continuing to rise. The Labor state government cannot come in and argue seriously at the end of this year, when they get their so-called study done, that the costs are too high. By the end of this year, they will have delayed this project for more than 18 months. What that has done is drive costs up, and that is in no small part due to the Labor state government's best-practice industry conditions, which Master Builders suggest are driving the costs of infrastructure up by more than 30 per cent. Why? Because it is the government cosying up once again with the CFMMEU, looking after their mates in the CFMMEU, driving prices up for the taxpayers in Queensland and nationally. Mark Bailey, you can throw as many stones at me and Ted O'Brien as you like—sticks and stones, as they say. Why don't you grow up, do your job, get this job done for the people of the Sunshine Coast instead of continually looking after your constituents in Brisbane? There's more to Queensland than Brisbane, Mr Bailey. How about you invest some money in regional Queensland, where the real people are. Housing Australia Future Fund 118 19:34 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills To be sent to this place to represent our communities is an immense privilege. It's not lost on me the gravity of the responsibility we have here in this place. We're trusted to make decisions of significance for our communities and for our nation. We are trusted to make difficult decisions, decisions that not everyone will agree with. In a democracy we know that it is impossible to get 100 per cent agreement all the time, so it is a good thing that we not only allow but welcome a diversity of views across our nation and in this place as well. It is the job of government to make the tough decisions and be accountable for them. That's the job. But it doesn't seem to be a responsibility some members of this place take seriously enough. I'm talking about members of the Greens Party, who scurried out on the recent vote on the Albanese Labor government's $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. We know the opposition opposed. They took that position. Fine. We don't agree with you, but the Greens scurried out this. This is the largest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade, a fund which will deliver the government's commitment of 30,000 new social and affordable homes in its first five years, including: $100 million for crisis and transitional housing options for women and children impacted by family and domestic violence and older women at risk of homelessness; $30 million to build housing and to fund specialist services for veterans who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness; $200 million for the repair, maintenance and improvement of housing in remote and Indigenous communities. That's what we were voting on. Those opposite opposed all of that. Those over there on the crossbench, the minor party, ran out. They didn't vote for it. They didn't vote against it. They didn't have the guts to vote at all. That is just not good enough. We are sent here by our communities to represent them and their views, but if you can't even make a decision on critical investment in social and affordable housing, what are you here for? They'll come in here day in day out shouting, waving their hands, having a crack during the debate. That's fine. That's part of the cut and thrust of politics, criticising the government. But we are actually getting on with the job. It is a government that is actually making the tough calls in the interests of our nation. We won't always get everything 100 per cent right but we will always take a principled position, front up, justify it and make our case. But what possible justification is there for just failing to do your job entirely—'Oh, we don't have a position, Mr Speaker.' I think that's not good enough. It is not good enough for the thousands of Australians in need of social and affordable housing. It is not good enough for the renters and the mortgage holders of Australia dealing with rising costs. They all know how the make the tough decisions; they are making them every day. They have an opposition in the Liberal and National parties, who are opposing relief for them. Those opposite opposed relief on energy bills as well last December—disgracefully. They are opposing the affordable and social housing fund, and we have a crossbench or minor party that is not even showing up to make that tough decision or to support that bill. These are decisions that Australians are making everyday to balance their budget, to meet their rental or mortgage payments. These are the people who we represent and the people who we have to make decisions for. There is still hope. The Greens political party can still rectify their position by voting for the Housing Australia Future Fund in the Senate. Let's hope they see the light. I encourage all the crossbenchers and members of the Senate to support this very important bill. We are not going to get much hope from over there, from the opposition. They have made their position very clear; they just oppose. It is no, no, no to everything. We could have the best possible bill and law put forward in this place and they would still say no. It wouldn't matter. That's just what they do. The Senate has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a secure, ongoing pipeline of funding for social and affordable housing over the long term. Standing in the way of that legislation for the Housing Australia Future Fund means standing in the way of 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes. It means standing in the way of $30 million for housing and services for veterans experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness. It means standing in the way of $200 million for repair and maintenance of housing. It means standing in the way of $100 million for crisis and transitional housing for women and children. So I encourage all of those on the crossbench and opposite to support the Albanese Labor government in delivering this once-in-a-generation investment that will change the lives of thousands of Australians. (Time expired) Casey Electorate: Roads 119 19:40 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey My community in Casey has been left devastated by the Albanese government's decision to break their promise on the roads for community funding in my electorate. This was $150 million to seal 150 kilometres of road. It had bipartisan support when it was announced in 2019. The government are not going to honour the commitment that they made and are breaking their promise. It has left my community devastated. I have been inundated with messages and so has the minister. I note some frustration from my constituents that she has chosen not to reply to them at this stage. I hope she does. One of the great honours we have in this House is to be a voice for our constituents. Tonight I want to share the voice of Holly, who wrote to me and her local council just last week about what this decision by this government means to her. These are Holly's words, and I thank her parents for their permission to share her story. She said: 'Dear council and government: hi, my name is Holly and I'm nine years old and in grade 3. I live on Selby-Aura Road. I think we should seal Selby-Aura Road and Aura Vale Road because, firstly, it is really bad if you breathe in the dust, especially if you have asthma. Secondly, dust makes you cough a lot and, if there is more coughing, it means more spreading germs like COVID-19. Finally, I think it would be a lot more safe to drive on and that way me and my friends can walk safely to school without having to worry about the dust. So those are my reasons why I think they should be sealed. I actually think all dusty roads should be sealed, but lots of people who live on these roads go to my school, which is an awesome school, and some walk to school like me. I don't think they want to breathe dust, too. From Holly.' Holly, thank you for sharing your words. I'm going to continue to advocate to this government that they reinstate that funding in the upcoming budget because you've shown the impact that these roads have on our local residents. It is not just you that thinks that it would improve safety. The then shadow minister at the time, the now Prime Minister Albanese, when he announced his support for this 10-year funding program in 2019 said that it would improve the safety of residents in my electorate of Casey. The department were asked last December whether the sealing of these roads would improve safety for our community, and they confirmed that it would improve safety for our residents. So we have a Prime Minister and a minister that committed to this funding. They've broken their word. They know that it would increase safety. There are clearly health benefits. Holly sums it up so well, but many residents talk about the health impacts on them from these roads not being sealed. I was fortunate to have the shadow minister, Senator Bridget McKenzie, with me in Mount Evelyn. We heard from the residents on Joy Avenue about their concerns. All through Mount Evelyn we heard concerns about people using those roads as through roads, the safety dangers to them from accidents and the dust that impacts on their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren. We also had a roundtable with the Kallista Flood Watch Group. They have been devastated by floods and storms washing gravel into the drains, clogging the drains, flooding houses and making it unsafe for the residents in their houses. Every time there is a downpour, one of the impacts of that—and this is also an impact of these roads not being sealed—that they all talked about was the mental health impact and the anguish they have every time there is a storm and every time the radar predicts a storm. There was one resident who was on holidays down on the Mornington Peninsula when he got notification of a storm warning. He had to come back to Kallista to his house to make sure that he could protect it. In the 21st century, we shouldn't have that. There's an easy solution—we know the solution: it's to seal the roads and improve the drainage. The money was committed, the projects were under way. Council were scoping the works for this Kallista road in particular. They were ready to go, and this decision has destroyed that hope for those residents. But I will continue to fight, and I urge the government and Minister King to admit that she has made a mistake and to reinstate the funding in the May budget so we can continue to improve the lives of the residents of Casey, so emergency services can get in and help those that need them, and so residents can go about their business in a safe manner. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 120 19:45 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to speak on the voice and the referendum ahead of us, and in doing so I acknowledge those Australians living in the state of South Australia for establishing a voice at a state level. That happened on the weekend in a special sitting. Here in the federal government we introduced a referendum machinery amendment bill December last year, which has now passed the parliament. This bill is a key milestone on the way to holding a referendum on a Voice to Parliament later this year, and another key milestone was the confirmation of the form of words that will be taken to the Australian people. As we approach a referendum, it's important that we all listen to each other, open our ears, open our minds and open our hearts in a spirit of mutual respect, because referendums by their very nature are binary. There will be two sides to a national conversation. My earnest hope is that one side will be a lot bigger in support of the establishment of a voice, but there will still be robust arguments, and some of those arguments will be difficult for people to hear. And so we must commit ourselves to minimising harm at all costs. All of us must commit to doing that and to not harming our fellow Australians. I believe that people will be able to learn a lot from this historic event. They'll be able to learn from others who think differently. Hopefully, we can disagree constructively, and I believe Australian democracy will be all the stronger for it. If we do rise to that challenge, I believe that this vote on the voice can be one of the most successful, memorable and uniting referendums in our history. As I've said many times on radio, on TV, at market stalls and in addresses to youth leadership delegations, with First Nations audiences and immigrant audiences alike, Constitutional recognition through a voice is about two things. It is about recognition and consultation: recognition that there is 65,000 years of shared history and continuous, unbroken connection to this land by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians; and consultation through a voice while listening to communities, delivering better policies and better outcomes as a result. The voice is an advisory body made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who will give advice to government on issues that affect their communities. It's that simple. The voice will help to close the gap by giving communities as say in matters affecting them so that better policies can be made. It will help deliver practical change on the ground in areas like health, education, housing and welfare reform. We know that you get better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities when you listen to people on the ground. The voice was the first request from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the culmination of the most extensive consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on Constitutional recognition in the history of our nation. This is the best chance we have to start to address the injustices of the past and create change for a better future. I believe that Australians are ready to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution. It's an opportunity for all Australians. It is about walking the long road of reconciliation—as I did with former Essendon football player Michael Long, from Melbourne to Canberra, for Indigenous rights in 2004. As Michael, 'Longy', said at the time, almost 20 years ago, 'This is not about Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians; this is about all Australians.' We shouldn't be engaged in a race to the top, and I hope we can do that. This referendum will enrich the lives of all Australians. It will connect us to a cultural heritage tens of thousands of years in the making. It will connect us through our Constitution. It is the right thing to do and I hope Australians join us in that effort. Mental Health 121 19:50 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I rise tonight to shine a light on mental health in our regional, rural and remote areas, and particularly the mental health of our young people. Mental health is the single biggest health issue facing young Australians and my region of Dawson is no different. In Australia, half of all adult mental health challenges emerge prior to the age of 14 and more than 40 per cent of children who experience mental health challenges are not receiving professional help. We know that the earlier we intervene in life, in distress and in the onset of illness, the chances of better recovery are so much greater. If we give children the best start they will grow into happier and healthier adults. Regional Australians, like my constituents in Dawson, don't always have access to face-to-face support. Studies show that children respond much better with face-to-face support, rather than online or via phone. This is because face-to-face communication provides an opportunity for the clinician and the child to make an important connection more quickly and to reach a positive outcome. In 2020 suicide was the leading cause of death in young Australians between 15 and 24 years. Sadly, the rates of suicide in remote areas are higher than those in the city and they are above the national rates. These statistics are horrifying and show that there is a great need for remote areas to have access to face-to-face mental health support services. Back in 2013 the previous coalition government opened the first headspace in Mackay. Headspace is a wonderful service, providing support to young people, 12 to 25 years, who are going through a tough time. Headspace also offer a range of support services for young people's mental health. Common topics and issues are alcohol and drug use, work and study, relationships, and physical health issues. It is a great relief to see so many young people and parents in my electorate finally have a support service like headspace in Mackay. Over the past 10 years headspace Mackay has done a magnificent job supporting our local youth and improving mental health outcomes for thousands of young people within the region. In 2022 headspace Whitsundays opened as a satellite service in Proserpine operating three days a week. A couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of calling into the satellite site in Proserpine to listen to the wonderful ladies and see what they're doing to give our regional young people a chance. The effectiveness of headspace has been proven around the whole of the country. It is fantastic to see headspace Whitsundays helping to improve mental health outcomes for young people in the region who can't travel to Mackay or to Townsville for a face-to-face service. Headspace Whitsundays are also finding that they are servicing people in need in other towns, like Bowen and Collinsville, who can't travel as far as Townsville and Mackay. And, unfortunately, there is a growing need for mental health support in the Burdekin. The staff of our local headspace clinics are putting in very long hours and commuting to ensure that they are available to young people who need them. There is a need for more staff and more headspace clinics in our region to stop the very real possibility of fatigue and burnout of their staff. I stand in this place regularly banging the drum for regions and explaining how much tougher we have it in comparison to those in the cities, but the hard reality is that people living in the regions suffer from, at best, mediocre services to, at worst, no services across a range of issues, including health, education and infrastructure. Young people in our region face different issues and concerns to what the youth in the cities face. It is important to have a solid and stable support and to receive that support from local providers who are across local issues. Adolescence and young adulthood can certainly be a confusing time, so I thank headspace Mackay and headspace Whitsundays for all you do for our young people and families in my electorate. I really appreciate it. Greek Australian Community 121 19:55 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I rise to speak about Australia's Greek community and the incredible contribution they have made to our life, economy and culture in Australia. Over the weekend, on 25 March, it was Greek Independence Day, which has been celebrated annually since the end of the Greek revolution in 1821. It is a day of celebration in Greece, Cyprus and the Greek diaspora, and it coincides with the Feast of the Annunciation. I salute our Greek Australian community in my electorate of Pearce and across the nation, and I would like to take this opportunity in this place to speak about their contribution. In Pearce we have some very well known and well loved Greek Aussies, including the Trandos family, who are true pioneers. Where would we be without the grit and determination of Dimitrios Trandos! Dimitrios planted the first seeds of fruit and vegetables in Wanaroo, after leaving his wife Dimitroula and sons Nicolas and Stavros in their home village in Greece in 1938. After many years of separation, the family was finally together again, making a new home in Australia. Their small family business grew from a plot at Pappas Swamp in Wanneroo, and since then the family has been successfully working the land as market gardeners, contributing a significant amount to our state and our national economy in horticulture. The generations have helped grow the business over the decades, providing a fantastic source of local jobs in the electorate and beyond. The business has many long-term employees, which is a testament to the excellent culture that they have there. Trandos Farms, known as WA Corn Growers, has evolved to become one of Western Australia's largest growers of beans and sweet corn, with several farms, including Neerabup in my electorate in Pearce, as well as three more outside the electorate. They also grow hydroponic tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, eggplants and more. Produce is sold in major supermarkets and is also exported globally to five countries, including the United Arab Emirates, with three of those countries receiving weekly stock shipments. This is a true Greek Australian success story, which started from very humble beginnings. It started with someone taking a risk, being fearless and leaving behind loved ones to forge a future in a foreign land. I want to acknowledge in this place that that decision must have taken enormous courage. Through the hard work, dedication, business acumen and love of this very special family, it has gone on to become a global success and a well-loved local company and brand. We owe a great deal to icons like Dimitrios and Nicolas Trandos, as pioneers in the electorate. I give a shout-out to the entire Trandos family for providing not only fresh produce but jobs, investment and growth for our local community and the state of Western Australia. To see the Trandos family endure through the challenges of the pandemic, confronted with the challenges of worker shortages, and emerge stronger, continue to grow and evolve their business is truly inspiring. It sends a message that, if you put your heart and head into a dream, achieving that goal is possible. WA Corn Growers is also conscious of treading lightly on the environment and has significantly reduced its plastic packaging and is innovating in other areas of the business. As a past recipient of a Syngenta Grower of the Year Award, Jim Trandos has been recognised for outstanding achievement across all aspects of horticulture production, including growing, environmental and staff management, and quality of produce. The award also acknowledged grower commitment to innovation and advancing the Australian horticulture industry. The Trandos family has always been incredibly generous, regularly giving away fruit and vegetables to the community and sporting clubs. This generosity and heart runs through the veins of every Trandos. Our Greek Australian community has blazed a trail wherever they have gone, and modern Australia would be unrecognisable without them. The SPEAKER 53517 Yassou, Member for Pearce. House adjourned at 20 : 00 NOTICES 122 NOTICES Presentation 122

Monday, 27 March 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) took the chair at 10:30.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 123 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS New South Wales State Election 123 10:30 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I come to this place this morning off the back of a Labor win in the great state of New South Wales. Let me tell you, I am absolutely delighted. I congratulate the members for Maitland, Cessnock, Port Stephens, Wallsend and Newcastle, in my patch, on their thumping victories—not to forget Charlestown, Swansea and the seats of the Central Coast. I also want to make mention of my good friend Peree Watson, who has worked tirelessly to represent Labor in the seat of Upper Hunter. The counting is continuing today, and we still hope that prepoll votes will close it in for her. Running for seats like the Upper Hunter is a true test of character and of holding the Labor torch. It looks easy on paper but, let me tell you, knowing the area as I do, it is a tough ask. Good on you, Peree, and thank you for flying the Labor flag so admirably. What this means for my constituents in my seat of Paterson is a state government working with me and the federal government to find solutions to the ongoing issues dogging our communities: a better and final solution for the residents affected by PFAS in Williamtown; an alternative route out of Gillieston Heights when Testers Hollow goes under; doctors and nurses at the Maitland, Kurri and Tomaree hospitals; a container terminal for Newcastle; high schools for Huntley and Medowie; and, right across the electorate, roads, roads, and more roads. The people of New South Wales have placed their faith in Labor and Premier-elect Chris Minns, and I am really looking forward to working with my state colleagues to deliver. I do want to say again what a great victory it was for Chris Minns and the Labor team right across New South Wales, who have worked so hard. We know that we need better conditions and better pay for our healthcare and aged-care workers, and also for our teachers. They did such a remarkable job during the pandemic. We know that, over the last few years—like no other time in our modern history—communities in Australia have had to rally together. We know that there is a squeeze on in emergency departments, to get workers in small business and for our teachers and our nurses. I am just so delighted that we're going to have a government in New South Wales that takes its profession seriously, takes everyone's jobs seriously and gets on with a fresh start for New South Wales. Well done, Chris Minns! Let's bring it home for the seat of Paterson. International Relations: Azerbaijan and Armenia 123 10:33 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar A couple of weeks ago, I was treated to a surprise visit in my electorate office by students of the AGBU Alexander Primary School in Duffys Forest in my electorate of Mackellar. AGBU is an independent, co-educational, bilingual English and Armenian Christian school. While I'm absolutely delighted to have received a visit from these year 5 and 6 students, they came with a very serious message. The students presented me with a letter they had written, asking me to address the Australian parliament on a very important matter: the ongoing blockade of the Lachin corridor in Artsakh since 12 December 2022, as part of the ongoing conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The Lachin corridor is a road that connects the Republic of Artsakh to the Republic of Armenia. The letter went on to explain how the supply of food and medicine is running dangerously low as a result of the blockade, and gas supply between Armenia and Artsakh has been cut off. The AGBU students talked about how they find the situation distressing, because children their age are suffering—and children are not the only ones. Amnesty International has reported that some 120,000 ethnic Armenian residents in this region are without access to essential goods and services, including life-saving medication and health care. Interviews conducted with health workers and residents in the region revealed the blockade's particularly harsh impact on at-risk groups, including women, older people and people with disabilities. There is a vibrant Armenian community in my electorate of Mackellar, and I've had many representations from those people in addition to the schoolchildren. On their behalf, I have made representations to Foreign Minister Wong's office about this ongoing crisis and met with foreign department specialists to discuss the matter. At this time of increasing geopolitical uncertainty, it's important we keep a close eye on the situation in the Republic of Artsakh, listen to the international observers and provide the Mackellar Armenian community with as much support and information as possible. The crisis affecting the people of Artsakh must not be forgotten or overlooked while the world is distracted by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Bangladesh, Iran 124 10:36 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith To all Bengali Australians, I convey my best wishes following celebrations of the anniversary of the independence of Bangladesh on Sunday. It's now been 52 years since that momentous time, 26 March 1971, when independence was declared. I'm proud to say that Australia was the first Western country to recognise an independent Bangladesh, on 31 January 1972. Relations between our nations started on a very positive note. Australia's first High Commissioner to Bangladesh, James Allen, could speak Bengali. That gesture demonstrated the Australian government's goodwill to the proud new country. Under the instructions of the former prime minister Gough Whitlam, Australia assisted diplomatically with the admission of Bangladesh to the United Nations in 1974. Gough was the first—and indeed the last—Australian prime minister to visit Bangladesh, on 19 January 1975. His visit clearly demonstrated his desire for engagement with Bangladesh, and I'm proud to say that the relationship has gone from strength to strength. I am honoured to represent a thriving Bangladeshi community within the electorate of Kingsford Smith, and I look forward to continuing to work alongside Bengali Australians to make our community a better place to live. I thank the Bangladeshi community for your friendship and your outstanding contribution to Australia. Best wishes to everyone celebrating the anniversary of the independence of Bangladesh. Australia stands with the people of Iran. The Iranian regime's flagrant and widespread disregard for the human rights of its own people has appalled Australians. We stand with Iranian women and girls in their struggle for equality and empowerment. We call on Iran to cease its oppression of women. Australia regularly raises Iran's significant discrimination against women and its human rights violations with officials in both Tehran and Canberra as well as in multilateral fora. The perpetrators of these violations must be held directly accountable. The Australian government is imposing Magnitsky-style targeted financial sanctions and travel bans on 14 individuals and targeted financial sanctions on 14 Iranian entities responsible for egregious human rights abuses and violations in Iran. Among those are the morality police who were responsible for the arrest, detention and ill treatment of Mahsa Amini. Her death must not be in vain. Australia is also joining additional partners to impose further financial sanctions. Australia continues to stand with the people of Iran and with the people of Ukraine. Gordon, Lance Corporal Bernard Sidney 124 10:39 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright Anzac Day is nearly upon us, and more and more Australians are turning out to support Anzac Day. Across my electorate alone, 27 ceremonies will be conducted. A back-of-the-envelope calculation is that, for me to be able to attend each of those dawn services, I would have to serve nine consecutive terms in this House. When we notify each of the people in my electorate about the upcoming ceremonies, we send out a post pack. We like to celebrate one of the local heroes that made a contribution which, as a nation, we honour. This year, we'll be celebrating Lance Corporal Bernard Sidney Gordon. Gordon was one of the local recipients of the Victoria Cross award, one of the highest honours that can be bestowed on a soldier. He was presented the award by the late Queen Elizabeth II during her Australian tour in 1954. Bernard, otherwise known as Barney, enlisted in the Australian army in 1915 whilst living in Townsville; however, when he returned, he returned to Beaudesert. Gordon was awarded the Military Medal in August 1918 for single-handedly attacking the crew of a machine gun post. He was then awarded the VC later that month for bravery and devotion. On 26 August 1918, in east Bray, France, Gordon and his unit were faced with a decision: to be captured or to capture. Gordon led his unit through an intense fight to take out machine guns which were shooting at the company, and then they captured and returned with several prisoners. Unaided, Gordon and his men then attacked the enemy lines again, capturing the post, disabling machine guns and bringing in yet more prisoners. Gordon's leadership and courage were the perfect example of the bravery required for the VC recipiency. Gordon was wounded on 1 September while the battalion was advancing in the Mont St Quentin area. He returned to Australia in late 1919 and was discharged in April. He then took up residence at a dairy farm near Beaudesert. He ran his dairy farm for 43 years before moving to Hervey Bay in 1962 due to poor health. His daughter Caroline Gee continues their farming legacy today in the district. He passed away on 19 October 1963. Barney Gordon's living memory lives on with his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, the Gee family, whose names are synonymous with rugby league in our community. Barney Gordon is just one of the many Australian soldiers who should be recognised and remembered on Anzac Day this year and in many years to come. I encourage all to visit our local ceremonies to pay respect to those who fought for our nation. Lest we forget. Carpenter, Mr Robert Francis (Bob), OAM, Koalas 125 11:42 Ms TEMPLEM 181810 Macquarie AN () (): The Hawkesbury has said farewell to Windsor's Robert Francis Carpenter, known to many of us as Bob, the co-founder of One Giant Leap Australia Foundation along with his wife, Jackie. Bob was born on 19 August 1948, serving in the Defence Force and receiving a Medal of the Order of Australia in 1989 for his service to the RAAF as flight engineer leader at Richmond. While he had always loved flight, schoolteacher Jackie opened his eyes to space, and together they set out inspiring the next generations of astronauts and scientists, taking Australian students across to NASA's Space Camp. When I met NASA's Pamela Melroy in parliament last week—she's the deputy administrator at NASA—she described Bob and Jackie as the dad and mum of space education in Australia. One Giant Leap has got kids involved in a vast array of STEM programs: Seeds in Space, the Gadget Girlz and Space for a Day, to name a few. It's one of many legacies of Bob's life, and his influence was evident at his funeral in the Riverstone Schofields RSL, overflowing with model aviators, One Giant Leap students and his former RAAF mates. Jackie and the team will ensure his work lives on, but he will be dearly missed. Koalas in the Blue Mountains World Heritage area continue to provide surprising hope for the endangered species's survival. Science for Wildlife researcher Dr Kellie Leigh says that less than a decade ago the general view was that there weren't many koalas in the Blue Mountains and, if they were around, they were at low density and not of great significance. But her project, running since 2014, has found koalas breaking all the rules, living above 800 metres, on sandstone country where soils are poor and the size of the gum trees is limited. Plus, the koalas are free of chlamydia, which has ravaged other populations, and they've been found to have the highest genetic diversity in the nation. That makes them pretty special, even with the big losses during the Black Summer fires. Now, ecologist Dr Lachlan Pettit is investigating the suitability of the Blue Mountains area for avoiding the worst of temperature rise due to climate change, given the effect that heat has on koalas. Dr Pettit says the habitats of the World Heritage area, which can't be cleared for development, are critical because there are deep gullies and old-growth forests which provide a lot of shade and cooling. Estimates are that the koala population has fallen by 62 per cent in the last 20 years, so our Blue Mountains is going to be a vital habitat for their survival. That makes it even more important to ensure the integrity of the Blue Mountains World Heritage area, not just for koalas but also for all the other biodiversity. Roads 125 10:44 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland If you fix country roads, you save country lives. Think about that. If we invest in our regional roads, we'll actually save lives and reduce trauma in our regional communities. I accept that road safety is a shared responsibility—it's a safe system approach: safe drivers, safe cars, safe roads and safe speeds—but I'm concerned about governments at the state and federal levels blaming the drivers all the time, without taking responsibility for their key part of the equation, which is the road network itself. As motorists we have to have roadworthy cars, but in Gippsland and right throughout regional Victoria and regional Australia the roads aren't carworthy. Right across Australia right now in regional communities our roads are falling apart. I give governments a bit of an out when it comes to natural disasters and the impact they've had. That's fair enough. When you've had major flood events and roads degraded by these catastrophic events, it's only reasonable that it takes time for all levels of government to work together to fix those country roads. But I'm talking about roads that have been falling apart for years, long before the floods. We had roads falling apart during droughts. If you fix country roads, you will save country lives. The Roads to Recovery Program has been around for more than 20 years. It was a program that I think John Anderson brought in when he was the minister for transport. When I had the chance as minister I increased funding for it. The Australian Local Government Association is asking this Labor government to continue to support the Roads to Recovery Program and give additional funding going forward, recognising the escalation in costs that are incurred in doing roadworks. They are asking for an extra $300 million per year. I call on the minister to take this request seriously. This is not local government turning up cap in hand begging for more money because they can't manage their budget. This is stuff that makes a difference on the ground in our regional communities and will save lives, because we know that a disproportionate number of people are killed and are injured on rural and regional roads. It's staggering that most car crashes occur close to a person's home on a road they know well, within five kilometres of their own home. So if we fix country roads we will save country lives and reduce the burden of trauma on families and on the federal budget, so it makes sense economically as well. The other point I wish to make in the time I have left is in relation to one road in my electorate—the Great Alpine Road. This road is in worse condition now than it was when I got my P plates about 40 years ago. This road is falling apart and we are in the lead-up to the peak tourism season for snow skiers. I call on state and federal governments to work in partnership and make it a road of strategic importance, which is the only way we'll get a systemwide approach to improving the Great Alpine Road for future generations. Werriwa Electorate: Community Events 126 10:48 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa April this year will see many in my community celebrating important religious events and festivals. The community of Werriwa is so diverse and multicultural. There are so many different events being held this month where families and friends share each other's company around food and rituals. The holy month of Ramadan began last week and continues until late April, when Eid will be celebrated. I thank everyone in my community who has asked me to join them at iftars during the next few weeks. I will try to attend as many as possible. It's an honour to be invited and to share and learn from you all. I look forward to joining the students and community of Lurnea High School this Friday afternoon, especially because it's my former high school, and also of Al Amanah College next week to celebrate the 2023 careers dinner. The college invites previous alumni to inspire the current generation to succeed. Their journeys at university and work are always very interesting and very diverse. Easter will be celebrated in April, with Orthodox Easter on 16 April and Good Friday next week. Next week also sees the Assyrian community celebrate their new year. I'm looking forward to joining the celebrations at the Fairfield Showground. For more than 6,000 years the Assyrian people have celebrated the new year at the beginning of spring in the Northern Hemisphere as a time of renewal, new beginnings and celebration. This is a significant festival for one of the oldest cultures here in Australia and in the south-west near my electorate. For all those who will be working during Easter and other holidays in April, thank you for keeping Australia running. You deserve the penalty rates, so that we can all enjoy an extended break. April also brings with it school holidays. I'm sure many families will be looking forward to the opportunity to travel, not only in Australia but also internationally, to see family and enjoy time off. This is a perfect time to remind everyone to make the Australian government's Smartraveller website their first destination before they travel overseas. It provides travel advice and assistance for travellers based on who you are, what you'll be doing and even your health. I encourage everyone to look at these resources and advice on the website, so that you can prepare for a fantastic time and not be surprised or have a disappointing holiday. April also sees the commemoration of Anzac Day. It's now 108 years since the first Anzacs landed at Gallipoli. More than 8,000 Australian and New Zealand soldiers lost their lives in the eight months of this campaign. Anzac Day now also acknowledges and, more importantly, remembers all Australians who served and risked their lives, and their families. I'd like to acknowledge and thank everyone who will be organising services in our community, especially the City of Liverpool RSL sub-branch, the Liverpool City Council, and Mounties. It will be my honour to attend all these observations. Penshurst West Football Club, Chinese Australian Services Society, Fiona Education 126 10:51 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks Penshurst West Football Club is a tremendous community with a long and proud tradition of playing football down at Olds Park in Penshurst. It was really good to visit Neil Pittams recently. Neil was the president of the club. He has been involved in the club for a number of years and has recently stepped up to the role of leading the club. Olds Park has a terrific quality surface, and credit to the Georges River Council for the work that has been done over the years. With football, little athletics, AFL and netball all in the one place, there's a lot that happens at Olds Park. There is more to be done, in terms of fixing up the walking trail that goes around the park, but it is a great place. Neil told me that more than 300 players have registered for Penshurst West this year and I just want to thank him and everyone at Penshurst West Football Club for all the great work they do in our community. CASS, or Chinese Australian Social Services, is an organisation with a long and proud history dating back to the 1980s, when Mr Henry Pan first established the organisation with a childcare centre in Campsie. In the four decades since, CASS has grown to be one of the very largest multicultural groups anywhere in Australia. On 2 February, I joined CASS in Hurstville, at one of many seniors groups that CASS organises, to celebrate Chinese New Year. It was great to see Kitty Leong there, the senior executive. I want to acknowledge Henry Pan for his remarkable vision and foresight in establishing CASS all those years ago, and still playing a key role in it. I also acknowledge Tony Pang, the executive director, who is such a huge part of the CASS story. To everyone who welcomed me on that day, I thank you very much for your hospitality. In Hurstville, we have many small businesses focused on education. Education is so fundamental to our lives, not just the lives of kids but the lives of adults as well. Our futures, our success and our outlook on life is so influenced by education. It is so good that we have such a strong educational community in Hurstville. On 2 March, I visited Fiona Education. It was really good to see Fiona Park and Helena, who works with Fiona, to present awards to a number of the kids who have done particularly well in their exams recently and have a chat with the parents. It was great to see those kids aspiring to academic success, because that is a very good thing to aspire to, and we should celebrate the successes of those kids at Fiona Education. It was great to visit on that day. Franklin, Mr Brian, Fanning, Ms Katrina, AO, PSM 127 10:54 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean Brian Franklin, 'Bodge' to his mates, a lifelong member of the Western Creek Woden Basketball Club, passed away recently following a lengthy battle with cancer. Brian was devoted to basketball in Canberra. He was one of several individuals in the 1980s who put their homes on the line to build the Southside Stadium at Woden. The sport also benefited from his project management experience, resulting in the development of the Belconnen Basketball Stadium. There are countless stories that illustrate the contribution Brian made to basketball in the ACT over 56 years. In 1978 Brian became a founding member of the team that established the Canberra Cannons. In 1999 he was instrumental in keeping the Canberra Capitals afloat, and, in the following season, the Capitals won the Women's National Basketball League premiership again. Perhaps his greatest contribution, though, was as an historian. He dutifully documented almost every aspect of the sport in Canberra. This included countless profiles of Canberra basketball players and administrators, a skill developed as a correspondent for the Canberra Times and the Canberra CityNews. Basketball ACT President Allan Yates said Brian was 'a common thread in everything associated with the sport in Canberra over the past 50 years'. Basketball ACT is currently discussing how best to honour and commemorate Brian Franklin. He was, without doubt, basketball's greatest advocate. To Bodge's family and friends, we send our condolences. A great Bean local, Katrina Fanning AO, PSM, has been announced as the 2023 Canberra Citizen of the Year. Katrina Fanning is a Wiradjuri woman, and she was recognised for her dedication to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. She has been the chairperson of the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body, and from 2021 to 2022 she was the head of the secretariat for the Coalition of Peaks on Closing the Gap. Katrina also made significant contributions to rugby league. Following success as a player and coach, she was appointed chairperson of the Australian Rugby League Indigenous Council in 2012, and she's a past president of Australian Women's Rugby League. She's a director of the Canberra Raiders and president of the Canberra Women's Rugby League. Earlier this year, Katrina was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia. She also received the ACT Australian of the Year award in 2020, a Public Service Medal in 2015 for outstanding public service in Indigenous affairs, the ACT Woman of the Year award in 2014 and the ACT NAIDOC Person of the Year award in 2014. Congratulations and thank you, Katrina, for your outstanding leadership and ongoing contributions to our broader community. Domestic And Family Violence 127 10:57 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I would like to take this opportunity to speak about something that every member in this House is passionate about: eradicating domestic violence. Both sides of this House abhor domestic violence and have worked together, through successive governments, through the national plan. Having been given the opportunity to be the shadow assistant minister for the prevention of family violence, I've travelled through my electorate and also around Australia, talking to support groups, police and other organisations about what is required to stamp out domestic violence. Whilst the plan is commendable and those support networks are there with the funding for what I would call the 'back end'—the services that are provided to, and are so needed by, victims—in my opinion, and in the opinion of those I've spoken to, the failing is in the lack of funding of the front end. We need more funding for, and more concentration on, prevention because that is what will change this scourge. That is what will change our nation. It is a generational change. It will not happen overnight, and it will not happen without the support of parliament—all levels of parliament—communities, businesses, industry, schools and sporting groups. It has to change at the most granular level. It has to start in primary school. The message is that it is not okay to have domestic violence in our society and that the standard that you walk past is the standard that you accept. We need to have a curriculum from kindergarten through to university that is part of our sporting groups and supported by industry and business to be able to make that generational change, to change the mindset of our children growing up and to change the mindset of men and women as to how we act and how we respect other people. One of the proudest moments that I had in my last term was being able to secure $6.5 million for a hub-and-spoke model, of 24 one- and two-bedroom units in Kempsey, to provide those wraparound services. But wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to have those wraparound services? It takes that change—it takes that mindset to make a change. And I am happy to work with all members of this House to do so. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 128 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Cost of Living 128 11:00 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) under the Government we have now seen interest rates rising for nine straight months; and (b) we have not seen consistent rate hikes like this in more than 30 years; (2) acknowledges that: (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 (b) at the same time energy bills have soared and grocery costs are rising; and (3) calls on the Government to take real action to address cost of living pressures. Listening to this government, you would think that Australians were living an easy life. Indeed, just last week we heard the Prime Minister boast that Australians have had a pretty good 10 months under his leadership. Well, I'm not quite so sure where the Prime Minister has been. To be fair, I do know he has been away a lot. He has been to Japan and Indonesia; to the United Arab Emirates, Spain, France, Ukraine, Fiji and the United Kingdom; back to Japan; to Cambodia; back to Indonesia; to Thailand; to Papua New Guinea; to India, the United States and back to Fiji again. I, of course, don't hold this against him. As someone who spent the last decade working in global trade, I know how important it is for the Prime Minister to meet his counterparts, to reassure them of Australia's respected partnership, and to boost our trade and investment opportunities enshrined in deals sealed by the previous coalition government. I especially recognise the Prime Minister's travels in the Indo-Pacific to protect and defend our strategic interests, and I particularly commend him for his travelling further, around the coalition's AUKUS policy. But I do wonder if that means he has lost touch somewhat with Australian families—particularly in my electorate, which he did actually visit in January, to my enormous delight, but only for lunch with mates at the beach at Portsea, before he choppered back over the ditch to Geelong. If he had stopped to talk to my constituents in Flinders, he may have heard a quite different story. In January, he would have heard of their enormous struggles to get staff in our most critical industries: in tourism, hospitality, agriculture and health. He would have heard about soaring wages just to get people to turn up for shifts. He would have heard about businesses having to close their doors for parts of the busiest season of the year simply because they couldn't get the cleaners or the cooks or the chefs or the waiters that they needed. By February, he would have heard about the impact of interest rate rises when the cash rate rose for the ninth time from 3.1 to 3.35. This year alone, 61 per cent of Victorian mortgages will convert from fixed rate mortgages to variable rate mortgages. Those who were lucky enough to fix their mortgages during the COVID-19 pandemic may have done so at a two per cent rate, or something around a two per cent rate—possibly, even below two per cent. When they come off fixed rates later this year, their variable rate will be in the order of 6.5 per cent a year—and that's assuming no further increases. So that will be, overnight, a tripling of their interest rate and a vast increase in what they have been paying. Those who are already confronting the impact of careering cash rate increases in their home mortgages are paying roughly $1,700 or $1,800 more each month, each and every month. That's 1,800 extra dollars, after tax, every month, and, if you do the maths, that's more than $20,000 a year. What could a family do with $20,000 a year? They could buy a car. They could pay for school tuition in a local community school, or maybe take a family of five away somewhere nice—Hawaii, maybe—for Christmas. They could replace a kitchen that needed replacing. They could put money away for a kid's tertiary study or help them to get together money for a deposit for a home, maybe. They could pay out-of-pocket medical costs for an expensive, but unexpected, procedure. You could get married, but it would have to be a cheap wedding. You could just buy a ring for the girl you love. Twenty thousand dollars a year just in repayments over and above whatever you were paying before will come as a big shock and a big change to most families. Keep in mind, that's for someone who has a $750,000 mortgage. It's been 'a good 10 months', the Prime Minister reckons. Inflation is at almost eight per cent, grocery bills are up by 20 per cent in some cases, there are job losses across the industrial spectrum and power prices are rising at a hallucinogenic speed—is it 60, is it 40 or is it 31? Whatever happened to that emergency legislation we were forced to pass last December to constrain price rises? It doesn't seem to have worked. Why? It's because this government has crushed investment and confidence in our energy market. Remember the promise that you would get a $275 a year reduction on your electricity bills year on year? Where has that promise gone in the last 'pretty good 10 months' that the Prime Minister talks about? What about his promise of cheaper mortgages, no changes to super, lower inflation and a promise not to touch franking credits, not to touch industry-wide bargaining, not to raise taxes and not to touch superannuation? This government is not doing enough to alleviate the pressure on families, and it is doing too much— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is there a seconder for the motion? Mr Wolahan 235654 I second the motion. 11:06 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I'd like to start by acknowledging that I know that Australians are doing it really tough at the moment. This is a really tough economic chapter in Australia's history, and I know that households are having to make tough decisions around the kitchen table, and this is something that the Albanese Labor government needs to replicate at the cabinet table. I'll also highlight that the Albanese Labor government hasn't inherited a great set of books or economic and government positioning. The coalition racked up a trillion dollars of debt with very little to show for it. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments didn't really know what to do when they finally held government. Prime Minister Abbott ended up being more effective as an opposition leader rather than a prime minister, so he forgot the need to lead the country and, of course, was challenged. Then we had Turnbull, who had some leadership skills but forgot to ensure that caucus was aligned. Finally, we had Morrison, and we all know that Prime Minister Scott Morrison was more interested in power than in actually doing anything. It was quite telling when journalist Deborah Snow discovered that Prime Minister Morrison had never thought about his legacy. The role of governments is to build foundations to improve the lives of all Australians, and this should be done both today and in the future. With the coalition asleep at the wheel of the metaphorical national car, the Albanese Labor government is trying to methodically, carefully and intentionally steer the nation back on track. The Albanese Labor government has a three-point plan on addressing cost-of-living and inflation challenges in the budget. It's about relief, repair and restraint. Responsible cost-of-living relief includes cheaper medicines, direct energy relief and cheaper child care. I realise that the coalition may not have got the memo that women are employed in the paid workforce and aren't stuck at home doing the ironing, and also that modern men are doing their own ironing. The government's plan is also about repairing supply-side constraints. We've introduced fee-free places in areas of skill demand, and this will help reduce skills shortages. We've also introduced the National Reconstruction Fund because we learned, during the pandemic, how fragile our supply chains are; that, as an island nation, we need to be more resilient as a nation; and that we need to increase our sovereign capability. Then, of course, there's cleaner and cheaper energy. I know that the coalition likes to magic up that energy challenges are based on the nine months since Labor took over and we should forget the nine years that they were at the wheel. And you would want to forget. It's hard to remember all 22 of their energy policies. The weaponisation of climate policy has been to the detriment of capital investment in decarbonising our grid. The lack of investment in renewables has had a direct impact on energy prices. Let's think about the inputs to create electricity. We have gas and coal which are commodities which are sold on international markets, and are therefore subject to international commodity prices and exchange rates. With the war in Ukraine and challenges from the pandemic, supply shocks have seen commodity prices skyrocket. Then you have energy sources such as wind and solar. And guess what? When the wind blows and the sun shines, they don't care if there's a war in Ukraine, and there aren't restraints due to fossil fuel companies selling too much of our commodities overseas and putting at risk Australia's energy security. The thing is we have a great Australian example—on RenewEconomy, as Michael Mazengarb explained in June last year: 'Electricity users in the Australian Capital Territory will see average electricity costs fall by at least 1.25 per cent come 1 July, as the Capital Territory's extensive contracts for 100 per cent renewable electricity shield its customers from the chaos rippling through Australia's energy markets.' Imagine if the coalition had actually read the writing on the wall and invested in our clean energy future. We might have had the ability to hedge against the challenges that we've seen in the electricity market—and perhaps they wouldn't have lost so many seats to the crossbench. Finally, part of our approach is around a responsible budget with spending restraint, returning almost all of our revenue upgrades to the bottom line and keeping spending essentially flat over the next four years to not add to inflation. The Pre-Election Economic Fiscal Outlook revised total revenue by $63.2 billion. Much of this comes off the back. 11:11 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I want to thank the member for Flinders for raising this important topic today about the increasing costs under the Labor government—not just the Queensland Labor government but the federal Labor government. What you hear from those opposite is all blame: 'It's not us, even though we're in power and we've been in power for 10 months, almost a year.' It's everyone else's fault but theirs. The reality is that interest rates are rising, grocery prices are rising, electricity bills and water bills are rising, and people are really being impacted. Before the last federal election, the member for Lilley put up a Facebook or Instagram post about inflation being five per cent. Guess what? It's now at eight per cent. Why don't you go and post that, Member for Lilley—as well as every other member on that side of the House who won their seat at the last election. The reality is that this government doesn't have a clue about how to address the cost of living, and the Treasurer should listen to what local people are saying in my seat—people in Deception Bay, like Jason Pratt, who said his grocery bills are now up 40 per cent. This means those who have budgeted $250 and $400 now have to find an extra $100 to $160 a week. Kay Walding, a pensioner in Brackenridge is now finding that she has to keep dropping more and more off her basic grocery bill—every week, another item let go—and her water bill is also increasing significantly. It is no surprise, because the stats are showing that utilities have gone up eight to 10 per cent in the last 10 months, since the Albanese Labor government came to power. Gas prices have increased by as much as 70 per cent. Grocery prices right around the country have gone up 10 per cent, with fruit and vegetables hiked up by 9½ per cent, bread and cereal up by 12 per cent, meat and seafood up by over eight per cent as well, and dairy related products up by 15 per cent. And what did Labor do when they came to office? They increased the tax on petrol and diesel, making that even harder for people as well. Barbara Johnstone in Burpengary East reached out to me, angry that her son saved for years to buy a house and is now, quite frankly, priced out of the market. After saving for years, he found he was already unable to afford a standalone house, but now he is completely priced out because interest rates have gone up 90 per cent. The increase was 10 per cent under the previous government. It's 90 per cent under this government. Labor candidates were running around the country putting up social media posts saying it's now $400 extra a month. Guess what? The average mortgage now has doubled: it's $2,100 a month. Go and post that, Labor members. But they won't, because they have no idea what the local people are doing and they've got no answer to how they're going to address it. Brooke Dutton from Deception Bay said, 'It's at the point most people can't afford food. Do you think less than $50 a fortnight is okay for a family of four for food?' They were spending $200 a fortnight but, with all the extra costs, can now only spend $50 a fortnight. Lisa Turner said, 'Definitely doubled in the past few months'—not the past 10 months; the past few months. Brittney from Griffin said, 'We are roughly paying $450 per week for two adults and two children—used to be $300 to $350.' Rachel Cook said, 'Massive change—it's crazy.' Alliana Zadie-Jane said: 'People can't afford staples and that takes a toll on their health. They are now lining up at hospital for diet related illnesses.' Chelsea Robke said: 'A big change. We used to pay around $120 for a big shop and now it's closer to $200.' Caitlyn Griffiths said, 'A family of 10 used to pay $400, and we're now looking at $600 a week under Labor.' Cosette Heazlewood said: 'We used to spend $180 to $220. Now we scrape in at $280—choosing cheaper meals and not splurging on any treats.' Kalinda Johnston said: 'Used to be $200 max and now we're seeing $350 regularly. It's scary. Cost of living just keeps going up and up.' Kara Morgan from Griffin used to spend $450 a month and is now paying $300 a week. Single mum Renee Jardine, who is parenting a child with special needs, is spending an extra $40 to $50 a week, which means she is no longer able to eat fish or red meat. Marion Carey from Deception Bay said: 'Everything has gone up from $1 to $3. Put on top of a family trolley are the bills, interest rates and utilities. Families are struggling.' For Amanda Shaw and her two kids, as well as her two pets, it has gone up to $300 to $350 week without meat. Labor are failing the Australian people. They're full of excuses. Watch this bloke get up now and give a whole lot of excuses for why they can't deliver what they promised. 11:16 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong What I will do is outline the solutions this government has put in place. What we heard from the member for Petrie was five minutes of absolute drivel and not one solution. They do that in question time, they do that in parliament and they do that in this chamber—not one solution. I'm not surprised, because it's no different to when they were in government. They had no solution for the cost-of-living crisis and no solution for rising inflation. They just went on their merry way and left us with a trillion dollars of debt and a cooked economy. That is in stark contrast to what the Albanese government not only took to the election but also has delivered in our short 10 months in office, because we have a strong plan to address rising inflation and the cost-of-living crisis in Australia, which the former government left neglected and unaddressed for a decade. After a wasted decade of Liberal rule, the new government has inherited an economy with the cost of living going through the roof. Under the previous government we saw wages sit still for eight years—one of the most prolonged periods of wage stagnation in Australian history. Under their watch the cost of living skyrocketed and they had no plans to address it. Under their watch the national debt doubled, and Australians across the country found it increasingly difficult to make ends meet with each passing year. All this from the so-called party of economic management. They spent a decade sitting on their hands on our economic future, with wasted opportunities and their warped priorities. They left our country with falling real wages, cost-of-living pressures and a trillion dollars worth of Liberal debt. Well, thank goodness we now have a government with a plan to tackle the cost of living and a government that is disciplined enough to deliver budget repair, which will put downward pressure on inflation. We understand that the rising cost of living is hitting Australians hard. We're not going to sit idly by while Australians suffer to make ends meet. This is why Bennelong elected me and why Australia elected a new government—to deal with the last decade of neglect. We have a plan to relieve cost-of-living pressures, repair supply constraints and deliver responsible budgets to put downward pressure on inflation. The government knew from the very start that we needed to take immediate action to fix the economic bin fire that the Liberal-Nationals left in their wake, and that's why the very first act of this government was to support a minimum wage increase, which was sensationally opposed by those opposite. Some 2.7 million Australians are better off because this government backed a wage rise for our lowest-paid workers. In our first budget we reinforced our commitment to ensuring we continue with a responsible and effective cost-of-living relief plan that didn't put extra pressure on inflation. We have legislated cheaper child care. We've expanded paid parental leave. We've brought down the price of medicine. We've got wages moving again. We have a plan to deliver more affordable housing. We brought in the pensioner work bonus so that older Australians can keep more of what they earn without taking a hit to their pension. And we brought the parliament back to legislate a cap on power prices—another cost-of-living measure that those opposite opposed. We have done all this whilst being responsible economic managers. While the Liberals would consistently blow budget revenue upgrades, this government did not. In the October budget we returned 99 per cent of revenue upgrades to the budget, compared to the previous government's average of just 40 per cent. This is responsible and doesn't add further pressure on inflation in our economy. We've introduced legislation to drive investment in cheaper and cleaner energy, putting downward pressure on power prices. Again, this was opposed by those opposite. Under the Albanese Labor government there will be more university and fee-free TAFE places, ensuring that we get more people trained in the jobs they need to be in. All outcomes of the Jobs and Skills Summit were opposed by those opposite. We've introduced the National Reconstruction Fund, investing in Australian manufacturing industry. Again, this is opposed by those opposite. In May the Treasurer will deliver a budget that includes direct energy relief, which those opposite voted against. With all this hard work there are encouraging signs that inflation has peaked and will start to moderate throughout the year. Australians know that this government didn't create the economic challenges we face now. The former government had 10 years and they wasted each and every year and left us with a trillion dollars worth of Liberal debt. The Australian people trust us to fix these issues and take responsibility for addressing them, and we are. 11:21 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies We all come in here with talking points, slogans and lines, and we hear them in the speeches. We just heard a few there, including 'a wasted decade' and 'a trillion dollars of debt'. An honourable member: 'Liberal debt'. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Well, 'Liberal debt'. When we come here and repeat slogans like that we're not actually acknowledging what's happening in this country and we're not actually acknowledging the suffering that people are experiencing. Interest rates have risen nine consecutive times on this government's watch. I'm not going to pretend that that's all the Labor government's fault, but you are responsible for what we do from here and people are looking to you to be responsible for what we do from here. The latest increase has a consequence for real people who are trying to live normal lives. In the seat of Menzies I'm as close as a federal Liberal gets to the centre of Melbourne. It's still a fair distance; it's off on the horizon. The closer you get to the centre of the city—and the member for Sturt is here too—the more land prices increase, so the more people have to pay to get a little bit of turf that is Australia and so they pay more for their mortgages. A typical mortgage of $750,000 doesn't get you much as you get close to the centre of Melbourne and it doesn't get you much as you get close to the centre of Adelaide, but let's take that amount—$750,000. A person or a family has to find an extra $1,700 per month, or an extra $20,000 a year. That's after-tax money. So whether you're in a single- or dual-income family, you can't walk in to your employer and say: 'Guess what? I have this bill that's your problem, not my problem, so I want you to pay me now. For me to have $20,000, I want you to give an equivalent before-tax rise,' which could be $35,000. It's just not going to happen. We heard the member for Bennelong talk about a wage increase. Wage increases mean nothing unless they are real wage increases, so a wage increase adjusted for inflation. Each time there's inflation and an increase in interest rates, that is taken away from people's wages. If as a government you are making decisions that are increasing inflation and thereby forcing the hand of the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates, you are taking away from the spending power of families. We heard a lot of invective from the government about the importance of the executive being accountable to the parliament, and there's no more important way than question time. Questions have been put directly to the Prime Minister. I myself have put four questions to him. It's the only time I've got to speak to the Prime Minister across that dispatch box. Some of the questions included: 'Can the Prime Minister name a single suburb in Australia where power prices have been reduced?' and 'Can the Prime Minister identify a single Australian who is paying less on their electricity bill now than they were 10 months ago?' I can name one person: the Prime Minister. I'm sure the Prime Minister had an electricity bill more than 10 months ago, but I don't think the electricity bill for the Lodge or Kirribilli lands on his personal desk. But, again, there were no answers. As a first-term member, I am getting familiar with the standing orders. Standing orders say that an answer must be directly relevant to the question—not just relevant but directly relevant. But we don't get a directly relevant answer or an answer that is in any way relevant. It's not just because the opposition is owed an answer; it's because Australians are owed an answer. If you care about the circumstances of Australian families and Australian individuals, you will take those questions seriously and answer them seriously. They are questions like: 'What was the interest rate 10 months ago compared to today?' That should be a relatively straightforward question to answer. A directly relevant answer shouldn't be hard, but it was too hard. We asked the Prime Minister if he could identify a single mortgage holder who has seen their interest rate go down in the past 10 months or a single person whose grocery bill is lower than it was 10 months ago. The Prime Minister might say: 'I don't have anyone, but I'm going to go and find out. I'm going to go and speak to Australians and actually show that I care and that I'm listening, because I am responsible and the government is responsible.' 11:26 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce This is indeed an important topic. The motion is a little bit deficient. It's a random selection of facts, conveniently missing the context and things that the opposition prefer not to talk about or, indeed, are actively trying to make Australians forget. But cost-of-living pressures are the No. 1 focus of the government. People are doing it tough. I don't really take offence—it's the kind of stuff you expect from those opposite—but the silly stereotype we heard a couple of speakers ago, that somehow government members are not aware of this, is pretty offensive. I spent eight hours on Saturday, like I do many weekends, doing street stalls right across the electorate. I have another six hours booked in this Saturday. That's what good local MPs do, and there are good local MPs on both sides of the chamber, so let's cut the stereotype that somehow the government is out of touch. Interest rates are rising, and Australians are doing it tough. There are energy price pressures, mostly for reasons beyond the former government's and this government's control, as the opposition well know. Inflationary pressures are impacting the price of food, goods and services, and we've had a decade of stagnating wages, but the cost of living has two aspects. Let's be clear. It's basic accounting: money out and money in. From my discussions on Saturday, I know that Australians are perfectly well aware of both sides of that equation. The government is taking action, though, on both fronts. We'll start with the money in, because the opposition don't like to talk about this as their record. One of the first actions we took as a government was to back a rise of 5.2 per cent to the minimum wage, helping 2.7 million Australians with a dollar an hour, as the Prime Minister said before the election. We backed a rise for aged-care workers, finally. The previous government weren't going to touch that little recommendation in the royal commission, were they? The Fair Work Commission is finalising the details now, and rightly so—around 15 per cent. We've introduced secure jobs, better pay laws, to help every worker be able to negotiate a better pay deal and get wages moving. This contrasts profoundly with the decade of dysfunction, dithering and delay that Australians endured under the opposition, who bring this debate. Real wages went backwards under the Liberals before COVID. Here's one of those inconvenient facts that the motion could well have included. Real wages between 2013 and 2019 in this country went backwards, against the OECD trends. That's their record. But it was part of their deliberate economic management. The former finance minister Mathias Cormann admitted that. He certainly went off the talking points then, on Sky News. He said: 'Well, of course, low wages are a deliberate feature of our economic management.' That's their ideology. They actively backed cuts to penalty rates. Their record is trying to lower wages. I just want to make that clear. In a cost-of-living debate, that's one key part of the equation. What are people getting in? Are their wages going backwards? But the other side, of course, is the inflation challenge, and the motion calls for 'real action' on 'cost of living pressures'—full stop; that's the end. Well, that's exactly what the government's doing. You missed that bit out. Inflation is the defining economic challenge of 2023, just as it was in 2022. But Australia is not alone in the developed world. We can't control Russia's illegal war in Ukraine. We can't control the recovery from the global supply-chain challenges arising from COVID, particularly in relation to China. But what the government of Australia can control, should control and should have controlled are things that the government does. The opposition had more than 20 failed energy policies in their decade in office—I think it was 22, actually—and a lazy, inflationary economic approach to fiscal management. The March quarter of 2022 was the worst inflation record for a couple of decades. The previous government splashed cash around in every budget, whether it was for rorted grants programs—billions of dollars for stuff—or handouts, grants programs or debt-funded tax cuts. We heard one of the former speakers actually say: 'Oh, the government raised the price of petrol.' That was the former government's temporary rebate that ended—it expired, on their timetable—which was a cash splash before an election. Guess what? That's inflationary. They were the highest-taxing government in Australian history; the second-highest-taxing was John Howard's—inconvenient facts that the opposition don't like to acknowledge. You could have popped that in your motion. But the government has a plan for responsible cost-of-living relief: for cheaper child care; for cheaper medicines; for direct energy relief, which the opposition voted no to—they actually voted no to taking the sting out of power price rises; for repairing supply-side constraints; for fee-free TAFE; for cleaner and cheaper energy; for the National Reconstruction Fund; for more affordable housing; and for responsible budget management, with spending restraint. The government returned 99 per cent of new revenue to the budget, taking pressure off inflation—in contrast to your spending-like-a-drunken-sailor record. 11:31 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt It's a really tough time for families in this country right now. Real wages are going backwards at the greatest rate for many decades. The December CPI was 7.8 per cent; the wages growth for the same period, annualised, was 3.3. So, if you're earning money and spending money, your real wealth is deteriorating dramatically right now under this government. It's the worst, as I say, it has been for many decades. And, regrettably, it is only going to get worse into the future. The evidence for that is most simply seen by looking at the Labor Party's own budget, which they handed down last October and said that electricity prices over two years would be going up by 56 per cent and natural gas by more than 40 per cent. The previous speaker has got a new talking point now, 'taking the sting out of the tail'. Apparently, we should be grateful that electricity prices are only going up by more than 20 per cent in my home state of South Australia—we should be grateful for that! It could have been even worse. And apparently that's something for the people of Australia to lay down and praise the government for—a government that said it was going to reduce electricity prices by $275 a year for the average household bill. Now we should be grateful that the sting is out of the tail and that this year they're only going to be going up, in my home state of South Australia, by more than 20 per cent! Interest rates, of course, are climbing dramatically. We know that the Reserve Bank meets next week. We hope, for the families of this nation, that we see a pause in interest rates increasing. But, regrettably, there is a chance that they will go up again. Since the last meeting of the Reserve Bank of Australia, of course the US Fed has again increased interest rates; the Bank of England has again increased interest rates; the European Central Bank has again increased interest rates, as have the Norwegian central bank and Sweden's central bank. Regrettably, we are seeing that countries that have already had the peak of their inflation well before ours—which I sincerely hope was, in fact, in December—are still increasing interest rates. In the United States, their cash rate is dramatically higher than ours and, as I say, has increased again since the last meeting. So there is this real spectre of interest rates continuing to go up further. But, even if they don't—even if they stay where they are—this is going to have a brutal impact on all those mortgage holders who are coming off fixed rates, of which we know there are 800,000 this year. Even though we care for the plight of people who are struggling to get in to the property market, the people at the greatest disadvantage right now are those who locked in an interest rate when the cash rate was at 0.1 per cent, who are going to have that mortgage mature and are going to be refinanced and see their average mortgage repayments, already, if interest rates don't go up any further, more than doubling. The impact of that on the household budget, where your mortgage is, of course, your biggest cost, is going to be extreme and dramatic. People will be cancelling family holidays. They will have to reconsider whether they can meet some of the education expenses that they've got if they send their children to private school. Maybe it's too difficult to afford private health insurance going forward. They will certainly not be going to the local cafe or the local pub as much for a family outing because costs are going up so dramatically. At the same time, real wages are decreasing, so the amount of money you've got in your pocket relative to the costs in your household budget is going backwards, and that was in the December quarter. The war in Ukraine and other things have obviously had an impact, but, when I consult the oil price today, it's at $75 a barrel, so the oil price is now lower than it's been for the last five years. Of course, that's in nominal terms, not in real terms. So, when you adjust that for inflation, oil prices at the moment are lower than they've ever been. So one of the main purported issues caused by war overseas would surely be higher oil prices, yet they are at an all-time low right now. It is just not acceptable to blame overseas forces. They are, frankly, not at play. What is at play is that we have a government that is not taking this cost-of-living challenge seriously and is not making the decisions that are within their power to give real and significant relief to that crisis that families are struggling with. They were told that, if they voted Labor, power bills would come down and all of these challenges would not exist. Regrettably, for those Australians who are good-natured people and believed those promises, the complete opposite has occurred, and all the significant elements of the household budget are increasing at a rate that is completely out of control. We, obviously, call upon the government to take this seriously, to do something meaningful and to honour their election promises. If you can't do that, at least come clean with people and admit that, under this government, we are going to continue to see this cost-of-living crisis spiral out of control. 11:36 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney When I doorknock in Tangney to listen to my constituents, I hear many things. Pride, joy, frustration and concern are some of the sentiments I receive on how this government is doing. Nine out of 10 will tell me that their families and themselves are stressed due to the cost-of-living pressure, and I feel it too. I see interest rates and the price of food and fuel all going up. Almost everything costs more. The rising cost of living concerns everyone, regardless of where you live. Inflation is a defining economic challenge of 2023. As of the last quarterly CPI data, inflation sits at a 32-year high of 32.8 per cent. Let me be clear: this government did not create these challenges. However, we were elected to take responsibility for addressing them, and we are delivering. Our Albanese government is committed to taking action to help everyday Australians. Our economic plan is a direct and deliberate response to the challenges facing our economy. We are committed to responsible cost-of-living relief through measures such as cheaper child care, cheaper medicine and direct energy bill relief. We understand that these are essential services for many Australians, and we are working to make them more affordable, because we care. We are repairing supply-side constraints through free TAFE courses, cleaner and cheaper energy, and the National Reconstruction Fund, which is critical to setting up the pathway for future prosperity for Australians. We are planning for more affordable housing, ensuring that all Australians can have access to secure and affordable housing. We are also being responsible in our budget, by spending with restraint, with consideration and with compassion. We are returning almost all revenue upgrades to the bottom line and keeping spending flat over the next four years to not add to inflation. I'm proud to be part of a government that has compassion and is able to empathise. One of the first actions taken by the Albanese government was to successfully argue for the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation. This outcome helped around 2.7 million Australians. The previous government oversaw a decade of wasted opportunity and prioritised their own self-interest. We have heard it so many times: a trillion dollars of debt without any economic dividend to show for it—wasted opportunities and wasted time. Fellow members, I know that we are going through an economically challenging time. Every economy is enduring unprecedented challenges due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. We are still in the recovery stage, but, despite the pressures, our Albanese government is committed to ensuring that all Australians can come through this as a stronger and more resilient nation. It is not easy, nor is it quick, but I know that through hard work and perseverance we can, as a team, make sure this plan becomes a reality. Our government plan is comprehensive, responsible and compassionate. We are committed to relief, repair and restraint in our effort to address inflation, because, when we work together as representatives of our wonderful electorates to push for change and reform, we can ensure that our constituents continue to prosper and thrive. Our government has delivered and will continue to deliver strong outcomes that all Australians can be proud of. Thank you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting week. Housing 134 11:41 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I move: That this House: (1) notes: (a) Saturday, 1 April 2023 will mark the six month anniversary of the introduction of the Government's Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee; and (b) the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee has helped over 2,700 Australians into home ownership; (2) acknowledges that as well as establishing the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, the Government has started delivering on its ambitious housing agenda, including: (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; (b) establishing the interim National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide expert advice to Government on housing supply and affordability; and (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 (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. As the member for Gilmore, it is my honour today to move this private member's motion that the Albanese government's efforts to ensure that more Australians have access to safe and affordable housing be recognised by this House. The Albanese Labor government understands that housing affordability and availability have been a major concern for many Australians. Those living in regional areas—like the New South Wales South Coast, where I am—have seen some of the largest drops in affordability over the last few years. It is clear to me and the people I represent that it is becoming more and more difficult to own a home on the New South Wales South Coast, especially if it is your first home. Many locals have struggled to save enough for a sufficient deposit, with prices increasing faster than they can save. It is a vicious cycle that is all too common for many first home buyers. That's why we brought forward the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee by three months. We wanted to see more regional people getting into the property market and getting their first home, and it's working. There have been over 2,700 households across Australia that have accessed the scheme. That's thousands of people who have already been helped into their first home since October. This program provides a government guarantee of up to 15 per cent for eligible first home buyers, helping regional Australians with a deposit of as little as five per cent avoid paying lenders mortgage insurance. That is a massive incentive. I don't have to remind the House that, when you're saving for your first home, every cent counts. Helping first home buyers avoid paying lenders mortgage insurance will save them thousands and possibly bring their dreams of homeownership forward by years. I'm pleased to share that this initiative has been a resounding success, with take-up from all eligible states and territories. On the New South Wales South Coast, since October, we've seen more than 100 households take advantage of this scheme. Many of these people would not have been able to do this without assistance. This is a massive win. I'm thrilled that, in just a few months, this scheme has been helping my community. I'm thrilled that first home buyers can realise their dreams sooner. It's not just the New South Wales South Coast, though. Across Australia, the Albanese Labor government is helping regional people get into their first homes. Over 1,100 Queenslanders, 462 Victorians, 151 Western Australians, 75 South Australians and 41 Tasmanians have also been able to purchase a new home in regional Australia with help from the federal government. Buying a home is a huge milestone, and it can be one of the most exciting times in someone's life. It is very special to be able to call a place your own—a place where you and your family live, feel safe and build a life. Your first home may be your forever home, or it might just be your first. Either way, it's an important step for many people, and I'm happy to be a part of that. In just a few months, we've shown that we're committed to helping people from the regions access more affordable housing. But this is just one part of our ambitious housing reform agenda. We've also passed the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, the first step in creating a $10 billion fund that will build 30,000 new social and affordable housing properties in its first five years. I encourage those in the Senate to vote in support of the Housing Australia Future Fund. We're also progressing towards a new National Housing Accord, a shared ambition to build one million new, well-located homes over five years from 2024. We've allocated $350 million in additional federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes over five years from 2024, as part of the accord. We're widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, making up to $575 million available to invest in social and affordable housing and implementing a National Housing and Homelessness Plan to set short-, medium- and long-term goals to improve housing outcomes across Australia. For those who are experiencing or are at risk of experiencing homelessness, we're investing $91.7 million into youth homelessness through the Reconnect program over the next three years. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring more Australians have access to safe and affordable housing. We have a plan, and it's working. The Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee was an important part of our plan, and I look forward to seeing the positive results of the scheme for years to come. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Is the motion seconded? Mr Repacholi 298840 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:46 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin It's very telling that, when discussing the achievements of this government in housing, the government refers to the Home Guarantee Scheme, which is a very proud coalition achievement. We are very complimentary that the government has taken on the coalition's Home Guarantee Scheme and is very enthusiastically spruiking it in this place, but let's be clear: that is an achievement of the former coalition government. What governments have to do is come up with some of their own policies. You can't just dine out on the policies you inherited from the former coalition government. Let's be frank: the government's housing policies and housing plan—if you can describe it as a plan—are in absolute tatters. The housing agenda in Australia is not being led from this building; it's not being led from anywhere. What we see under a Labor federal government is that first home buys are down, new home builds are down, rents are up and the housing stock in Australia is not growing at the pace at which it needs to. And what do we see from the government? We see nothing. We see discussions about meetings, and meetings for more meetings, and we see a bold series of media releases talking about 30,000 social and affordable homes being built over five years. That's less than what was delivered in the last five years. We see the Rudd-esque announcement in the budget about a million well-located homes, presumably being delivered by the private sector with no assistance from the government. By the way, to the government: we built more than a million homes in the last five years. What we see from the government is these ambitions and numbers thrown out there in this farcical way, and, even if they meet them, they would be delivering less than what has been delivered in the immediate past. What do we not hear from the government? We don't hear anyone in the government talking about first home buyers. First home buyers have been completely forgotten by this government. That would partly explain why their numbers keep reducing. The former coalition government took first home buyers from around 100,000 a year to 180,000 in the last full financial year that the government was in place, which shows that if you have a laser-like focus on first home buyers you can move the dial. But instead, now, we have a minister and a government that refuse to talk about first home buyers. They keep talking about the 30,000 social and affordable homes that they'll deliver over five years from 1 July 2024—that is, for the first 18 months of their government, nothing will happen. We're now 10 months into this government, and how many homes has the government delivered? How many out of the 30,000 social and affordable homes has the government delivered? Zero—zero homes in 10 months. After a while the Australian people will say: 'Hold on. These media releases don't mean much, and these lofty numbers that you throw out at budget time don't mean much if they don't mean homes on the ground, if they don't mean homes that first home buyers can purchase and if they don't mean new homes to reduce the impact on rents'—and let's not forget about the 30 per cent of people who rent. Instead, what we have now is the government in a quagmire in the Senate with their Housing Australia Future Fund. It's an additional $10 billion of Commonwealth borrowings which, before even $1 can come out of that fund, will cost Australian taxpayers approximately $400 million a year. So the first $400 million just covers the interest on the debt. Then, if there's something leftover—which is a big 'if', particularly when you look at the Future Fund, which shrunk last year—then that can potentially go into housing projects. There's no certainty for the industry. It's no wonder that they're having difficulties getting that through the Senate—because it is such a half-baked plan. The Reserve Bank at the moment is saying to the government, very loudly, 'Stop spending', because, for every extra billion that the government spends, the Reserve Bank has got to take a billion out. That's why millions of mortgage holders are under more stress now, under Labor, than they need to be, and it's why millions of Australian homeowners will be under even more mortgage stress—because Labor cannot control their borrowing and spending. 11:51 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I thank my friend from Gilmore for bringing this motion forward. As any great economist will tell you, there are three foundational needs for any human: food, water and shelter. I'm proud to say that this government is providing what Australians need. We're addressing the housing crisis that those opposite created. We're helping to make sure that Aussies will be able to have a roof over their heads, whether they're a person in regional Australia looking to buy their first home, through our Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, or they're making the most of the increased social and affordable housing that is becoming available because of our work in widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility. On top of this, even more people will find it easier to gain one of their most basic human rights, shelter, in the form of housing, after this government established the Interim National Housing Supply and Affordability Council and struck the National Housing Accord, which will bring together all levels of government, along with investors and the construction sector. These are practical measures which just make sense, and they will have serious impacts on making housing in this country more affordable and more accessible for all. This Albanese-led Labor government leaves no-one behind. We actually care about the people, and these policies show that we're serious about addressing the housing crisis and getting people into their own home sooner. But the work doesn't stop there. We know there is more to be done and we are more than ready for the task. Unlike those opposite, we aren't about announcements with no follow-up and we don't create policy just to attract cute little positive media stories. We're about following up on amazing policies that are already underway and already making real-world impact, such as establishing the Housing Australia Future Fund and developing the National Housing and Homelessness Plan. We're providing approximately $1.6 billion per year to the states and territories through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. We're also investing $91.7 million in the Reconnect program over the next three years to address youth homelessness. I'm particular proud of, and excited by, the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. This is directly aimed at helping Australians in electorates like mine, the Hunter. House prices in my electorate have boomed in recent years. I completely understand people wanting to live in the Hunter. It's the gateway to paradise! Without a doubt, it's the best place to live in Australia—and the world—but, for people looking to buy a house in the Hunter for the first time, the issue is that it's becoming completely unaffordable. When I was growing up, the great Australian dream was to one day own your own house. But, sadly, this is so far out of reach that young people in Australia today cannot practically consider homeownership because in many cases it's not even close to being affordable. This is a sad reality of modern Australia, and it is the sad reality for many in my electorate. Because of this government, 2,700 Australians have been helped towards realising this great Australian dream and owning their own home. This government is making the great Australian dream of owning your own home a reality again. And this policy gets even better: all of these 2,700 Australian homeowners are in regional Australia. Many of these are in my electorate—147 of them, to be precise. This is what happens when a government is elected who cares about people, a government who takes real action on the issues that affect the everyday people of Australia. This is an issue that should have been addressed a long time ago, because the expectation and aspiration to own our own home is not an unreasonable desire to have. Now, with a government that cares, listens and acts, in a period of not even six months since the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee was passed in this parliament, 2,700 people have been helped to reach this desire of owning their own home. If this is the impact of this policy in less than six months, imagine how many first home buyers will be able to enter the market throughout the remainder of our term in government and hopefully well into the future. 11:56 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Secure and affordable housing is fundamental to the wellbeing of Australians. Homeownership continues to be a widely held aspiration in Australia, as it affords owners with security of housing tenure and long-term social and economic benefits. Now, while the government has lots of impressive-sounding headlines, the reality is that little is actually being done. Let's start with Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund, which will be capitalised with $10 billion of additional Commonwealth government borrowing and conveniently categorised as off-budget spending. With the 10-year government bond rate approaching four per cent and rising, the $10 billion borrowing will cost the Commonwealth approximately $400 million per year in interest servicing costs on this debt. And this increased borrowing will add to the already severe inflationary pressures in the economy, leading to higher interest rates—exactly what we don't need right now. To make it even worse, not one dollar of the $10 billion in new debt will be spent on housing. It is essentially a bet on the stock market. Despite the rhetoric of those opposite, the coalition had the highly successful Home Guarantee Scheme, which it established in 2020, and the former coalition government's Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. These guarantees were limited to the build or purchase of new homes. This increased the supply of housing into new areas, along with encouraging new home buyers into the regions. Labor's policy applies to all homes, including existing dwellings, which will simply put more pressure on regional housing markets that already don't have enough supply. All this will do is pile on more demand for housing in the regions. Without increasing housing supply in regional areas, the government's scheme fails to reduce housing affordability pressures. The Treasurer and the minister announced with great fanfare the Housing Accord last year. While this sounds impressive and has got their big standard numbers to deliver, the interesting part is always about the details. We all know superannuation funds have the responsibility to deliver value for money on investments in their members' best interests. This leads to the real question that the government hasn't answered and won't answer: in a time of rising inflation, a time when the costs of building houses are going up every day, how does it make financial sense for a superannuation fund to invest in housing that by definition will deliver a low return? So the capital has to go into the low-cost housing. There's no way they can meet their obligation with rising costs and a low return on that capital. Again, this is another impressive-sounding headline from this government that doesn't stack up when you look at the detail and that won't deliver for Australians. The coalition had a strong record, with support for homeownership along with funding for social and affordable housing. We supported more than 21,000 social and affordable homes through the establishment of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. This was a landmark coalition achievement, and, since its creation, it has delivered $2.9 billion in low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings, saving $470 million in interest payments to be reinvested in affordable housing. We also unlocked 6,900 social and affordable and market dwellings through the coalition's $1 billion infrastructure facility to make housing supply more responsive to demand. We supported more than 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families into homeownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme with a deposit of as little as five per cent and two per cent, respectively. Of these 60,000 guarantees issued, 52 per cent were taken up by women—well above the market average of 41 per cent of women entering into homeownership. One in five guarantees went to essential workers, almost 35 per cent of which were nurses and 34 per cent of which were teachers. Eighty-five per cent of the family home guarantees were used by single mums. These are real results that have made a difference to thousands of people. From what I can see, the Labor government is congratulating itself for setting up more bureaucracy to advise on more plans, more advisory councils and more accords without actually delivering more houses for those who need them. 12:01 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I hope it is the case that everybody in this House does believe that every Australian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. And, if indeed that is the case, I would expect that everyone in this place would vote to support the national housing policies that we've put forward and that we know will make a real difference to people's lives. Under the previous coalition government we saw the result of neglect of and underinvestment in housing. That's led to a housing affordability crisis in this country. There are a lot of crises that happened on the watch of those opposite, and this one is particularly appalling. Australians, particularly those in regional areas, were struggling to save a sufficient deposit for their first home, and the cost of living was becoming increasingly high. We're taking action to address a lot of the issues that we have inherited. We brought forward our Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee by three months. That has meant that we have helped more than 2,700 households since its launch in October. Our government guarantee for up to 15 per cent of eligible first home buyers has enabled regional Australians to avoid paying lenders mortgage insurance and to get into their own home sooner. This targeted support is helping regional Australians into homeownership sooner and is assisting with the cost of living. But we're doing so much more than that. It was really wonderful to be able to connect the Treasurer with the Ashburton, Ashwood and Chadstone partnership group in my electorate of Chisolm. This is a remarkable group comprising public tenant associations, service providers of neighbourhood houses, council representatives and state and federal MPs as well. What this group does is bring people together to have genuine conversations about what people in public and social housing really need. As I said, it was wonderful to be able to connect this group with the Treasurer because, for us as a Labor government, it's important that we listen to the experiences of people in our communities to inform our policies and make sure that the dignity of housing is something that can be offered to every single Australian. Last month the interim National Housing Supply and Affordability Council met for the first time. The House of Representatives has passed the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill, which will help establish a permanent statutory council later this year. Again, it is really important that we have these kinds of groups set up to advise government and to ensure that we are doing everything we can to deliver housing for every single Australian, because we actually believe that that is a fundamental principle—that everyone in this country has a roof over their head, regardless of how much money they earn. We're progressing a new national housing accord. This is a shared ambition to build one million new, well-located homes over five years from 2024. This initiative will be supported by $350 million in additional federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes over five years from 2024, which is really exciting. We're widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, making up to $575 million available to invest in social and affordable housing, and developing a new National Housing and Homelessness Plan. We're committed to reducing the cost of buying a home through the help-to-buy program. There is no doubt that people are really experiencing a lot of pressure when it comes to purchasing a home and even securing a rental. We really understand the importance of taking meaningful action to address these issues. We need to support our country's homelessness services to address these challenges too. I meet with advocates from various different service groups all the time, and supporting them is something I'm really committed to, particularly as we see the increase of need in our communities who access these services. Through establishing a Housing Australia Future Fund, developing our 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, we're doing everything we can to ensure that every Australian has a safe and affordable place to call home and is well connected to their community. 12:06 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi The housing situation in my electorate of Indi, in north-east Victoria, just gets worse and worse, day by day. In north-east Victoria, 40.6 per cent of renters are experiencing housing stress. A recent report by Community Housing Industry Association Victoria found that north-east Victoria had the highest rental increases in all of regional Victoria. They have risen by around $36 a week on average since interest rates started rising in May, ranking us as the ninth-worst region in the state. The convergence of rising rental prices, a decline in the supply of affordable housing and a rise in living costs like groceries, petrol and power means renters are being faced with desperate situations. Celia Adams, CEO of BeyondHousing, an organisation that provides pathways to affordable housing in Wangaratta and Wodonga says: We are seeing people choosing to stay in a rental home they can no longer afford, or that may be overcrowded, unsuitable for their needs or most worryingly, unsafe. This is because there is nowhere for people to go. In Wangaratta, the second-biggest town in my electorate, vacancy rates are at just 0.1 per cent. Celia says that people are moving away from their friends, families and established support networks—they're leaving their communities—to try and find affordable housing. Her services are seeing a 37 per cent increase in private rental support services right now. Sadly, in the worst-case scenario, people are living without a stable roof over their heads at all. According to 2021 census data released just last week, homelessness in Wangaratta has increased 67 per cent since 2016. The government, to their credit, have recognised that the pathway out of this crisis is an ongoing commitment to more long-term social housing, with a plan to build 30,000 new social housing properties over five years. I supported the government's housing package and worked with the government to ensure that the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council must consider regional, rural and remote Australia when it is advising the government on the distribution of the Housing Australia Future Fund. I also moved amendments to ensure the legislation explicitly states that the fund can direct money towards critical enabling infrastructure. With the government's housing package now in doubt in the Senate, we still need a solution to this housing crisis. It's not going to go away. Whether the housing legislative package is passed or not, there is no way that the government are going to fulfil their election promise of thousands of new homes if they don't specifically invest in critical enabling infrastructure. We must provide support for the infrastructure to open up the land to build the houses on—infrastructure like a functioning sewerage system or drainage system that communities like Wangaratta and Benalla desperately need to fix, but the local councils simply don't have the money to do so on their own. That's why I've been calling on the government to set up a dedicated regional housing infrastructure investment fund. This fund would unlock private investment in new houses by building the basic infrastructure needed for new developments, including social infrastructure, like parks and community centres. It would also provide local government assistance to fast-track planning approvals and reduce red tape. With rises in rent we've never seen before in regional Australia we must think creatively and contextually about what we need to open up housing stock at all levels. We need medium-density housing. We need social housing. We need clever housing. The peak housing body in Australia, the Housing Industry Association, agrees with me. Only last week it warned that failure to increase supply, to address supply chain problems and to slash red tape poses the greatest threat to cheaper rents and the government's pledge to build one million homes. Like me, the Housing Industry Association are wholly supportive of more social housing, but they say that supply of housing in the private sector is crucial to ensuring enough social housing too. The government's policies are nowhere near good enough for regional Australia. Fund a regional housing infrastructure fund. Fund it now and open this up. Without this investment, your ambitions and goals of affordable housing for all Australians will not and simply cannot be realised. 12:11 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I begin by celebrating the fact that, contrary to the member for Indi's disparaging comments about the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, we have secured 2,700 homes in six months. It's an absolutely fantastic outcome. It demonstrates the power of federal government investment in affordable homes and being able to provide access and a guarantee to young people looking to continue living in the regions or to move to those regions. While my electorate is not quite as regional as the member for Gilmore's, the outer reaches of Hasluck are some 55 to 60 kilometres from Perth's CBD and are in what can only be described as farming country. Having grown up in regional towns, predominantly York, which is only about a 20-minute drive from the border of my electorate, I completely appreciate the need to support younger people and young families, first home buyers, who desire to stay in their own home town and raise their family or perhaps to stay at a job that they love but still have the capacity to buy their own first home. We see this also with the growth in opportunities for renewable energies that will predominantly be benefiting those in the regions. The lovely town of Collie has been the home of coalmining for decades. Now the Western Australian government, under the McGowan leadership, is transitioning Western Australia away from coal. That is not the end of the town; it's the beginning of an entirely new future. Jobs will come now from renewable energies, green hydrogen and developing tourism. Tourism has been completely unappreciated because of the coalmining that has been there for so long. We now have an opportunity for a lot more people to move to that region. Their capacity to access affordable homes is limited. Programs like the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee make it accessible to all. There are also a great many people deciding to make metropolitan parts of my electorate of Hasluck home. Around 55 per cent of the people in Hasluck have a mortgage, which is over 20 per cent higher than the national average. These are younger people, first-generation migrants to Australia, people chasing the Australian dream and those simply moving in because it's a beautiful place in which to live. The Albanese Labor government has been active in this space, as we heard already, with the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, the Help to Buy Scheme, the National Housing Accord and—with the support, hopefully, of all those opposite—the Housing Future Fund. In a complex society we all bear the shared responsibility for ensuring that everyone lives with dignity and security. With the leadership of the federal government and agreement with the states we can indeed meet this challenge, because no-one needs a mansion on the riverfront, but everyone needs sufficient shelter. For everyone to have sufficient shelter in the shadow of an often unaffordable housing market there needs to be sufficient funding. The government's current policies need to be seen as a great beginning and they need to be supported by the parliament. Of course, 'sufficient shelter' means different things at different times of life and has different meanings depending on the circumstances. During the campaign I met families who were in a difficult situation because the number of rooms within their home didn't reflect the size of their family. And it went both ways: I had some people who were terrified about trying to find a smaller home because of the lack of available small homes with one or two bedrooms, and, equally, there were those with growing families who were desperately concerned that moving out of their one- or two-bedroom flat would be difficult, if not impossible, because of the increasing rents—let alone being able to actually purchase a home that fitted the size of their family. So this government are now making it easier for people to downsize, and we're make it easier for people to remove themselves from circumstances such as domestic violence. We're beginning to actually address the systemic needs, which means investing in homelessness services and housing supply. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 enables grants and loans in relation to acute housing needs, social housing or affordable housing, and we look forward to that bill being passed, because the future benefits of establishing this are unlimited in scope. It is a legacy program, not unlike Medicare or superannuation, which could, over time, become an integral and supportive part of Australia's housing landscape. We have a major, ambitious program ahead of us, but we need the parliament to act in this area, because any delay is an absolute injustice to all those who deserve and require the basics of shelter and affordable housing. 12:16 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on the motion—particularly, on the government's purported Housing Australia Future Fund, which, after so many months, has still failed to pass into legislation. During the election campaign, the biggest issue in my electorate of Hughes was the cost of living, followed closely by housing affordability. This was a priority and a concern for young people who are currently unable to get into private ownership and many of whom are also unable to get into the private rental market. It was also a concern for the many parents and grandparents in my electorate who are concerned about their children's and their grandchildren's ability to house themselves in the future. In my first speech in this place, I spoke of my commitment to addressing housing affordability. While the people of the electorate of Hughes provide me with the privilege of serving in this place, I will be committed to addressing housing affordability as a top priority. My policy framework around this issue has arisen from my personal ideology as well as from lessons learnt from a 25-year legal career spent in planning, property and environmental law, working both for and in the private and local government sectors. Ideologically, my commitment to liberalism and civilised capitalism is about unleashing the power of the individual and their enterprise while always providing a safety net for those who, despite their best efforts, are unable to cope. That is what we must do in the housing space. At a federal government level, we need to facilitate an environment where we, as a country, deliver broader housing choices and a system that provides greater security of tenure. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:18 to 12:31 Ms WARE 300123 At federal government level, we need to facilitate an environment where we as a country deliver broader housing choice and a system that provides great security of tenure, such as longer term leases, for our most vulnerable, many of whom are Australia's children and our returned veterans, and I commend the member for Indi who also spoke on this issue today. The greater the number of Australians that own their own home the greater the ability of governments to facilitate social and emergency housing. It is a housing continuum. Having spent my former career working in and around the housing sector, I can see that the housing fund that is being put forward by this government, even with the best of intentions, simply will not deliver the housing that has been anticipated. It is simply a housing fund. It is not in any way a bill that's going to address the underlying issues of housing affordability within our country. It fails at very basic levels. For example, there is a failure to define key terms in the bill such as 'social housing', 'affordable housing' and 'acute housing'. The bill also omits a major part of the housing affordability problem: it leaves out private home ownership and ways that the federal government can influence, empower and incentivise private homeownership. On the housing continuum, as more Australians own their own home, they move out of the private rental market, which, in turn, frees up supply for others to move into this space, allowing more resources to be directed to social and emergency housing. Australia's rate of homeownership has been declining since the baby boomer generation bought their homes. At the moment, homeownership rates among Australians under the age of 40 are at levels not seen since 1947. Being able to afford a home is becoming harder and harder—almost impossible—for most young Australians. Leaving private home ownership out of its housing policy means that the Labor government has failed to understand the way that the housing sector in this country works and ways that the federal government can incentivise state and local government to provide more affordable housing. It is disappointing that the Labor government has been intellectually lazy and, by these bills and the policy it's put forward, demonstrated its failure to understand the drivers behind housing in Australia, its failure to understand how the various state planning systems feed into the national system and its failure to empower local government to deliver at a local level. For all of these reasons, I cannot support this motion, and I say that the Labor government has not done nearly the work that it should have done in relation to affordable housing in this country. 12:34 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins An increasing number of Australians are spinning their wheels in search of a home. Others have fallen behind and are now in the throes of homelessness or are at risk. I never thought that in 2023 in a wealthy country like Australia we would even be having this debate about one of the most basic necessities in life, which is to have a roof over your head. That roof over your head provides the security which is foundational to prosperity. No-one can prosper without a roof over their head. This, of course, has not happened overnight; it has evolved over the last 10 years due to sustained policy failure under those opposite. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12 : 35 to 12 : 47 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 As I was saying before, what we're seeing in 2023 in Australia—a wealthy nation—is nothing short of a travesty. We shouldn't be having a discussion around whether people can or should be able to afford a roof over their heads. It is a human right, to be honest, and really it's the product of sustained policy failure over the last decade by those opposite. We have a country that is now riven by inequality and intergenerational injustice, which has led to an entire cohort of young Australians now being essentially locked out of the housing market. It shouldn't have to be this way. This inequality, as you know, is always unequal. Housing unaffordability is now leading to homelessness not only in youth but also in women; veterans; older people over the age of 55, particularly women; and Indigenous Australians. This was reflected in the latest homelessness data from the 2021 census. This data was both damning and enlightening. On any given night, there are 122,000 homeless people, which is an increase of 6,000 since the last census in 2016. Women accounted for the overwhelming majority of this; 81 per cent of people experiencing homelessness were women. Young people aged 12 to 24 accounted for one in five of these people, and 14 per cent—that's more than one in 10—were actually children aged less than 12. The highest rate of homelessness was amongst 19- to 24-year-olds. Our youth and the future of our country are now the group experiencing the highest rate of homelessness in Australia. What a blight on our society. Sixteen per cent were over the age of 55. Women, children, youth, older people and First Peoples—that's a very large group in our society. A problem of this magnitude demands national leadership as well as coordination, and we've certainly rolled up our sleeves on this side of the House. We have delivered, just in the last few days, a $67.5 million boost to homelessness funding for the states and territories, which will flow through over the next year. We're also developing a new national housing and homelessness plan, which is due to begin in 2024-25, and we're establishing a statutory authority called the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. This interim body has already met and is working towards developing a strategy. Hope alone is not going to fix this. You need a strategy, and this is what we're delivering for Australians. We are basically reversing a wasted decade by what we hope to be a decade of common purpose. I think that this parliament is the parliament that's going to deliver that because there is unity in what we're doing. I think it is a cruel irony that those opposite are now writing to our current housing minister, pleading with her to improve housing affordability in their own electorates. This begs the question: what on earth did they do for the last 10 years? They feathered their nest with press releases rather than actual plans. We are also investing $91.7 million in the Reconnect program to help combat youth homelessness. This program provides wraparound services to support our youth, including mental health services, counselling, education and skills training to help them stabilise their lives and improve their relationships with the families that they have often left. The census figures are a call to arms demanding that this parliament push through the legislation for our Housing Australia Future Fund—a $10 billion allocation that will be dedicated to social and affordable housing. It will help the mum I met yesterday at my mobile office who has two autistic children and is a nurse. She's done everything right in life. She's acquired a skill, she pays her taxes, she is a key worker in an admirable profession and yet she cannot afford to enter the housing market. Social and affordable homes, like the ones that we would like to build, will help this mother, along with the veterans who have fallen through the cracks, our First Peoples and that increasing cohort of women and children who are fleeing domestic violence. On this side of the House, we want to get on with this. We are rolling up our sleeves and doing this because the scale of the problem and its magnitude demands action, and that is what we are fulfilling for the Australian people. 12:52 Mr CONAGHA 279991 Cowper N () (): I rise to speak about the recent housing initiatives introduced by the new government, particularly in the context of regional Australia and specifically in areas such as my electorate of Cowper on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales. In my coastal region we've seen rents increase by as much as 50 per cent, and the price of the average three-bedroom family home has increased by over 70 per cent during that period. The issues of homelessness, rental stress and mortgage stress are ever increasing, particularly in the coastal regions, where we haven't seen a market correction like there's been in metro and peri-urban areas. The flow-on effects of city dwellers continuing to be priced out of the metro market, the ever-increasing interest rates and the greater ability to work remotely in a post-COVID era have regions like mine at breaking point. In October last year, in response to these pressures, I called on the new government to create a national housing summit between all levels of government in order to discuss a fit-for-purpose solution. I describe the issue of housing in Australia as the slowest-moving train wreck that I've seen. I note the previous speaker's comment that it was 'the last decade'. I recall a certain prime minister, the Hon. Bob Hawke, talking about 'no child will be in poverty', and that's going back four decades. So to lay the blame for the housing crisis at the feet of the opposition is simply unfair. This is something that we need to work on together for practical solutions. We have a supply and demand issue, and we need solutions to get that supply out there quickly, and that requires a multigovernment approach. Local councils and state and federal governments need to work together to remove the red tape. I should note that, when it comes to local government and state government, the contributions made by developers to state and local governments can often make up 60 per cent of the cost of building a house—60 per cent. So local government and state governments have a responsibility as well to look at those contributions and attempt to free up some of that red tape and some of that cost, to enable developers and builders to build cheaper buildings and not just rely on the federal government, whether it's Labor or the coalition, to hand out billions and billions of dollars when they're raking in these contributions at a local and state level. In the six months the federal government have been in, there have been a couple of state based roundtable discussions, notably in longstanding Labor states only. With pricing and affordability in New South Wales notably exceeding other states, the question really is begged: Why? Why hasn't there been one in New South Wales? Maybe now there's a New South Wales Labor government in power, they might sit down with them. I hope so. This should be a bipartisan approach, and hopefully there will be a solution in New South Wales. The government have introduced a number of additional programs and bills in recent months under the guise of addressing these issues. They might tell you they have been successful. I'm sorry to burst their bubble, but, for the coastal and regional areas, that is simply not the case. There are claims that over 2,700 Australians have been put into homeownership in the regions through the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee grant, but the vast majority of these are in fact in peri-urban areas. With continued limits on land releases in regions such as mine, there has been very minimal positive impact from the first six months of the scheme. I would urge this government to adopt real and practical solutions around the supply and distribution of funds today—yesterday. Once again, we're seeing irresponsible fiscal management and the regions being treated as second-class citizens under Labor, and I ask them to change that fact. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 I thank the member. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Cybersecurity 143 12:57 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I move: That this House (1) notes that: (a) foreign interference online poses a unique risk to the national security of Australia, particularly on social media platforms; (b) these platforms have been successfully weaponised by authoritarian states in an attempt to interfere in our democracy; and (c) under the previous Government, Australia led the world with its foreign interference, espionage and influence reforms of 2018; (2) acknowledges that: (a) the cybersecurity measures implemented by the previous Government are now being adopted by likeminded countries around the world; and (b) cyber-enabled foreign interference is a unique challenge which requires further reforms; and (3) calls on the Government to continue to monitor and adapt to the ever-changing threats posed by foreign actors in cyberspace. It's crucial to recognise that foreign actors, including intelligence services, are pursuing opportunities to interfere with and influence Australian society in a number of ways, including through governments at all levels, businesses, academia and a range of other sectors. Diaspora communities and the higher education sector have been identified as particularly vulnerable to attempts by foreign bodies to exert influence. These foreign actors aim to undermine Australia's national security, our democratic system of government and our sovereignty. They can do this through methods which many of us are already familiar when we think of traditional espionage—things like spying—but also through coercive methods in online and emerging technologies, including social media platforms. These activities are contrary to our sovereignty, our values and the national interest. Recently, Mike Burgess, the director of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, or ASIO, declared that espionage and foreign interference is now ASIO's 'principal security concern', and Australians need to be aware of this changing threat environment and what that can look like for them. My colleague Senator James Paterson has spearheaded the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media to probe concerns into social media applications headquartered in authoritarian countries, which pose a unique risk to the national security of Australia. China's 2017 national security law means businesses registered in China can be compelled to hand over information to assist Chinese intelligence agencies and to keep this cooperation a secret. This is, of course, a huge concern. I note that the Minister for Home Affairs has been considering a security review that is expected to recommend that Australia follow the United States, United Kingdom and New Zealand in restricting the social media app, TikTok. I would urge the government to ensure it acts swiftly to formally restrict TikTok on devices of all federal government employees and politicians, instead of the currently inconsistent approach, and swiftly implement the full range of regulatory responses needed to protect the private information of Australians who do use TikTok. It's also important to inform Australians about why such a crucial movement would be necessary so Australians can increase their awareness to potential foreign interference dangers. We do know that foreign interference can extend to the political realm in things like elections, and the coalition has, indeed, raised concerns about the upcoming referendum on the Voice. We want to make sure that the referendum process has integrity at every step. ASIO recently warned that foreign interference and the spread of disinformation are made easier by social media algorithms, which are often kept secret, allowing platforms to put forward content, allowing for anonymity and providing limited moderation. ASIO warned that social media's weak identity verification could even be weaponised. The members on this side know all too well how important it is to ensure we have strong national security legislation and online safety laws. During our time in government, the coalition made world-leading reforms to combat the risks of foreign interference to protect Australians and businesses, including creating criminal offences for espionage and foreign interference activities; launching guidelines to educate at-risk sectors about the dangers posed by foreign interference, to increase their resilience; passing the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018 to restrict the receipt of donations from foreign donors; and establishing the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce to further boost our ability to discover, track and disrupt foreign interference in all forms. This brought together officers from ASIO, AUSTRAC, ASD and the AFP to work toward the common goal of identifying and disrupting malicious activity. The coalition certainly understands the importance of maintaining a strong national security focus, and, as a nation, we must remain vigilant to the threat of foreign interference in its many forms, and we call on the government to monitor and adapt to the ever-changing online threats to our sovereignty and our security. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 Is the motion seconded? Mr Pearce 282306 I'll second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 13:02 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The other side offered me the opportunity to second the motion, but I don't agree with the whole motion, and I'll explain that shortly. It's a bit hard to swallow from a mob that sold our northern port to a Chinese company linked to the CCP and got rid of the cyber minister. But the essence of what I want to say is that it has got to be, importantly, bipartisan. Foreign interference, whether it be cyber intrusions, old-fashioned espionage or hybrid tactics like foreign governments putting pressure on Australian communities, is an escalating threat. Recently we've seen reports of Iranian Australians, among other communities, being bullied by the Iranian regime. The government is deeply concerned by reports of families and protesters being harassed and intimidated. The right to peaceful protest is at the heart of Australia's democracy, and we've relayed our concerns about foreign interference directly to the Iranian regime in no uncertain terms with a bit of good old-fashioned straight talking. The Minister for Home Affairs has called out Iran and provided details of instances of foreign interference in Australia by the Iranian regime, and it's clear from talking to some of our newer members—first-termers—from both sides of the parliament, that there are real and present concerns that some of them hold about foreign interference. The minister also met with members of the Iranian community on 15 February, alongside the Attorney-General and Minister Giles, to discuss foreign interference and action the Australian government was taking to combat it. The multiagency Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce leads the operational response to the espionage and foreign interference threat and works to identify, investigate and disrupt attempts and acts of foreign interference. The Australian government's message to anyone involved in such activities is this: our foreign interference laws are unequivocal, our sovereignty is sacrosanct, and you will fail. Our message to the Iranian community in Australia is this: you have a right to protest, you have a right to your vote if you're a citizen of this country, and we stand with you. We will defend our democracy and people's right to protest and express their views within Australia. If you have experienced intimidation or interference, you can report this to the National Security Hotline, to the Australian Federal Police or to your local state or territory police. We face similarly growing threats from cyber actors, be they state backed criminals or other actors. In September and October last year, Australia experienced the two worst cyberattacks in our history within three weeks of each other. The Optus and Medibank cyberattacks were terrible events that affected millions of Australians. Then the National Australia Bank told Australians that they were subject to 50 million attempted cyberattacks a month. And the ATO is subject to three million cyberattacks a month. This threat is huge, it's relentless and it's getting bigger. Our government has committed and is resolved to fix this, but it's going to take time. Better cybersecurity for Australia means all businesses and citizens changing how they engage with the internet. We need to prepare for more major cyberattacks over the coming years as we undertake this important work. I just want to give a shout-out to all those Australian cyberwarriors out there—it doesn't matter what type of uniform or civilian clothing they're wearing—for the work that they are doing right now to defend our nation, our government and our private sector from these attacks. Those opposite like to boast, as in this motion, that they were the best in the world on cybersecurity, but the truth is, deep down, in places they don't talk about at parties, they left our nation vulnerable. We did not do the work nationally, over the last decade, to help us prepare for the challenge we now face. Prime Minister Morrison's decision to abolish the cybersecurity ministry when he came to office was an absolute shocker. In the very brief time remaining to me, I will talk about what has been done since the Albanese Labor government was elected. For the first time, Australia will punch back at the hackers through a collaboration between the Australian Federal Police and the ASD. It's one of many, many measures that we have taken since coming to government. We will not accept foreign interference by anyone. 13:07 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon I rise today in support of this very important motion brought forward by my good friend and parliamentary colleague the member for McPherson. She understands more than most, from her time as the Minister for Home Affairs, the grave concerns that this country faces. Like the former minister, I have experience in the importance of maintaining the security of our cyber and intelligence networks, albeit from a tactical signals intelligence and electronic warfare perspective. As the threat imposed increases exponentially, the need for strong, effective protections must remain and increase proportionately, or commensurate to the threat. The threat we face as a nation in terms of cybersecurity, espionage and the spread of misinformation is unparalleled. As a government, we understood this threat. It was the coalition that led the world in funding, legislating and implementing cybersecurity reforms. These reforms have now been adopted globally. It is imperative that the current government continue this legacy as the risks posed to our nation continue to evolve and have become more insidious. The threat to Australia's sovereignty by state based operatives within our region has been publicised widely, while the steady encroachment of foreign entities into social media applications has not received the attention that it deserves. Millions of Australians have downloaded programs onto their devices. Some of these Australians are our most vulnerable—our younger people, our children. Apps such as TikTok and WeChat are, quite rightly, under increasing scrutiny by cybersecurity agencies. It's pleasing that the government has banned TikTok from government devices—a policy long championed by the coalition—but more needs to be done in this area. Internet 2.0, an Australian and US joint cybersecurity organisation based here in Canberra, has produced a white paper looking into WeChat, which currently has in excess of 690,000 Australian users. Internet 2.0 found that data, including geographical location, login and device information, will be sent automatically to servers based in Hong Kong. As the former minister pointed out earlier, since 2017, national security laws in China have compelled businesses registered in Hong Kong to hand this data to intelligence agencies, effectively removing any sense of corporate independence. This, coupled with the fact that government procurement records show that at least 10 contracts were given to the Chinese department of propaganda to influence users, is concerning to say the least. It is for these reasons that it is absolutely essential that the government move to ban WeChat on government devices as a matter of priority. Cyberattacks aren't just restricted to social media users; increasingly, Australian businesses have been subject to cyberattacks. The cyberattacks on large companies such as Optus, Medicare and the like have been well publicised, but attacks of this nature are occurring frequently across all business sectors and are increasingly more damaging and dangerous. The Australian Cyber Security Centre estimates that there has been a 13 per cent increase in cyberattacks to date. That increases by one cyberattack occurring every seven minutes. The financial burden that this is placing on our small and medium sized businesses is significant. Protecting Australian business is something that the coalition took very seriously during our time in government, investing a record $1.67 billion over 10 years to help secure Australian businesses. The Albanese government has been entrusted with the most important responsibility of any government, and that is the safety of all Australian people and institutions. In an increasingly turbulent and unstable region, it is absolutely imperative that this government continues to build on and expand the legacy started by the coalition in securing our cyber and intelligence networks. 13:12 Dr REID 300126 Robertson This is such a vital topic to be discussing in our parliament today. I look around and I see freely elected members of all political persuasions, Liberal, Labor and Independent, and it's because we have one of the healthiest and most successful democracies in the world. Our democracy is one that respects human rights. It respects fundamental freedoms, especially and including freedom of speech. Our government is most certainly aware that some foreign governments try to influence our democracy, our society and our communities, from Sydney to Perth, to Darwin and to South Australia, through corrosive and harmful narratives. This is evident overseas, particularly on social media, where foreign governments try to sow division around issues that are felt deeply by the Australian public. This type of interference is deliberate, and it deteriorates our social fabric. It is coercive, corrupting, deceptive and clandestine. It causes conflict, and it causes painful rifts throughout our community. It is relentless and it is insidious. It affects individuals, families and communities, and within that it affects community leaders and politicians—you name it. It fundamentally undermines our democratic process. The Albanese government is working tirelessly to identify, investigate and disrupt these threats and acts of foreign interference, including on social media, to ensure that Australia's resilience and defence is strengthened to this ongoing threat. Our government has valued and continues to value integrity, openness and transparency. Openness isn't always possible in a national security setting, but in some areas knowledge conquers fear, and knowledge is definitely what keeps us safe. The nation's future—Australia's future—will depend on how free and how fair our democracy is and on how much Australians trust and then engage with it. The stronger our democracy and the more choices we have about how we engage with the world, the stronger we will be as an Australian family. The threat of foreign interference is ever-present, it is relentless, it is insidious and it not only affects individuals but, like I said before, fundamentally undermines the principles of our democracy. Our best defence against foreign interference is to arm and prepare the people who are the possible targets of this behaviour with the information that they need to not only recognise but report the foreign interference, because these are corrupting and deceptive acts. We must therefore change the nature and the tone of the foreign interference discussion. It's time to bring foreign interference out of the shadows, as the minister has said, and expose it for the despicable act that it is. What makes foreign interference problematic and what makes it illegal is the deceptive nature of it and the covertness of it. It's state actors. It's foreign governments that are trying to influence the discourse of our democracy and coerce people who live in Australia—who live within our communities—to behave in ways that may undermine the fabric of what we call home for the benefit of a foreign power. I've got to say: that's not on. Foreign interference is not a hypothetical. It is real and it is ever-present. It's not merely something that only lies in the future; it's happening now. It's happening today. I want to thank Minister O'Neil and our other colleagues throughout the intelligence community who wear and don't wear uniform, as the member for Solomon said, for the tireless work that they do in this space to defend our national interests both here and abroad. As a government, we will call out the egregious acts of individual countries when it is in the national interest to do so. 13:17 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest Firstly, can I commend the shadow minister for this motion. It is one that is for those of us who are desperately and constantly concerned about national security and foreign interference. I also commend the shadow minister for her work in Home Affairs prior to the change of government. The then minister was very focused on these issues. I commend her for her efforts, and I think we see a continuation of that today with the motion that's before the House. Online foreign interference is constantly evolving. Having done so much in the cybersafety space, I've seen a lot of it, and it poses a unique and very real risk to Australia—to our democracy, to our citizens, to our businesses and to our way of life. I believe it poses a similar threat to all Western democracies, and I think much of the world has followed Australia's lead in what we've done in this online space on foreign interference, Shadow Minister, so I think you can comfortably take that but work even harder, as I'm sure you are already doing. I know that ASIO Director-General of Security Mike Burgess recently declared that Australia, on the back of this work, 'cannot be complacent' and that espionage is a 'real and present danger' that demands that we take our national security and this security seriously. We know that foreign actors, including foreign intelligence services, have been and are aggressively pursuing opportunities to interfere with and influence Australian decision-makers at all levels of government and across a range of sectors. These activities are very clever and very careful, and they can undermine Australia's national security. They can undermine our open, democratic system of government and, ultimately, our sovereignty as a nation. The same foreign actors are targeting the Australian people, seeking to change how and what they think. Combined with that is the role of social media— A divis ion having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 13 : 19 to 13 : 30 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is interrupted, and the resumption of the debate may be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Sitting suspended from 13 : 30 to 15 : 59 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 146 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Discrimination 146 16:00 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on behalf of Warringah constituents experiencing age discrimination in employment recruitment. The right to work is a fundamental human right, but one that far too many older people in Australia do not enjoy. Australians in their 50s and 60s are enduring difficulty re-entering the workforce, especially after taking time off work due to health or caring commitments, despite possessing all the experience and skills necessary. I've met with constituents who are accomplished in their fields of work; however, they are now experiencing age and health discrimination upon seeking new employment. One constituent I met with firmly believes her job applications are rejected due to the compulsory date-of-birth question on many job application forms. This has considerably impacted her wellbeing and sense of purpose. Another constituent had to stop working throughout a cancer journey. Alarmingly, he was also deemed ineligible for income support or NDIS during this time. Illness meant he could not earn an income and now he is struggling to return to work now that he is well enough. That's not uncommon. An Australian HR Institute survey found that over 26 per cent of organisations say they either 'definitely' or 'probably' have an age above which they are reluctant to recruit and that age is falling. The government needs to ensure older people seeking work don't fall through the gaps and are not discriminated against on the basis of their age. Gambling 146 16:01 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins I have stopped watching sport with my sons because of the blanket gambling advertising. It is far too much, is dangerous and destroys the great spectacle that sport should be. Even more so, it wrecks the chance to watch as a family with kids. These are some of the concerns raised by constituents about the corrosive effects of gambling. Gambling has become so pervasive and normalised that the joy of spectator sport is ebbing away and now children are at risk. Findings from the Australian Communications and Media Authority reveal that online gambling is the fastest-growing segment of the gambling industry in Australia, with more than one in 10 Australians in 2022 having engaged in some form of online gambling over the past six months. The rate of harm among online gamblers is three times higher than among non-online gamblers. In other words, online gambling is more accessible and more dangerous. The Albanese government is introducing a suite of protections. We have sharpened the messaging by ditching 'gamble responsibly' with phrases like 'You win some. You lose more'. We've introduced monthly financial statements to consumers and BetStop, a self-exclusion register ranging from three months to a lifetime. We initiated a parliamentary inquiry into online gambling, which aims to modernise the protections, curb advertising and tackle offshore casino websites. Gambling is a scourge on society, and the gambling industry is now at risk of losing its social licence. Northeast Health Wangaratta 147 16:02 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi In Indi our largest employers are health services. Today I pay tribute to one of these health services, where, I'm proud to say, I worked for 30 years as a midwife, nurse and researcher. This month Northeast Health Wangaratta celebrated their 150-year anniversary. That is 150 years of being with people during life's biggest moments—births, emergencies, surgeries and recoveries—and in life's final moments as well. Northeast Health Wangaratta is a linchpin in our community. The theme of the celebrations is 'building on healthy foundations', and what incredible foundations they are. Established in 1872, Northeast Health Wangaratta started with a 40-bed ward, servicing only 2,400 people, and has since grown to provide critical healthcare services to a catchment of over 90,000 people. The hospital relies on a large cohort of volunteers, who selflessly give their time each week—from community palliative care to aged care and patient support. At a time when we are experiencing such severe health workforce shortages, they are vital. I want to acknowledge Libby Fifis, CEO of Northeast Health Wangaratta; the executive team; board chair Alison Maclean; the board members; the doctors; the nurses; the allied health professionals; the midwives; the cleaners; the ward clerks; all the dedicated staff; the volunteers; and the students. I thank you for the work you do. I thank you for your over 150 years of invaluable service to our community. Housing 147 16:04 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck With the number of mortgages in Hasluck 20 per cent higher than the national average, it is clear that many people are choosing to establish themselves in Perth's fastest-growing north-eastern corridor, and well may they do so, with our stunning vistas, great cafes, breweries, wineries, fresh produce from across the Swan Valley and the Perth hills, and good quality highways and freeways into the city. And, as of this weekend, the first lengths of track have been laid for the Morley to Ellenbrook METRONET line. A shout-out to Premier McGowan and the formidable Labor team in Western Australia. So the Albanese Labor government is committed to our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, to help people who want to buy, and take advantage of these supporting infrastructure projects, in Hasluck. And thank heavens that we are. After a decade-long absence of investment in social and affordable housing, we now have a Labor government that is committed to a suite of policies that will reignite the great Australian dream of owning your own home. And the policy has broad support. Industry Super Australia, for example, recognises that the fund would guarantee recurrent funding and could be easily scaled over time, with additional top-ups. There is support from community housing, the Housing Industry Association, the Urban Development Institute, the Property Council and National Shelter. I simply cannot understand why anyone would not support this policy. This is important reform that will make a practical difference in people's lives—people like those currently renting and looking to buy and those who are looking to move to one of the most well supported and vibrant communities in Hasluck. Housing 147 16:05 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane You can tell a lot about a government by where it spends its money. Spending is a reflection of priorities—what is deemed important and what will be kicked down the road. Two hundred and fifty-four billion dollars on the stage 3 tax cuts for Australia's richest is this government's priority. Three-hundred and sixty-eight billion dollars on nuclear submarines is a Labor priority. And capping social and affordable housing funding to $500 million a year is Labor kicking the housing crisis down the road. We are constantly told by this Labor government that we need to exhibit restraint—an argument that conveniently doesn't apply to submarines or to the $9,000 tax cuts they're giving to the wealthy but only applies when the working and middle classes ask for the bare minimum. The fact is that we can afford an annual $5 billion investment directly into social and affordable housing over 10 years. We can afford to double Commonwealth rent assistance as rents continue to skyrocket. And we can afford to make sure that all new social housing is built to minimum accessibility standards. There is absolutely no financial barrier to us bringing millions of Australians out of housing stress and out of homelessness. The Greens, the CFMEU, the Senate crossbench and millions of Australians are united in their calls for Labor to rethink its priorities and truly tackle the housing crisis. Labor is the only remaining barrier. Libraries: Lending Rights 148 16:07 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I want to talk about libraries and the lending rights which compensate authors every time their book is borrowed rather than bought. It's a modest but fair source of income. It was the Whitlam government that introduced lending rights for writers, and it's the Albanese government that is ensuring that the scheme is relevant and modernised. No-one could have anticipated in 1974 that readers nearly 50 years later would be increasingly accessing literature through Kindles and iPads rather than library shelves—although a government could have recognised that in the past decade. The Albanese government has launched a National Cultural Policy, Revive, that is fit for the future, providing $12.9 million to extend lending rights to include digital content like e-books and audiobooks. It's a commonsense reform, but one that took a change of government to accomplish. We are listening to the arts community and we respect the contribution arts workers, including writers, make. Commenting on the introduction of lending rights, Gough Whitlam said: 'Governments cannot create good writing or good art, but they can create the conditions in which art and literature are more likely to flourish. They can remove unnecessary hardship and the financial anxieties that inhibit many artists and writers.' We are working hard to create conditions in the 21st century where Australian literature can flourish. Surf Life Saving Queensland 148 16:08 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I was honoured to attend the Surf Life Saving Queensland aviation awards in Carrara, where I presented the national medals to Paul Gibson, David O'Brien and Kurt Brumley. The national medal is Australia's most awarded civilian medal. It recognises long and diligent service by members of recognised government and voluntary organisations who risk their lives or safety to protect or assist the community in enforcement of the law or in times of emergency or natural disaster. Paul Gibson was a corporal in the Australian Defence Force from 1983 to 1993, where he served as a motor mechanic and a helicopter flight fitter. He joined Surf Life Saving in 2013 as Carrara Base Manager and HAAMC, and has been Chief Pilot since 2014. David O'Brien was a captain in the Australian Defence Force. He completed his pilot's course and was posted to Darwin in 2007 and was then deployed to East Timor in 2008. He joined Surf Life Saving in 2014 as a helicopter pilot on the Sunshine Coast and is now Deputy Chief Pilot and Head of Training and Checking. Kurt Brumley enlisted in the Australian Defence Force in 1995 and eventually became a corporal. He served on operations in Iraq and the Middle East as well as domestic counterterrorist operations. In 2005 he was transferred to Army reserves after 10 years of full service. Kurt is currently a POLAIR pilot operating out of Archerfield and operates the Westpac rescue helicopters out of Carrara and Caloundra. Thank you to all of you for your selfless service. You should be incredibly proud. Chisholm Electorate: Community Events 148 16:10 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I want to draw the attention of the House to some local activities that I attended in my electorate of Chisholm, squeezing in some visits between trips up here to Canberra. I'm so fortunate to be able to attend community events as a local member and really value the opportunity. We have new school leaders across the electorate, and it was my absolute pleasure to issue certificates acknowledging leaders to schools right around Chisholm. I even had the honour of attending assemblies to present badges and speak to school leaders in person, most recently at Wattle Park Primary School, Waverley Meadows Primary School and John Monash Science School. I met some really inspiring leaders with really inspiring teachers at those schools, and I look forward to future visits to schools in my electorate. I also attended the Roberts McCubbin Primary School fundraiser. It's really innovative; it's an art show. Every year local artists donate works to be sold to support the school. Of course, as an avid art fan, I had to make a contribution and purchase some beautiful paintings and prints to decorate the walls of my electorate office. Well done to everyone involved on such a spectacular event. On the theme of art, I also attended the Mount Street Neighbourhood House arts and crafts extravaganza, a fundraiser and a showcase for the very talented groups that meet at the Neighbourhood House. It was a fabulous event. I congratulate the organisers and I look forward to attending more events when I get back down to Melbourne very soon. Nicholls Electorate: Hailstorms 149 16:11 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls I draw to the attention of the House the impact of three severe hail events in my electorate. The latest was, unfortunately, last Thursday, and the damage is still being assessed. It is fair to say that where the large hail fell it was a devastating and final blow for some fruit growers. The hail was large enough to smash through netting on some orchards. There were previous hailstorms in September and December, but the hail was smaller and not as widespread in the first event. We now have some assessments on the damage, compiled by Fruit Growers Victoria. Average apple production on affected properties is 292,000 tons, average pear production on affected properties is 83,000 tons, and the total bin loss is over 200,000 bins. That adds up to a farmgate bin value of $385 million, and the assets lost are worth $79 million. It's a devastating blow for the fruit growers in my area, and there could be some ongoing damage from fruit trees failing to recover next year. The previous coalition government introduced a hail netting subsidy program that has been well used and continues to be rolled out. I would encourage the government—and I have written to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—to consider the continuation of that program so that more growers can put up hail nets to protect themselves against this horrific damage to not only their businesses but also the fruit we all love to eat. New South Wales State Election 149 16:13 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham On Saturday the people of New South Wales voted for a fresh start with the election of a Minns Labor government. In my community, that fresh start means a $22 million upgrade for Wollongong Hospital; $20 million for the Albion Park bypass; a $10 million study into the South Coast rail line; $10 million for M1 ramps at Dapto; $6 million for the Helensburgh police station; $2 million for a domestic violence recovery centre; $70,000 for the lunch program at the Warrawong Community Centre; $30,000 for Berkeley Neighbourhood Centre upgrades; extension of the Bulli hospital urgent care clinic to seven days a week; a local TAFE centre of excellence in domestic manufacturing; a review of the South Coast rail timetable; funding commitments for the local school sports groups and community organisations who need it the most; and, finally, getting those lifts built at Unanderra station. That is a great achievement by the member for Wollongong. This positive and fresh agenda for the Illawarra is only now possible thanks to the hard work of our local Labor members and candidates in my electorate of Cunningham: the re-elected member for Keira, Ryan Park MP; the newly elected member for Heathcote, Maryanne Stuart; and the re-elected member for Wollongong, Paul Scully MP. Although counting continues, I hope to be able to soon call Labor's candidate in Kiama, Katelin McInerney, the new Labor member for Kiama. It has been a great job by our local representatives in the Labor community. Defence Procurement: Submarines 149 16:15 Mr B 299498 Flynn OYCE () (): Last week, with my fellow Central Queensland colleagues, I called on the federal government to consider Central Queensland as home to Australia's first nuclear submarine base, specifically in the Gladstone region, following the announcement that Australia will have eight nuclear submarines as part of the AUKUS nuclear submarine program. Central Queensland would be an ideal location for Australia's first nuclear submarine base. Gladstone's deepwater port provides the opportunity for quick responses to evolving situations, as a rapid resupply point for nuclear submarines. Unlike the ports of Brisbane, Newcastle and Port Kembla, Gladstone port is not part foreign owned. Port Alma, nearby, is the principal port for handling large quantities of class 1 explosives on the Australian east coast. The ADF has already identified the need to develop further bases in northern Australia in the interests of national security. Central Queensland already has the infrastructure in place to support Defence in our region, including Shoalwater Bay Training Area and Rockhampton Airport, already used for large-scale military exercises. There is no doubt that Central Queensland has the infrastructure and capabilities to support the Australian Defence Force into the future. With Port Kembla's Labor branches saying they don't want nuclear submarines, it's an opportunity to show everyone that the Central Queensland region is willing to stand up and say yes to the benefits of stationing new submarines in Gladstone. South Australia: First Nations Voice 149 16:16 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby On Sunday I was honoured to be present at a historic event. Despite the rain, approximately 5,000 people gathered on the steps of South Australian Parliament House to witness history being made. We watched as first the lower house, then the Legislative Council, passed a bill to legislate a First Nations Voice to the South Australian Parliament. The bill was then placed in a coolamon, and the President of the Legislative Council and the Commissioner for First Nations Voice presented it to Her Excellency the Hon. Frances Adamson AC, Governor of South Australia. We then witnessed the Executive Council meeting on the steps of Parliament House to give royal assent and sign the legislation into law. The Executive Council was witnessed by First Nations leaders from across South Australia. South Australia was the first place in Australia and the fourth place in the world where women were able to vote, in 1894. It also gave women the first right to stand for parliament, meaning women had equal electoral rights to men. And now South Australia is the first Australian jurisdiction to establish a First Nations Voice to parliament. Particular recognition should go to the Attorney-General, Aboriginal man Kyam Maher, and the Commissioner for First Nations Voice, Dale Agius. When the laws were proclaimed, there were tears through the rain, cheers and a standing ovation. COVID-19: Vaccination 150 16:18 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I'd like to identify myself with the words of the member for Boothby and what has happened in South Australia. I'd like to speak about an issue of the moment, as the member for Boothby has just done. Probably, from a Victorian Liberal Party point of view, the issue would be Moira Deeming and what has happened down there and the way the party has come to a place, but I will speak about that on the ABC in a minute, because that'll be the first question they ask me. So what was front of my mind when I thought: what are the issues of the moment? They are, for me, the increased deaths in Australia due to the vaccines and due to COVID and asking questions around that, and then two stories in mainstream Australian newspapers—not on the net, not somewhere hidden away in the deep state but in mainstream newspapers—about the death of a daughter in Australia after she had the vaccines. That cuts straight to the point of: why are this government, the previous government and others, especially Mr Butler's health department, in one way ignoring the letters that I've sent them by giving me just standard replies, when I'm asking about people who have been severely injured? In every one of our electorates, they're there. Some have been injured not so severely, but many have been severely injured by the vaccines that were mandated, and the fact that we did mandate them and force employers enforce them on their employees. That comes to my mind today, because those things are more important to me than the petty politics that we carry on with in other areas. Brennan, Ms Elizabeth 150 16:19 Dr REID 300126 Robertson As the federal member for Robertson, I am a huge supporter of women's sport. When you play sport, there are so many more positive benefits than just exercising. You are developing interpersonal skills, learning to be part of a team, building friendships—and the list goes on. It's always pleasing to hear about the amazing sporting success that women in my electorate of Robertson are achieving. One such sporting success story I have been made aware of is that of Elizabeth Brennan from the mighty Kincumber-Avoca Cricket Club. Elizabeth is nine years old and a fantastic cricket player. She began playing for the all-girls team, the Snow Leopards, at the start of the 2022-23 season and fast showed her cricket finesse, and throughout the season. In the recent Master Blasters program, Elizabeth really took it up a notch and displayed excellent cricketing skills, so much so that she was awarded the girls encouragement award to recognise her flourishing cricket abilities. I would like to place on the record my congratulations to Elizabeth Brennan on this achievement and to encourage her to keep aiming high in absolutely everything that she does. Lastly, I say a big 'well done' to all the Snow Leopards and Kincumber-Avoca Cricket Club players this season. The Kincumber-Avoca Cricket Club continues to facilitate and encourage girls' and women's teams, and I commend them for all the work that they do. Profluid Pty Ltd 150 16:12 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Profluid Australia is a Western Australian family-owned business specialising in industrial valves. Nearly three years ago, I met founder Jerome Monteiro, a migrant, who established the business in 2018. Since my visit, the company has successfully applied for and secured two federal manufacturing capability grants. With the assistance of the strategic industrial priority grant and the Capability Improvement Grant, Profluid is developing a sovereign manufacturing capability for valves to be used in the future Hunter class frigates. Since then, the company has experienced 300 per cent growth, servicing companies across the oil and gas mining, water and defence industries, including Shell, Chevron, Woodside, Rio Tinto and BHP. The company has gained accreditation with the Department of Defence, securing a major contract to upgrade the wharf fuel supply system as part of the infrastructure upgrades of HMAS Stirling naval base. With the AUKUS announcement that major investment is being made at HMAS Stirling to accommodate the nuclear submarine fleet, Profluid seeks opportunities to boost local manufacturing for the Australian Defence Force. Profluid has the capability to provide a complete life-cycle range of capabilities, ensuring it has the flexibility required for its valves to be rigorously specified, engineered and manufactured to meet customer requirements. (Time expired) Swan Electorate: Canning Show 151 16:22 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan The greatest show on earth is actually in the heart of Swan at the Cannington showgrounds, and it is called the Canning Show. Magical mermaids, real snakes to embrace, colourful clowns on stilts, wooden trucks made by the Station Street Men's Shed and even getting painted up by the Army and RAAF cadets—there's a smorgasbord of fun activities for the kids. And, for the adults, there are baking and produce competitions and a showcase of stone, crocheted and knitted goods. There is the renaissance of growing and making your own goods, and that renaissance is here to stay. The Canning Show gives Western Australians the opportunity to showcase their talents and their precious projects. The Canning Show is run by the esteemed Canning Agricultural, Horticultural and Recreational Society, also known as CAHRS. This agricultural society has not missed a beat, and it has proudly kept up with the times. They have had creative ways to diversify revenue streams and then reinvest their funds into their community. Last year CAHRS celebrated their 100th year of enriching the local community. If you think about it, their local community has changed significantly. The City of Canning is the most multicultural local council across WA, and they hold multiple fabulous events, including blooms. Thank you very much to Dianne Begg, the CEO, and to her team. Banking and Financial Services 151 16:24 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland The Bendigo Bank spin doctors like to say they're 'the better big bank'. As we all know, self-praise is no recommendation. I'm sorry to say the contagion of arrogance has spread from the big four to the Bendigo Bank. On its own website, the Bendigo Bank says it has big responsibilities, and its biggest responsibility is to do the right thing. So I say to the Bendigo Bank corporate executives: how about you start practising what you preach? The Bendigo Bank corporate executives have just sent out letters, without any consultation whatsoever, to agencies of the Bendigo Bank—so they're small agencies, small-business people who have provided a small service in these regional towns, including in my home town of Lakes Entrance—saying the agencies will close at the end of June. There's no regard for the staff who will lose their jobs. There's no regard for those vulnerable customers of the Bendigo Bank who thought that little agency was going to be there for them to go in and do their personal banking. This will hit the most vulnerable people in our regional communities, and the Bendigo Bank has done no consultation with the small-business owners who host that bank. I've previously called for a moratorium on all bank closures while the Senate inquiry does its work. I call on the Bendigo Bank to stop closing its agencies, at least until the Senate inquiry does its work. I say to the Bendigo Bank: you say you're the better big bank; do better. Banks need to explore innovative solutions to maintain those face-to-face services which are critical for small-business owners and a wide range of customers who aren't capable of using online banking and simply need some personal assistance at a branch or agency to access their own money. Hewett Primary School 151 16:25 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I had the pleasure recently of visiting Hewett Primary School, one of the many schools located within my electorate of Spence. I'd like to thank the school for their kind invitation to present new flags to their school and to have a few words with their students. As part of my visit to Hewett primary, I got the chance to speak to our young up-and-coming leaders in their year 6 class. School visits are one of my favourite tasks as a member of this place. It's a constant reminder of my position as a role model within my community and the impact we have in shaping young minds and attitudes. During my visit, students asked me questions such as what it's like to be in Parliament House. Frankly, I'd like to show them, and any school in Spence that would like to visit me in our nation's capital, right here in this place. This is why our Labor government's announcement to extend a temporary increase of the Parliament and Civics Education Rebate gives me great pleasure. I encourage all schools in my electorate of Spence to look at getting involved with this excellent program and providing children with an invaluable experience that involves visiting not just Parliament House but also the Australian War Memorial; and the Museum of Australian Democracy and the National Electoral Education Centre at Old Parliament House. Belgrave Country Fire Authority 151 16:27 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey On Saturday night I had the pleasure of attending the Belgrave Fire Brigade's 100th birthday celebration. It was a wonderful night—an amazing opportunity to hear about the work that the Belgrave CFA have done in our community. All life members and all current members were given commemorative medals. It was great to see the pride and the energy in the room. The CFA plays such an important role in my electorate of Casey. They're there when we need them during emergencies. Traditionally it has been with bushfires, but the Belgrave CFA have been innovative. The June storms of 2021 impacted our communities greatly. They've now got a specialised strike team, all chainsaw trained, so they can get up into the Dandenongs and get into residences to help residents. It's just one example of the amazing work of the Belgrave CFA, volunteering their time to protect our community. It was also great to see many other CFAs, including Silvan, Monbulk and Selby, there as well to celebrate and support them, because they know, in an emergency, they rely on each other to come and help their towns. The CFAs in Victoria play such a vital role in providing surge capacity. I was talking to Nick from the Belgrave CFA on Saturday night. He was talking about his time up in Flowerdale, assisting the communities there. It's such vital work that they do in Casey, in Victoria and across the nation. It was an honour to be there to celebrate with them, and I thank them for all for their service to our country. Southern Women's Action Network 152 16:28 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley I was really proud and privileged to be asked to launch this book, When Women Meet, written by two extraordinary women, Diane McDonald and Judith Graley. It's a book about the history of the Southern Women's Action Network. As it says on the back, 'The book records the journey of a community based, volunteer-led women's organisation established on the Mornington Peninsula in 1996 and still going strong today.' SWAN, as they're known, was created to provide a forum to increase women's active involvement in community decision-making and to empower them to take action to address social justice and equity concerns. This book recounts their journey and the journeys of the extraordinary women who have spoken at their events and been involved in the organisation over the last 27 years. As Judith said when we launched the book, it is, in this day and age, no mean feat that a volunteer led organisation that's been going for 27 years is still operating. SWAN has committed itself to campaign for the Voice this year and to be part of this historic opportunity in our walk towards reconciliation. I congratulate the women involved in SWAN for that commitment and for everything they have done, everything they will do and this excellent book. New South Wales State Election: Oxley Electorate 152 16:30 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I'd like to take this opportunity to thank and farewell a colleague and fierce representative of the Mid North Coast community, the Hon. Melinda Pavey, for her incredible contributions and also to welcome Michael Kemp as the newly elected Nationals member for Oxley. Melinda has been an outspoken advocate for regional New South Wales in state parliament since her election to the Legislative Council over 20 years ago. In her maiden speech she said: Today I stand before honourable members as a woman, a wife, a mother, a daughter, a small business person and a country girl determined to do the very best for the people of regional, rural and coastal New South Wales. Well, Mel, you're a woman of your word, and, for the past two decades, you've served your community. Thank you for your dedication, your perseverance and your diligence. Many have rightly noted that Michael has some big shoes to fill, and I know that he will serve his community now as he has always done—with integrity, humility, passion and dedication. The people of Oxley are lucky to have you, and I look forward to working closely with you to fight for a fair go for our region. Once again, thank you to Melinda Pavey for your two decades of service, and I wish you well with your future endeavours. Sunbury Basketball Association 152 16:31 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Basketball Victoria recently announced the 2023 under-16 state teams, and it was a slam dunk for Sunbury. Impressively, the under-16 Victorian country men's team includes Alex Gray, Finn McGinty, Samuel Haslett and Sonny Maxwell, all hailing from the Sunbury and Macedon Ranges region, with their talent developed during their time with the Sunbury Basketball Association. These four legends will head to Perth in July for the national championships. Good luck, do us proud and bring it home for Sunbury! Having four athletes from the Sunbury Basketball Association make a state team at the same time is a huge credit to the whole association's hard work and dedication to their sport. Whether it's the coaches, other players or their families backing them in, it takes a whole team behind every player. It's a credit to people like President Darren Watkins, whose work to empower the members of the Sunbury Basketball Association is off the charts. Thanks, Darren, for all that you do. But the accolades don't stop there. I'm also pleased to report that the Sunbury Basketball Association has three WNBL-level coaches, one WNBL active training player and eight WNBL players who have played in their women's senior program within the last seven years. What a legacy for Sunbury. I'll keep working with the Sunbury Basketball Association to build on this so that kids in Sunbury can have the opportunities they deserve well into the future. Go, Jets! Baaka Cultural Centre 153 16:33 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes Next week I'll be travelling to Wilcannia to attend a ceremony that I've been looking forward to for some quite some time. It will be the sod turn—the ceremonial start—of the Baaka centre. The Baaka centre will be a facility right in the middle of Wilcannia that will host Barkindji culture. Over the years, a lot of the iconic memorabilia belonging to the Barkindji have been located in various properties and hidden away, so the Baaka centre will be a cultural centre with a keeping place for the Barkindji to put their artefacts and important relics in a safe place. It will also be a place where visitors can come and understand more about the culture of the area. Wilcannia is one of the most beautiful towns in the Parkes electorate. It's on the banks of the Darling River. I was at the meeting where the community got behind this project, which was funded by the previous federal government and the now previous state government. It will turn what is a burnt-out relic of a Knox and Downs building into a very appropriate cultural centre that will be very important to the Barkindji people of the Darling River. New South Wales State Election 153 16:35 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur The west and the south-west came back to Labor in the New South Wales state election on Saturday. Chris Minns will make a wonderful premier, and I congratulate him on his victory. I want to pay tribute to some really great new members of parliament: Sally Quinnell in Camden, Nathan Hagarty in Leppington, Charishma Kaliyanda in Liverpool, Karen McKeown in Penrith and Maryanne Stuart in Heathcote. They are wonderful local people who I know very well and who will do their electorates proud. They will be great representatives of the west and south-west in the New South Wales parliament, and they will make sure that we get what we need from the state government to make our areas prosper. I'd also like to pay tribute to Judy Hannan, who's the new independent member for Wollondilly—it looks like she has won that seat. She's a local optometrist who I've known and worked with for many years, and I congratulate her on her victory. She will be a great member of parliament as well. These are all wonderful new members of our New South Wales state parliament. They're part of the really great team that represents the west and south-west in the parliament. They know the local area, and they've lived and worked in the area for many years. They've worked hard to win, and I think they will be great representatives. I congratulate them all, and I look forward to working with them, together with the member for Werriwa, Anne Stanley, to represent the south-west in federal parliament and to make sure our area gets what it needs. Leichhardt Electorate: Pharmacies 153 16:36 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise today to congratulate two local pharmacies in my electorate of Leichhardt for their success in the Australian Pharmacy Professional Conference and Trade Exhibition on the Gold Coast over the weekend: Frank and Vince Pappalardo from the WholeLife Pharmacy & Healthfoods on Pease Street in Cairns; and Mick and Luci Delaney, Caitlin Davies and Carli Berrill from Thursday Island Pharmacy. Both pharmacies were nominated for the Pharmacy of the Year award. WholeLife Pharmacy & Healthfoods is very community focused. One shining example of this in our community is their partnering with the Wuchopperen Health Service to support the health needs of Indigenous people by providing medications, onsite imprest, first-aid needs and patient care and advice. The Thursday Island Pharmacy is more than just a pharmacy. The pharmacy defines their community as the health professionals that they work alongside and the local community organisations they support, and the pharmacy helps the Thursday Island and Torres Strait community grow. I'm proud of the achievements of these pharmacies, and I would like to acknowledge WholeLife Pharmacy & Healthfoods for their Excellence in Business Management award, and Thursday Island Pharmacy for their Excellence in Professional Innovation award. I would also like to give my personal thanks to all those community pharmacies across my electorate for the work and services they deliver in our community, and I look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with them in the future. Local pharmacies certainly are the backbone of health professionals in our area, and it's great to see those in my electorate achieving these recognitions. (Time expired) New South Wales State Election 153 16:38 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa On Saturday we saw democracy in action in the best possible way. I observed polite, reasonable conversations and behaviour between volunteers and voters. Thank you to all the volunteers who dedicated hours of their time to have conversations at stations, mobile offices and train stations, especially during pre-poll and last Saturday's election day. Because of your efforts, New South Wales now has a Labor government which will deliver on the public services that residents have been crying out for. I'm confident that the election of a Minns Labor government will mean the residents and communities of south-west Sydney, especially those in the electorate of Werriwa, will finally see proper planning and delivery of the infrastructure they need to work and learn in our community: a cap on tolls to help ease the cost-of-living pressures, more certainty for teachers and schools, and, more importantly, a lift at Macquarie Fields. It will be a change for the better. I look forward to working with all the elected members to deliver for our community. I congratulate Anoulack Chanthivong, the member for Macquarie Fields, and Greg Warren, the member for Campbelltown, for their re-election. I also congratulate the new members Charishma Kaliyanda, Sally Quinnell and Nathan Hagarty—fingers crossed for Mick Maroney in Holsworthy, which is still too close to call. Thank you for all the work that you do, and thank you again to our volunteers. Lyne Electorate: Sporting Achievements 154 16:39 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I congratulate the Gloucester Athletics Club on their excellent performance at the recent regional carnival. Forty personal-best times were achieved and six out of the 10 athletes who competed made it through to the state championships. I particularly congratulate Sebastian House, Maddie Boorer, Matilda Kellner, Charlie Coombe, Kaitlyn and Emily Beggs and William Coombe, who gets a special mention as he not only came first in shot-put but also set a new record. Best of luck at the state championships. I'd also like to mention the Stroud Seals Swimming Club, who performed brilliantly at the 2023 New South Wales country championships. Individually nine swimmers secured some great results, with Caitlin McDonald winning bronze in the 100-metres breaststroke, Lachlan Webster securing a bronze in the 100-metres butterfly, Jakob Thompson winning both the 50-metres freestyle and the 100-metres backstroke, and Sebastian Webster setting a new record for the state multiclass 100-metres breaststroke while also winning the 200-metres individual medley, coming second in the 100-metres freestyle and placing third in the 50-metres freestyle. I congratulate those Stroud Seals who live in the immediate Stroud area and those from other areas who use the pool. Well done. New South Wales State Election 154 16:41 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I congratulate Chris Minns, the new Premier of New South Wales, and his New South Wales Labor team for a stunning victory on the weekend. The people of New South Wales spoke loudly and clearly. In Labor they saw a government that would support workers, would improve services and would stand up for people and communities. It was a definitive vote against privatisation, against wage theft, against wage freezes and against a government that had taken voters for granted for way too long. I congratulate the MPs in my electorate of Newcastle: Sonia Hornery in Wallsend, Jodie Harrison in Charlestown and Tim Crakanthorp in Newcastle. They all had resounding victories. Your election wins are a testament to your hard work and your deep commitment and connection to our community. I thank and congratulate the hardworking teams of volunteers and supporters. Campaigns are not possible without you. Beyond Newcastle, the Hunter region is now very well represented by Labor members, including Kate Washington in Port Stephens, Yasmin Catley in Swansea, Jenny Aitchison in Maitland and Clayton Barr in Cessnock. While there are still seats to be called, Labor is on track to achieve gender parity, with around 50 per cent of government members expected to be women. We look forward to working with the new Premier, Chris Minns, and his extraordinarily talented Labor team to deliver a better future for New South Wales. Wright Electorate: Agricultural Shows 154 16:42 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright In the electorate of Wright it's showtime. Every agricultural show—and there are eight across the electorate—has been planned. There is no greater show on earth. Tamborine Mountain has already had its show. You can measure the success of any of our shows by the vibrancy of each of those communities. Volunteers roll out—they're a massive force—to help our local producers show what they make in their paddocks. They build attractions that bring thousands upon thousands of visitors from across the south-east corner to my electorate. It is an opportunity for businesses, mums and dads, and families to come together and meet in a happy environment. The Boonah show is on from 2 to 3 June. It's one of the more spectacular shows during the day when it comes to produce. The Kalbar show, from the 23rd to the 24th, has a wonderful evening rodeo. The Mudgeeraba show is from 24 to 25 June. The Laidley show, from the 7th to the 9th, is one of the most spectacular night events. The Gatton show is probably the largest of all the shows in my electorate. It's one not to be missed. It's from 20 to 22 July. The Canungra show is on 26 August. It wraps up with the Beaudesert show on 8 and 9 September. Pine Mountain District War Memorial 154 16:44 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Yesterday I was honoured to lay a wreath at the Pine Mountain District War Memorial group's dedication ceremony. They received a $9,000 Saluting their Service grant. We added 50 local people to the memorial, alongside their comrades from World War I. These 50 people were World War II veterans. I was pleased to see hundreds of people there. They were the descendants of those who served our country—all local people who sacrificed their lives. Many survived the war but dealt with the challenges and traumas afterwards. I particularly want to thank the MCs—the people who worked so hard to get that funding and who made the day possible. Sherrin Gugenberger and Rob Doncaster worked tirelessly for the people of Pine Mountain to make that day possible. A very moving dedication was made by Rev Phillip Mutzelburg, who is, himself, a veteran. I also want to thank the Salvation Army. Bugler Brad Strong is a regular at Anzac Day services—I will be speaking at the Anzac Day service in Bundamba. Brad and the Anzac Day committee do a great job. The Salvation Army always play with gusto and vigour, and I thank them for what they did. It was a great day. Congratulations also to Cheryl Bromage and her aunties, who were there honouring Cheryl's grandfather who died giving his life for our country. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 155 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS National Security 155 16:46 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I move: That this House acknowledges that: (1) the social media platform TikTok poses a serious national security threat and should be banned on all government devices; (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; (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; (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. TikTok has become a video-sharing phenomenon. It's Australia's seventh most used social media platform and is used by over a billion people worldwide, and we have one of its most vocal users in the Chamber today, I notice, Deputy Speaker Young. Forty-seven per cent of TikTok users are between the ages of 10 and 29—I can guarantee you the member for Bruce is not one of them—and just under 50 per cent of teenagers claim to use the platform. Its popularity is largely owed to its aggressive algorithm, which recommends content based on previous engagement with content and apps beyond TikTok itself. Concerningly, the app has been found to show children shocking content. I know that's not the member for Bruce's content, but there is some content which promotes self-harm and suicide tips, and offers practical steps to eating disorders. The algorithm then promotes this content more and more. That should be cause for consideration of a ban in and of itself, but it's the wider national security concerns that I want to address today. For those who are unaware, in 2017, communist China introduced the National Intelligence Law. This law provides that all organisations and companies registered or operating in China are required to hand over their data to the Chinese communist intelligence agencies. This includes multinationals based in Australia and elsewhere. While TikTok itself is based in the US, its parent company, ByteDance, is based in China. In response to concerns raised about links with the CCP and its intelligence law, the shadow minister wrote to TikTok. Nine months ago, the shadow minister received a reply in which they implicitly acknowledged that Australian user data has been accessed in mainland China, echoing points made by the CEO of TikTok USA just two weeks before. Let me repeat: the data of Australian families, businesses, institutions and particularly children is being stored, accessed and used by communist China. Last week a United States congressional investigation confirmed as such and highlighted TikTok's connection to the Chinese Communist Party. Even their board is compromised. Board director Mr Wu Shugang holds an office within China's cyberspace administration. It's unsurprising, therefore, that the most fervent campaign against these measures is the Chinese Communist Party, who have committed themselves to resolutely opposing any changes to the ownership structure of the app. As we speak, the US government is investigating the company for spying and for the surveillance of American journalists. The evidence is overwhelming, and yet we are sitting on our hands and talking about it, nine months after they confirmed their use of data in writing. Why are we lagging behind? We've heard rumours and whispers that this Labor government was looking at banning TikTok from government devices. Reviews and studies are all well and good, but on this issue, once again, it is the coalition in opposition doing the job of governing. We are asking the questions that those opposite should be asking. We are advocating on the issues that those opposite should be taking ownership of. I want to acknowledge the efforts and the work that is being done by the shadow minister in this space. He has been very effective in calling out misbehaviour in the cyber world, and I want to thank him on behalf of this place. We must take immediate action to rid government devices of this insidious app. All regulatory options should be on the table. We must hold TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, to account. This should not be a matter of party politics. Our primary role in this place is to protect Australians and their interests at home and abroad. I want to challenge members in this place and in the other place: don't promote an app or software which causes damage and harm to Australian individuals. Don't support a business that does not support Australians. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 Is the motion seconded? Mr Stevens 176304 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 16:51 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I will repurpose the first word from your speech, Member for Fisher—I agree with that. TikTok is indeed, for better or worse, a global phenomenon. It is the fastest-growing app in Australia. It shot up during the pandemic, particularly, as people were sitting home watching videos. More than a billion people worldwide and millions of Australians use it. It's also addictive to some people. Like any social media app, any game, it can be addictive. There are certainly social harms. These things are not black and white with any online activity. It also brings joy to millions of people, particularly young people. That's a first statement. They share information. They share videos. It can be fun. It can be informative. It can be, but I agree with you regarding the concerns about promotion of eating disorders and, particularly, anxiety amongst young people and status envy of other people's glorified, glamorised lives. That's a problem which is common to Instagram, Facebook and all manner of apps—things which I'm not cool enough to know, no doubt, not being a teenager in that bracket, as you rightly pointed out. But it has become especially important in the lives of many Australian young people. There is a generation who simply don't engage in traditional ways in politics, in current affairs and in ideas and, increasingly, have turned to social media, including but not limited to TikTok, to promote their activities. I was down at the Dandenong Mosque on the Islamic Council of Victoria's open day and had a terrific time with the youth group there, who were showing me their new youth group room. The thing they were most proud about was the TikToks which they had created to repurpose, if you like, or refresh the promotion of their values—their community values, community service—to engage a younger generation. I'll state upfront: yes, the media reports do go out there—I think the Australian doesn't like me; everyone else got a nice photo, but I got a silly photo when they said I was the most popular Australian politician on TikTok, with apparently 147,000 followers. But I do believe you've got to engage Australians where they are, whether that's down the railway station, outside the shops or at the senior citizens centre, and the fact is: millions of Australians are online. This is a dilemma for all of us. It's not black and white. Those forums are where people consume information, and frankly it's where they'll be far more subject to disinformation and misinformation. If we're not there—I mean all of us; you too; you can go on TikTok, Wally!—then the only people who are there are the disinformation, misinformation crowd. So it's a dilemma. I've had hundreds of young people contact me saying, 'Thank you for opening my eyes to this issue,' or that issue. Many parents contact me saying: 'Thank you for getting my young person engaged in politics. I've never been able to, although I wish they'd stop calling me late at night from their university telling me about something you posted!' But I also take national security seriously, and I hope the mover of the motion would acknowledge this. I am Chair—you're the Deputy Chair—of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I've been on TikTok since May 2021. I've never had it on my government phone. I've had it on this phone. This is not a prop. This is the famous red phone, which I referred to. It is not a communist China gag; it's because it actually is bright red. I use it for community engagement, and TikTok lives by itself there. I've had a cautious approach since day one. It confuses the algorithm. On the rare occasion that I hop on and have a bit of a look, I seem to get cat videos and pimple-popping videos. But I had a cautious approach because I was well aware, in 2021, of the questions and concern regarding TikTok and data and cybersecurity. TikTok is not a new social media platform; these concerns have been around since 2016. So I do have to call out the tawdry politicisation of the issue. I'm not saying the views aren't genuinely held, but the government got elected mid last year and, in September 2022, the minister commissioned a Home Affairs review of security risks of social media and the settings governing them, because we take this seriously. The previous speaker said that the coalition in opposition is doing the job of government. To that I say, lol. it's your special party trick. You don't have any policies. The opposition doesn't have any. The deputy leader said very clearly, 'We don't have policies; we're the opposition.' This is your party trick. You complain about stuff that you didn't do in the decade you were in office. This is my point: the government's review is not focused on just one platform. It's now with the minister. The government is seriously considering it and will take appropriate, considered action. The review is classified, but the action will be public. The scope of the review, though, was broad. It wasn't just one little thing to keep getting yourselves in the newspaper. It was much broader than that. It looked at multiple national security risks across all of social media and online apps. I think it is an important debate, but we could stop the cheap political pointscoring. You did have a decade in office, and we're trying to actually do something about it. 16:56 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I, of course, rise to speak in favour of this motion. I thank the member for Fisher for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I strongly encourage the government to take this issue seriously and to look at, to begin with, what our very important allies, particularly our Five Eyes partners, are doing when it comes to their approach to this application. The jury is well and truly in on these national security risks that TikTok poses. We've seen our other Five Eyes allies already take decisive action when it comes to the use of this application on government devices. Of course, in this motion, we're calling for the Australian government merely to do what our partners, with whom we have a close intelligence-sharing operation and cooperation, are doing themselves. Obviously they have taken those actions because they see a significant risk from this technology, given the data storage revelations that have come to light recently. In testimony in the United States just in the last week or two, we've seen the company confirm that they house and store data on their users. We've got extreme concerns about what could happen to that data and the variety of ways that that data could be used. It could feed certain content to users that might drive their awareness and, perhaps, their opinions on important issues. It could interfere in our democracy as we hold elections, in particular. There is the risk that content will be mangled through the use of algorithms to drive certain views and certain attitudes in, and amongst, those users that could influence our elections. The mover of the motion talked about the risk to young people in particular. The other strong concern we've got—on top of the very important national security issues that this raises—is the type of content that is being fed to young, impressionable people. It is also of great concern when, as the mover mentioned, we hear of content that might facilitate a decision to commit suicide or promote the development of a challenging or significant psychological issue, such as an eating disorder or the like. The fact that young children who are so impressionable are at risk from this application driving that sort of behaviour is extremely serious. I think the way in which the company operates and the way in which the algorithm operates are extremely opaque at best, and, at worst, could, as I've outlined, be used in ways that are designed to drive the behaviour of people in our society at democratic milestones—that is, at elections and the like—and drive them to hold certain attitudes that are incorrect because they are receiving content that they do not realise is designed to drive their views on a particular issue rather than being dispassionate and a fair representation of those sorts of topics. Now, as technology continues to develop rapidly, we've got to be very aware of the risky side of technology and particularly of the ways in which it can potentially cause harm, from a national security point of view and just more generally in our society. The fact that this application can currently be used on government devices is a serious issue, in our view, and one that the government should reflect on; it should consider going down the path of many of our allies and not allowing this technology to be on those devices. This technology may possibly have the capacity—if not now then in the future—to scrape data from those devices and access points into networks and the like. We've certainly heard that when and where decisions have been made to ban this software going on such devices, that it has been as to a very credible risk—where one little update to the software of an application might suddenly give it a capability that we just haven't anticipated and haven't got the ability to protect against, particularly when it comes to penetrating our government networks and accessing information. You've got to protect people's data and people have to know that, when they're using their phone, they are not having information about themselves being used and stored, to be, potentially, used against them at some time, or to influence them, or, indeed, to be used to penetrate our important government networks. And, for those reasons, this motion should definitely be supported. 17:01 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Thanks to the member for Bruce for his previous comments, and I note that they were measured comments. TikTok is a fascinating platform, but it can also be quite scary. It can be used for joy and for making creative content, but there's also a very dark side to it as well—algorithms that promote behaviours such as suicidal tendencies or eating disorders. I see social media as being part of different generations' normal bread and butter. I feel like I come from the generation of Facebook, whereas the generation younger than me uses Instagram and then the next generation uses TikTok, but the platforms that kids are using in school are things like BeReal, and I know that there are lots of people who are members of this place who use different platforms. The thing I will point out is that we are talking about two grave matters: national security and censorship, and it is important that we treat these topics carefully and tread carefully. I note that the Labor Party and the coalition have a proud history of bipartisanship on matters of national security and I point to the recent success of the AUKUS deal. We should be reluctant to use these matters for political pointscoring and we should never be flippant about censorship. This is a unique challenge, and our response to this cannot be developed overnight. There is a lot of uneasiness in the community, including in Swan, about the collection of data by social media giants and how they use it. It's something that a lot of my constituents have spoken to me about. When there's a national security concern about what data is collected and how it could be used against Australia, it's important that we think about our response. We can't rush into this; nor can we act on emotions. The Department of Home Affairs has provided its report on the security risks associated with this to the Minister for Home Affairs, and the minister is working through her considered response. Public information will be provided in due course. The review itself is classified and will not be made public, which is typical for matters of national security and is appropriate. Labor, as always, has a plan, and we are prioritising our national security. Our October budget saw $211 billion committed to Australia's Defence Force over the forward estimates. We're investing in Australia's cyberwarfare capabilities, with $8.8 billion committed to the Australian Signals Directorate over the forward estimates. It's also important to note that TikTok is not a new social media platform, and the concerns around TikTok aren't new. In fact, they've been public since it was launched in 2016. I note that the Liberal Party is on TikTok and has about 14,600 followers. I know that TikTok followers are not a metric that matters on election day, but I do note that Labor has 88,900 followers. I'm certain that the member for Fisher's motive for this motion does not relate to the fact that Labor has six times more followers on TikTok, but I will note the irony of the opposition saying it should be banned, yet the Liberal TikTok account last posted three days ago. And my 'zillennial' team member, Linda Pickering, also pointed out that it wasn't a very good TikTok! That last comment is in jest. But, in all seriousness, the Albanese Labor government is reviewing the situation, and I hope that the member for Fisher pursued this matter with his colleagues when they were in government. There is nothing new about the threats posed by foreign actors on social media. We saw the weaponisation of Facebook during the 2016 US presidential election by foreign actors and those wishing to stoke disunity. The Albanese Labor government is working hard to identify, investigate and disrupt acts of foreign interference, including those on social media, as well as to build Australia's resilience to this threat. We should look at the threats of social media and foreign interference broadly, without focusing on just one platform; otherwise we may create blind spots in our defence. It's important that we look at the full suite of apps that are available and make sure we're looking at all of the risks. Any allegation of foreign interference—whether that's China, Iran, Russia et cetera—is serious, and I have full faith that our intelligence agencies will pursue these matters without fear or prejudice. I will say that our national unity increases our national resilience against foreign interference efforts, so I think about the ways that we can unite people, build faith and restore democracy. 17:06 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders Concerns with TikTok are well known. Today TikTok is banned on most government issued devices at both the national and state level in the United States. It is also banned on government devices in the UK, New Zealand, Canada, the European Union bureaucracy and parliament and, indeed, in Denmark. Increasingly it's not just banned on devices but also blocked by wi-fi networks so it cannot even be accessed by a personal device in some sensitive locations. Dozens of United States universities and schools have banned TikTok access from their local wi-fi networks. But it is not yet banned on government issued devices in Australia. Indeed, it is not banned anywhere in Australia. It is believed that TikTok has more than seven million users in Australia. Owned by ByteDance, a Chinese company, it is subject to the laws of all Chinese resident companies, which includes the obligation to share information with the Chinese government contained in China's 2017 national intelligence law. We know that Australian data can be accessed in China, because TikTok admitted as much in a letter to shadow minister for cybersecurity Senator James Paterson almost 12 months ago. Many are concerned about the risk posed by an app which does the following: TikTok checks the location of the device at least once an hour, and that location is not just Australia but a specific street location in a specific suburb in a specific city; it continuously requests access to contacts, even if the user originally denies that access; it maps all of the device's running applications and, indeed, all installed applications; it records every keystroke made within the app's browser; and it accesses the device's calendar and retrieves a list of everything available in any external storage folder. Felix Krause, a privacy and data security researcher, recently discovered that TikTok is running code that tracks and captures every single keystroke while you're in the browser. That means any searched term—and indeed passwords and credit card information—may be gleaned. Those who've studied the app, its ownership and the known accessing of the data of various individuals, including journalists in the United States, describe TikTok in stark terms. Republican congressman Michael McCaul, chair of the US congressional committee on foreign affairs, described TikTok as 'a spy balloon in your phone'. It's important to look carefully at examples of TikTok's influence. I cite the case of TikTok's behaviour when Russia invaded Ukraine. In a recent podcast interview, Mark Faddoul explained that, overnight, TikTok had created basically a separate version of itself just for Russia. How did they do this? They put in place an upload ban, meaning that people could not post new content at all and in particular they could not post content regarding the war that was unfolding in front of them. All international content was made inaccessible, so people on TikTok in Russia couldn't see the world's outrage at the war, nor any level of local resistance to it. However, despite that upload ban, certain Russian accounts were still able to continue to post, and that which was published overwhelmingly supported the pro-Kremlin content. A similar set of observations and concerns were raised in relation to France's presidential elections, when divisive candidates got far greater airplay even though they got far fewer votes. Roughly 30 per cent of airplay was devoted to divisive candidates who got no more than seven per cent at the ballot box. Social media and digital data expert Tristan Harris wrote of TikTok last September: Imagine it's the Cold War in the 1960s, and imagine the Soviet Union put itself into position to run television programming for the entire western world, of more than a billion TV viewers. We would've never, in the west, let that happen during the Cold War. So while this might sound like science fiction, this is actually the world we're living in right now with TikTok being influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. TikTok is projected to have 1.8 billion users by the end of 2022. And a Pew research study just showed that TikTok is the most popular app for teens in the United States, who now spend more time watching and posting to TikTok than YouTube. For the better part of a year, the coalition has been calling on the Albanese government to act on the national security risks associated with TikTok. It is not safe enough to be on the devices of any of our Five Eyes partners. I ask: why on earth does this government think it is safe enough here? 17:11 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser There are all sorts of types of motions that we debate in this place. There's one category of motion that I would class as bipartisan support of an issue. Then there's another class of motion, which might be detailed policy consideration of an issue. Then there's a third class of motion, which has been becoming more and more common in this place and in the main chamber. That's a motion of a category moved by the opposition. It's where the opposition puts a motion bemoaning, 'Why aren't you cleaning up the mess we left you faster?' That's a motion which acts as though there wasn't just a decade when nothing happened on a certain issue. Then, when the government has started taking action or has even in some cases completed that action, they bemoan the fact that it wasn't sooner or faster or better. There is some common ground in this debate. There is quite a deal of common ground. I share a number of the concerns raised by the mover of the motion and by speakers on both sides of this chamber. There are some aspects of TikTok which I think are potentially positive, but there are many aspects of that app which are very worrying. It is highly addictive, as previous speakers have alluded to. Much of its content is inappropriate. It contains a great deal of misinformation, particularly on a range of political matters. There are, at times, issues relating to censorship. And of course, as a number of speakers in this debate have alluded to, there are issues relating to privacy. But what isn't common ground is when those opposite move beyond those kinds of observations. I think we in this chamber all today care about national security, but then those opposite move from those observations to saying the government doesn't take this seriously or the government is sitting on its hands because it hasn't responded to a serious, detailed report in one day. Well, I remind this chamber of a serious report, an interim report, that was handed down in the previous term. The Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media was established in December 2019, and an important interim report was handed down in December 2021. I want to cite some of the findings of that report. A number of experts gave evidence to that report, and the evidence of a number of those experts was cited directly in that interim report: Experts have been clear that what is required is a coordinated, cohesive response. One of the experts said: I think that what matters most is having a body that has the ability to look through multiple different sides of this problem … That interim report noted there was no such body established by the coalition, notwithstanding the fact that this issue had been emerging since 2016—at the time of this report in December 2021, for many years. Secondly, it was found in this report: Nor has the government developed a coordinated approach. The committee was concerned by the convoluted answer to a simple question— to a number of different agencies— who is in charge? So in December 2021 it had been made clear that no-one was clearly in charge of this issue, which had been emerging for a number of years. Again, the interim report concluded: The end result is that departments and officials are not across the work that is happening internally. For example, the First Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's National Security Division was unaware that the COVID-19 taskforce was undertaking work to combat online disinformation and misinformation: Work was going on at one hand that the other hand didn't know about. The platforms themselves were confused as well. Representatives from TikTok did not know if they were required to report any coordinated foreign interference attempts that they detected on their platform, let alone who they could even report this to. Amazingly, even if these entities had wanted to report foreign interference, the government had not let anybody know who they should possibly report it to. This was December 2021. This is a government that had been not handling an issue for a number of years, some six months before the election at which they were booted out. And virtually nothing happened in between that time and that election. So for those opposite to come in here and criticise the government for having constituted a serious report from Home Affairs and for taking the time to work through that report is, quite frankly, remarkable. And look at the minister who is in fact looking at the report. If you want to look at who is actually kicking the goals in this space, the minister responsible was announced 2022 cybersecurity person of the year by Cybercrime Magazine. I don't have time in 15 seconds to go through the full citation of all of her achievements, but the rest of the world is saying, 'This government is taking action in this space.' Those opposite didn't for a decade, and yet they have the gall to come in here and move this motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Labor Government 160 17:16 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen It's amazing, when you see these motions get brought into the parliament and brought up here, to sit there and have a look at some of the things that are being said. I want to rise on this one and support it wholeheartedly, because what we've seen is a motion that has been brought to us after— The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I ask the member for McEwen to resume his seat. I remind members that if the opposition doesn't have at least one person in the room we won't have a quorum. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E You'd think a former Speaker would have known that! As we know, the last 10 years have been 10 years of totally forgetting about what's actually happened, and everything is just on us today. Let's have a look at this. Ten months ago, Australians voted for change. They were sick of corruption, broken promises and the years of inaction the coalition government gave us. They voted to build a better future, for a government that will actually deliver. Nowhere in the country is this more evident than in our communities in McEwen. Our communities were ignored and neglected through 10 years of the 'no-alition' government. Broken promises and abject neglect defined their time in government for communities across Victoria but particularly in our electorate. They promised to improve infrastructure to make our roads safer, but did they do that? No. They promised to support sporting facilities in our growing regions. Did they deliver that? No. They promised to invest in infrastructure to help cater for the rapidly growing population. Did they deliver that? No. We were starved of funding while the coalition looked after their buddies and invested in their own electorates. Pork-barrelling and dodgy deals were rife during their time in government, so they could make sure they looked after themselves and their interests. A perfect example of this was the bright sparks of the coalition who thought giving Victoria only seven per cent of the available infrastructure funding was fair. That was despite the fact that Victoria has over 20 per cent of the nation's population. Our government, the Albanese Labor government, is fixing the problems and filling the gaps left by the last lot. Looking at our electorate, in the October budget last year we moved swiftly to guarantee nearly $200 million of investment to our communities in McEwen. We committed $15 million to building stage 2 of the Macedon Ranges Regional Sports Precinct, which will help build the next generation of sports stars from our local area and provide huge opportunities for all members of our community, something that was overlooked in the now opposition's time in government for the nine years when they steadfastly refused to fund this project. We committed $150 million to the Camerons Lane interchange, unlocking the economic potential of the north. Along with the $11 million allocated to fix our roads, this will make the commute to and from work and access to our regions and quicker. The Watson Street interchange at the Hume Highway will be built, backed by an additional $130 million from the Victorian government. The member for Riverina is here, and I will pay credit to him. He came down on a terrible day—we were both there at the horrific train accident that cost two lives. He came with me, we looked at the interchange and he committed to it. Sadly, he wasn't there to actually make sure that it got delivered. But I will pay credit to the member for Riverina because he did listen and listen intently. This is a much-needed project. It needs to be done. Now that the Victorian government has committed their $130 million, we will see this project done to deliver safety for all communities in the region. We also committed $1.5 million for fixing the mobile black spots in Gisborne and Woodend. The others left a lot of holes in the national coverage. In fact, when we had a look through the mobile black spots funding program, we'd received 2½ towers in nine years. Despite the fact that we'd met every single criteria of the government's own program, they'd still refused to actually deliver those. Those holes that were left were in areas that were affected by bushfires, floods and storms and in areas that have been dangers to our communities. But guess what? The Albanese Labor government is stepping up to fix that. We are fixing up the mess that was left to us by the previous government. We put forward a budget in the early days of our term that started to tackle the rising cost of living. Let's remember, as to power prices, that theirs was a government that deliberately withheld power price increases from the Australian public. Nothing can be more terrible than a government going into an election and deliberately moving things to stop people from knowing what's going to happen in the future. But we also said that we would deliver on getting wage increases moving. We're delivering on our commitments on industrial reforms, and on things like cheaper childcare to help so many families in our community who are paying more for childcare than they are for their mortgages. We will help over 6,000 families by getting this delivered. We worked, and we said that we would do and deliver things. And guess what? Unlike those opposite, we actually do. 17:22 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on this motion, but not in support of the motion. I do acknowledge, certainly, as the Prime Minister has reminded us in recent days, that there have now been 10 months of this Albanese Labor government. In the lead-up to the election in May last year, Labor made many promises. The Prime Minister has recently said that Australians have had a good 10 months. I am yet to meet a single Australian who has said that he or she has had a good 10 months. Nobody in my electorate of Hughes has had a good 10 months; nobody has said that to me and I have no doubt that nobody will say that to me, because, in the last 10 months, we have had nine consecutive rate increases under this government—a rate of rises that we haven't seen in 30 years. We now have a cash rate sitting at 3.6 per cent. For the average Australian mortgage holder—and 30 per cent of those in my electorate hold mortgages—they are now paying, on average, $1,700 a month more, which is $20,000 a year they have to find after tax. These are not Australians saying to me that they have had a good 10 months, and the next 10 months are not looking any better at all. I want to talk specifically about things like electricity. There are no Australians that I have met or who have spoken to me who have said that their electricity has gone down by the $275 that was promised by this Labor government in the lead-up to the election. Instead, we've seen massive increases in power prices and no plan to address those increases. Particularly in my home state of New South Wales, Australians are now paying $564 a year more than we were before the election in May of last year. Only on the weekend, when I went and bought my coffee at the Bianco Nero cafe in Gymea, adjoining my electorate, the owner, George, said to me that he is now paying $50,000 a year in electricity—that's for a small cafe in the suburbs of Sydney. And that is not sustainable for a small business. Then we can look at franking credits. Labor promised, in the lead-up to the election, that there'd be no change to franking credits. They saw in 2019 what happens if you tell Australians that you're going to make changes to their franking credits. So this time around they said, 'We're not making any changes,' but then, as soon as they got in, there was a backflip, and now we've got changes to franking credits. This impacts a lot of self-funded retirees—a lot of older Australians, and it's older Australians that the government said they have come in to try and assist. Well, they're not assisting them in my electorate or throughout Australia. Talking of broken promises, let's look at superannuation. Superannuation belongs to the superannuant holder. They have earned the money over the years, and it is their money. It is not for the federal government to get into power on promises like, 'We're not touching your superannuation,' and then to come in and start making changes. In particular, the current Prime Minister, on 2 May 2022, said: We've said we have no intention to make any super changes. Jim Chalmers, our current Treasurer, said: Look, we've said about superannuation that we would maintain the system. That was in March 2022, on the ABC Insiders program. And then what happened? They're in power and suddenly running a little bit short of money, so they're coming after the money of Australian workers. Then we can look at Australian families. I've already spoken about electricity bills. I would like to find the Australian families that have had this good 10 months that the Prime Minister's speaking about. Ms WARE 300123 I note the injections from the other side. I'm sure that the member's going to point to quite a few Australians who are telling us what a good 10 months they have had. When Labor comes into power, they break their promises. We always pay more under a Labor government. 17:27 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Today I rise in favour of the member for Lalor's motion regarding the very successful first 10 months of the Albanese Labor government. This is not to say that Australians and people in Boothby aren't doing it tough right now. When I'm out and about in Boothby, running mobile offices or doing shopping centre visits in Edwardstown, Marino, Colonel Light Gardens or Mitcham, as I did over the weekend, the message is much the same, and we understand people are struggling with the cost of living. But there is another message that comes through, and that's one of relief. There's relief that after 10 wasted years the adults are finally back in charge. Despite the very real challenges, there is a sense of optimism in our communities and a sense that, while things are tough, we're on the right track. Things are finally happening. We have a leader who gets it, who has empathy for what Australians are going through and who leads from a place of passion and principle. Australians have a government that is working every day to take pressure off them and to help them reach their full potential. What do we hear from those opposite? From those opposite, who continue to be dealt resounding election defeat after resounding election defeat around the country, we hear one response to every idea or opportunity put forward: no. They have dealt themselves out of relevance time and time again. They are telling Australians that they do not take their problems seriously. They vacate the negotiating table to the crossbench and the Greens. The LNP basically have nothing to say and no positive contributions to make, and so they say no. Those opposite have recently taken to asking for more detail from the government. It's funny because they weren't interested in so much detail when they were in charge and had a chance to actually do something about many of the challenges we face. But, if they want more detail, who am I to deny them? Here's a quick list of just some of our highlights from the first 10 months. We delivered Australia's first real climate change policy in a decade with a commitment to a 43 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. We've advanced the safeguard mechanism bill, fixing the disaster left by those opposite. We've made more than 20,000 prescriptions cheaper in Boothby alone and more than 2½ million Australia wide. We have delivered transparency, honesty, accountability through a National Anti-Corruption Commission. We'll be delivering cheaper child care from 1 July and delivering the biggest boost to parental leave by adding an additional six weeks of paid parental leave. We've made the Commonwealth seniors health card available to more Australians and unveiled the path to delivering AUKUS jobs in South Australia. We have record investment to improve women's safety. We've improved foreign relations with key partners, including countries of the Asia-Pacific, the US, France and New Zealand. We've committed to the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full and just last week announced the proposed wording to be inserted in the Constitution should the referendum get up. We've passed the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 1) Act, delivering on the election promise to reform aged care on the recommendations of the royal commission. We've delivered 37 of those recommendations already. We've passed the Anti‑Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Act, implementing the recommendations of the Respect@Work national inquiry into sexual harassment in the workplace. And we're only just getting started. We know that Australians are doing it tough in what the shadow Treasurer has previously referred to as a global environment of rising inflation. But at street corner meetings on the weekend a number of Boothby residents commented on how the government had hit the ground running, how impressed they were with the amount of legislation and the number of promises we've delivered on, how relieved they are to have the adults back in charge and not to have to bear one scandal after another and how good it is to have a government they can actually be proud of. Given the Victorian election result and the New South Wales election result over the weekend, it seems the Australian public have an appetite for more. 17:31 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I disagree with the motion and I disagree with the principles behind it. I'm glad the member for Kennedy is in the chamber, because he, like me, knows full well the benefit of regional spending, of funding for country people. He, like me, wants to see an aquatic centre for Mornington Shire. The mayor there, Kyle Yanner—and I know the member for Kennedy would know him well—and his community have been requiring, needing, deserving, expecting a water park for a long time. I gave them the commitment, as the Acting Prime Minister of this country back in 2021, that I would help deliver that, and I know it has had the member for Kennedy's advocacy as well. Hopefully the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the member for Ballarat, will see fit to do that. I've seen her on a number of occasions. What I worry about is regional funding going by the wayside in the May budget, because what we've seen across the country generally when Labor governments get in is that the regions get hit the first and the hardest. I note that the new New South Wales Premier—and good luck to him—did not mention the regions in his acceptance speech on Saturday night, and that is a concern. The member for Lalor comes here and talks about all sorts of delivery, including repealing the cashless debit card. That is going to hurt those communities in, particularly, remote Australia where that initiative was doing a lot of good, particularly in making sure that the financing of families was going to the right places—not grog, not gambling but school lunches, uniforms and making sure that the welfare of the families comes first. What we don't want to see is a rising tide of domestic violence in families as a result of that cashless debit card being withdrawn. I note that the member for Lalor talks about the government delivering on its election commitments to build a better future. Well, if delivering a better future means rising inflation, rising energy costs, changes to super which prior to the election Labor said would not occur, more expensive mortgages, Labor touching franking credits, raising taxes, more consultants and contractors in government infrastructure—if these things are building a better future—I'd hate to see what a worse one was. I seriously would, because that is, unfortunately, what we've seen in the first 10 months under Labor. We've seen all of those things and so much more. Good, ordinary, hardworking, everyday Australians are jack of it. They are sick of it. They are struggling as it is with cost-of-living pressures, and what they don't want to see is ideology taking over from practicality. Yes, they want to see action on climate. I get that. Yes, they want to see this place be a place where integrity comes first. I get that. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Thank you, Member for Kennedy. But what they don't want to see is ideology put ahead of common sense, and common sense means that we dig things up out of the ground, we use them for our own domestic energy supplies and we send resources overseas to help pay for schools and hospitals and to keep the lights on. We just saw the other day, at the AFL, what happens when the lights go out. I'm not putting the blame on anyone or anything, but that's just a precursor of what's going to happen under the ideology of those opposite when it takes over practicality and common sense. We're going to see the lights go out in places other than just the Gabba. We're going to see the lights go out in suburban Australia. We're going to see the lights go out and the energy go off in factories and in places of industry right across Australia. Mr McCORMACK 219646 I hear the member for Moreton, but it will happen. I've warned of it. It happened the last time I warned of it, and it will happen again. 17:36 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm happy to join this debate about Labor governments. As Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister and now Australian Ambassador to the United States—congratulations, Kevin—once said, 'Labor governments build community, and the Liberals break things up.' It's such a simple and stark contrast that is worth repeating. Apart from John Howard's gun law reforms, I can't for the life of me recall one outstanding good thing that has ever come from a federal coalition government. What's the lasting legacy from that dreadful conga line of Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments? Knights and dames? A shameful, divisive and unnecessary marriage equality plebiscite that has emboldened bigots and even Nazis? Robodebt that robbed and killed 400,000 of our most vulnerable Australians? When it comes to the nation-changing legacies of Labor governments, in contrast, I give you: Medicare, something that benefits the bush; paid parental leave; the NDIS; universal superannuation; equal pay for women; the Racial Discrimination Act; and the National Gallery—and that's just in the last couple of decades. This Albanese Labor government is delivering on the changes that the Australian people voted for at the last election. We will keep faith with the Australian people—all the people. Since May last year we've been working hard to clean up the mess the coalition left behind, including leaving taxpayers with a trillion dollars of Liberal debt. After a decade of delay, denial, rorts and waste there is a lot of work for us to do, but we're working every day to build a better future for Australia. We know that these are tough times, so here's what we're doing to tackle the cost of living: by 1 July, we're making child care cheaper; we're reducing the maximum co-payment under the PBS from $42.50 to a maximum of $30, which is a reduction of 29 per cent—I know that many of the pharmacies in my electorate, especially those based in Acacia Ridge, have welcomed this reduction on behalf of their customers—we've made it easier for pensioners who want to to be able to earn more; we're looking after our vulnerable seniors by putting nurses back into nursing homes 24/7; we're implementing recommendations from the aged-care royal commission; we set up a fund to prepare for and respond to disasters; we passed more support for our veterans; we've added an additional six weeks of paid parental leave for families, bumping the total leave payable up to 26 weeks—a full six months—plus we've passed new laws to prevent sexual harassment at work; we made 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave law; and then—legs 11—after 11 years of denial from those opposite, today the Albanese Labor government has acted on climate and protecting the environment. The coalition, under the leadership of the member for Dickson, hauled up the we're-irrelevant flag while the rest of the parliament enshrined in law a 43 per cent emissions reductions target by 2030 and a net zero emissions target by 2050. Our current renewables rate of 30 per cent isn't enough to reach net zero by 2030, so we're urgently upgrading our grid to 82 per cent renewables by 2030 and transforming Australia into a renewable energy superpower. What's the member for Dickson doing while we're doing all this? He's trying on the red speedos and saying, 'I look good in these.' I know that's a troubling metaphor. Perhaps I'll turn to an alternative metaphor. In the Watership Down book by Richard Adams from the 1970s the rabbits end up at Cowslip's warren where the rabbits have a great life and are well-fed, but they're harvested by the farmer every now and then. We're seeing that with the coalition. We saw it in the Victorian election. We saw it in the New South Wales election. We saw it at the last federal election. Every now and then the traditional Liberals are being harvested. They're being taken out because they're not listening to modern Australia. What have we done? We've updated the laws to protect the ozone layer. We've made electric vehicles cheaper and easier to use on the very undestroyed weekend. I've actually never seen so many electric cars parked around the streets of Sunnybank, where my office is located. We passed laws to help Australia generate cheap offshore wind power. We're establishing a new environment protection agency. We're delivering 480,000 fee-free TAFE places for in-demand sectors as we continue with our work of making sure that Australians can build for their future. We passed a new law for secure jobs and better pay. We established the new Jobs and Skills Australia. We passed laws to set up the High Speed Rail Authority. We said that once elected we would strengthen accountability, so we passed legislation to establish the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We abolished the hopelessly politically compromised AAT and are replacing it with a review body that will better serve the Australian community. We've got much more to do, but we will not waste a day. 17:41 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I sincerely thank the member for Lalor for some time ago moving this motion on the Labor government. It's my hope that a motion or two like this will speak to my better angels. At times we can be a bit negative. After living the last nine years of the previous government, either as a member of this place or, in my case, as a private citizen, there is a lot to vent about at times. Many on the other side of the chamber would have you believe they left a legacy worth defending on a number of policy issues that we in government are needing to fix as a matter of urgency. We need to unwind nine years of inaction, obfuscation and at times downright sabotage in some areas. However, we cannot lose sight of the need to speak on the reasons why Australia voted in an Albanese Labor government, not voted out a Morrison Liberal-National government. The member for Moreton, the member for McEwen and my South Australian colleague the member for Boothby would definitely agree with me on this. We have all had some very positive messages to communicate with our electorates throughout this term in government. The main conversation starter of course has been the promises we made in opposition that are being fulfilled in government. Australia voted with Labor to enact visionary policy reforms. We have seen this throughout time. Only a Labor government can get these things right. Too often we have seen policies—like the NBN and the NDIS, for example—being ruined by the changing parties in government. It isn't just in this place where Australians have entrusted Labor governments to make big decisions and to govern them through a number of trying circumstances. In fact, since the beginning of last year we have seen in my home state of South Australia Peter Malinauskas become the Premier after only a single term in opposition from 16 years in government. This is no mean feat by any standard. We have seen Daniel Andrews in Victoria deliver a performance that one might call statuesque. Whilst it remains to be seen whether he will take the bronze, the good people of Victoria have given him a gold tick of approval, along with his third term in office. All of this was in the lead-up to Saturday night when we saw New South Wales give Chris Minns the honour of becoming the 47th Premier of their state. At first, the commentariat were giving post-COVID election wins to incumbent governments, such as the victory in Queensland which saw the re-election of the Palaszczuk government and, of course, the imperious win of the McGowan government in Western Australia. The people of Australia didn't just vote for change. They voted for a policy agenda that only Labor governments are known to deliver at both state and national levels, which is one of the many reasons the Australian people elected an Albanese government to establish the National Anti-Corruption Commission, a bill I'm proud to have spoken on. It marked a historical turning point, one where we, as politicians, can return to our electorates with our heads held a little higher, knowing that we have a government in power that places great stock in ensuring that a degree of probity and honour is restored to our profession. This matters a lot to the people in Spence. I don't lay all of it at the feet of the former government, but some of their actions, coupled with their reluctance to establish a body that would police corruption within their ranks, have lingering consequences—consequences that diminished our standing in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of the average punter. It isn't just the big picture issues. This government is helping at the hip pocket, making child care more affordable and making medicines more affordable. And, as of earlier today, this House just moved one step closer to bringing Australia toward having a proper climate policy after so many years of climate war. Australia, hopefully very soon, will see some light at the end of a very long tunnel of partisanship on climate, and we can get on with the job of making our country and planet liveable for generations in the future. Labor governments don't just govern for those who vote for us; we govern for all. We don't just govern for the generation that goes to the ballot box; we govern to make things better for our grandchildren and for generations to come as well. It's how it has always been, and I'm proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. National Reconstruction Fund 165 17:47 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the COVID-19 pandemic showed us how vulnerable Australia's supply chains are; (b) revitalising Australian manufacturing will diversify our economy and create sustainable and secure jobs; (c) the Government is delivering on its election promise of creating a $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund (NRF); and (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 (2) acknowledges that the NRF will support: (a) the development of strategically important industries and shore up supply chains; (b) targeted investment in manufacturing capability to create well-paid jobs for Australians including in regional communities; and (c) the diversification and transformation of Australian industry and the economy, to take advantage of emerging opportunities, including the global transition to net zero. Today I'm proud once again to be talking about how the Albanese government is delivering on yet another election promise. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the clear vulnerabilities in our supply chains, vulnerabilities that were in part the result of our declining manufacturing industries and a lack of planning to prepare our economy for the challenges of the future. That's why, in the October budget last year, my colleague the honourable member for Chifley announced the formation of the National Reconstruction Fund. It's a $15 billion fund that will invest in improving Australia's manufacturing capabilities, diversifying Australia's economy and creating well-paid Australian jobs. The extraordinary and persistent damage that COVID-19 inflicted on every level of our economy—the hundreds of billions of dollars lost and the devastation on our supply chains—has been discussed in depth and at length. It's always been a goal in my life to leave things better than when I found them, and the only way to do that and repair the damage to our economy is to build it back better than before, to make it more resilient and durable for the future. The state that it is in is simply not good enough. The number of manufacturing jobs has been on the decline for the last 20 years, including the loss of the automotive industry. As my colleague the Assistant Minister for Trade and Assistant Minister for Manufacturing put it, we are last in the OECD in manufacturing self-sufficiency. A house is only as good as its foundation, and right now we're on shaky ground. That's why we're making the National Reconstruction Fund one of the biggest peacetime investments in Australian history, not just for the Australian economy or for Australian businesses but for Australian workers as well. Today, 85 per cent of all manufacturing jobs in this country are full time and secure. This is the certain and stable employment people are looking for. That's why the National Reconstruction Fund is looking at investing in a wide variety of manufacturing industries, such as $3 billion for Australian renewables and low-emission technologies; $1.5 billion for Australian medical manufacturing; $1 billion each for Australian advanced manufacturing, critical Australian technologies, and value-adding in Australian resources; and $500 million for value-adding in Australian agriculture, fisheries, fibre and food. We must diversify our economy because a diverse economy is a resilient one. We've been listening on this, and, as part of the consultation process, we've heard from individuals, industries, communities and unions. We've also heard from state governments, regardless of politics, because the time has come for us to realise the potential of our country together. The National Reconstruction Fund will help us achieve that. It will achieve it through a range of finance options, including loans, equity investment and guarantees. This means the fund will invest and have a return so that it can reinvest again and again. It will be Australians who will reap the benefits. This isn't about bringing in business from overseas; it's about building up businesses that are starting and working here. We are in a great position in Australia to take advantage of the transition to a net zero economy, and I want Australians to be able to make the most of this opportunity. There are opportunities to create lithium batteries here for the growing electric vehicle market, instead of sending our lithium overseas so somebody else can make them. There are opportunities to grow the potential of hydrogen energy. There are opportunities in large-scale wind and solar farm investment commitments, which grew nearly 50 per cent in the last year alone, showing that the desire and the money is here. It is time for Australia to seize these opportunities. I think it's important to emphasise this, because we've talked about the dire importance of a net zero economy and we've talked about how necessary and critical it is for our environment. I want to make it clear, however, that this is an opportunity we can all benefit from, by undertaking a transformation that will create more jobs—sustainable, well-paid Australian jobs. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T Is the motion seconded? Mr Burnell 300129 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 17:51 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Firstly, I wish to thank our nation's manufacturers who helped keep our country moving forward during the COVID-19 pandemic. Manufacturers across Australia rose to the challenge of continuing to deliver their product while unlocking further potential to overcome the obstacles they faced. Regional Australia continues to be the backbone for manufacturing, with much of our success derived from the abundance of natural resources. Figures show that around 60 per cent of Australia's exports are derived from regional Australia. In my electorate of Capricornia there are many great manufacturing businesses that make a valued contribution to the local economy, like fabricators Dobinsons Spring & Suspension, who have been manufacturing vehicle parts for 70 years, and Plane Creek Sugar Mill in Sarina, who have crushed sugarcane since their inception in 1896 and now produce 180,000 tonnes of sugar per year. These are some of the great manufacturing businesses in my electorate, and they mirror similar manufacturing success stories right across Australia. It's growth like this that we all want to see continue well into the future. Growth of our manufacturing industry and sovereign capability isn't something we should be advocating for; it's a necessity for the future of our nation. I doubt that anyone in this room would disagree with me. The Modern Manufacturing Strategy developed under the coalition government delivered $2.5 billion in investment to drive growth and innovation right across the manufacturing sector. This strategy focused on creating the perfect economic conditions required for business to make science and technology work for industry, focus on areas of advantage and ensure supply chains are more resilient. This is everything that the National Reconstruction Fund will decimate. The National Reconstruction Fund will undermine investment certainty in existing manufacturing areas of priority and erode investment confidence. I find it extremely disappointing that the Albanese government is doing dodgy deals with the Greens party to push their agenda. It's an agenda with a poorly designed funding model in which there's a shift from competitive grants with robust processes to the government acquiring equity and loans. Government equity and loans are far less accessible than grants and only provide more barriers to manufacturers. This design is purposefully restrictive. They did a deal at the eleventh hour to rush through a flawed piece of legislation that fails to address the significant issues that our manufacturers need this government to show leadership on: high energy prices, disrupted supply chains and acute labour shortages. Heavy industries remain a key feature of regional Australia. Many regional cities are based around the high-quality gas, coal and other natural resources that are highly sought after by countries right across the globe. In Queensland alone, $94.6 billion is delivered back into the economy from these industries that Labor want to stifle. The Labor government are preaching that new technologies and net zero are our future. Australia is on the precipice of a key-resources mining boom to meet the high demand for critical minerals that are required when creating low-emission technologies, battery production and electric vehicles. An electric car requires six times the amount of minerals than a regular car. A wind turbine requires several more times the amount of minerals required for a gas- or coal-fired power station. More than 220 tonnes of coal is needed to build a wind turbine. It is a rather inconvenient truth for climate activists that, in order to decarbonise our nation, we need more mining and manufacturing that is based around coal and gas. We need to support the industries that will make this happen. We are almost at the one-year mark of the new government, and, sadly, there has been absolutely zero progress on supporting the manufacturing industry. If you are able to read the fine print on the National Reconstruction Fund, it's plainly obvious that the only priorities you will see are for the Labor government to give jobs to their union mates and create an election slush fund. The Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union have demanded that any business who wishes to access the fund have union agreements in place and include union representatives on the board. This is just another case of unions feathering their own nest and not having the manufacturing industry's best interests at heart. The legislation put forward by the Albanese government will open the door to allowing the disgraceful behaviour of the unions to continue. If you ask the manufacturing industry, like me they don't have high hopes for this fund, and nor should they. Labor's record on manufacturing is woeful, and it's concerning to think how much damage those opposite can and will do to the industry. I won't stand idly by and watch it happen. I'm going to be pushing to make sure the voices of Capricornia and of national manufacturers be heard and given the support they need to prosper. 17:57 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I rise today to speak in favour of this motion moved by the member for Werriwa, and I thank her for moving this motion. As someone who was an advocate for science and engineering for more than a decade before coming to this House, I know what a difference this will make. This contrasts with the previous government, which abandoned manufacturing in this country and have no credibility in these policy areas. Opposition members interjecting— Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Well, support this legislation and we'll be doing a hell of a lot better. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation will support, diversify and transform Australia's industry and economy, helping to create secure, well-paid jobs; securing future prosperity; and driving sustainable growth. It also represents this government delivering on a $15 billion key election commitment. The NRFC will invest across seven priority areas of the economy: renewables and low-emission technologies, medical science, transport, value-add in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and value-add in resources, defence capability and enabling capabilities—and I will expand on these areas later. The NRFC is modelled on Labor's successful Clean Energy Finance Corporation. It will be governed by an independent board that makes independent investment decisions, and it will be able to invest through a range of financing, including loans, equity and guarantees. It will be held to a high level of transparency and accountability. Under this legislation, there will be no colour coded spreadsheet in sight, no sports rorts and no car park rorts. Investment decisions will be free from political interference. As a corporate Commonwealth entity, the NRFC will be subject to the requirements of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 in relation to corporate governance, reporting and accountability. In keeping with our government's commitment to transparency, the corporation will publish investment reports quarterly. It will also provide detailed financial and operational information in its annual reports to parliament. The investments of the NRFC will be guided by an investment mandate issued by the government. The investment mandate will set out clear directions to the board regarding risk, return, investment governance and core government policy priorities. Australian manufacturing has suffered from nine years of LNP mismanagement. Those opposite had eight—no, sorry, nine—industry ministers in nine years and have left Australia's manufacturing industry in tatters. It was never a priority. The recent pandemic has demonstrated the need to have secure supply chains. The NRF will grow Australia's capacity to manufacture here so that when the next global event paralyses global supply chains Australia will be ready. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the chamber of the seven priority areas that the NRF will be targeting. The NRF will value-add in resources, expanding Australia's mining science and technology and ensuring that a greater share of raw materials extracted is processed domestically. It will value-add in the agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors. In transport, it will develop capabilities in transport manufacturing and supply chains, including for cars, trains and shipbuilding. In medical science, it will leverage Australia's world-leading research to provide essential supplies, such as medical devices, personal protective equipment, medicines and vaccines. In renewables and low-emissions technologies, it will pursue opportunities, including for components for wind turbines, the production of batteries and solar panels, and new livestock feed to reduce methane emissions. In defence capability, it will maximise the sourcing requirements from Australian suppliers. In enabling capabilities, it will support capabilities across engineering, data science and software development, including in areas such as AI, robotics and quantum sciences. The Albanese government continues to help companies create secure, well-paid jobs for Australians. This government is laying the foundation for our future prosperity and wellbeing as a nation that makes things here and sells them to the world. The NRF will finally unlock Australia's manufacturing potential. I commend the incredible work that the Minister for Industry and Science has done with this policy, and I again thank the member for Werriwa for moving this important motion in this chamber. 18:01 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I thank the member for Werriwa for bringing forward this motion. Revitalising Australia's economy through the National Reconstruction Fund is essential to safeguarding our economic future. As acknowledged by the government, COVID-19 exposed Australian supply chain vulnerabilities and decimated R&D budgets across businesses, universities and industries. In fact, at only 1.8 per cent of our GDP, we have one of the world's lowest rates of R&D investment. That was the case even before COVID hit, and this figure is steadily declining. This should be of concern to many people in this place. Australia is also facing a skills shortage, particularly in technology and innovation. Australian innovation has revolutionised people's lives. In my electorate of Warringah, there are plenty of examples of innovative enterprises. Loam Bio shows that innovation is leading from Warringah. They're transforming agriculture to enhance crop yields and increase the carbon sequestration of soil. V2food is working to bring down our average meat consumption. Aviation H2 is working on the development of green-hydrogen powered planes. Lakeba's Future Hub shows how we can excel in digital technology. We have all of these levels of innovation in Australia. Unfortunately, whilst we have some great individual stories, as a whole, innovation is declining, and we're risking being outperformed in many sectors by our economic competitors. Our economy should be dynamic and pioneering, based on growth industries and empowered people with the right skill sets and visions for the future. The NRF supports this vision, which is why I supported the principles of the NRF from its introduction, but we must ensure that the NRF is utilised in a way that maximises Australia's opportunities and provides real value-add to priority sectors. We know COVID-19 was extremely difficult for our economy. Although the Australian people and Australian businesses showed remarkable resilience during that time, we have an opportunity now to build back better. Investing in a new economy must be based on principles of sustainability and a circular model to keep in line with the global transition to net zero. The National Reconstruction Fund's promise of investment in renewable and low-emission technologies must be upheld to ensure our expanding economy stays on target to reduce emissions and is a global player in that net zero world. For that, we have to address hydrogen. Australia is engaging in the biggest transformation since the industrial revolution—that's the transition to net zero. It's important to look at this transition as a massive opportunity, one which can build new, vital sectors for our economy. Our future prosperity depends on Australia developing an energy industrial complex in which we capitalise on our natural advantages to develop a clean-energy export market. Countries who are able to decarbonise their supply chains will gain comparative advantages in the international economy of the future. Green hydrogen has the potential to be the tipping point for Australian manufacturing, given its ability to decarbonise difficult-to-abate industries. But we are falling behind. There's a race on—let's be very clear about that—and we are falling behind. Just today in the Australian Financial Review it was reported that Australia is falling behind Africa in the race to develop green hydrogen. The race is about which is going to be the jurisdiction that is most appealing for those huge amounts of investment. When we start talking to the diplomatic community, they are aware of all those competing environments. The USA, Europe and the gulf nations are moving quickly to ensure market dominance. The impact of the US Inflation Reduction Act alone, which was passed after the election, could see our export potential for green hydrogen fall by as much as 65 per cent, for that has now been matched by investment in Europe, leaving Australia even further behind. We simply don't have time to wait and see. The government must be proactive in areas like green hydrogen. We need to see that in the next budget. We must invest to capitalise on our natural advantages when it comes to emerging industries like renewable hydrogen production. So I urge the government to use the National Reconstruction Fund to invest in sustainable, resilient supply chains, to expand innovation and to create secure jobs for Australians. We need to remember that what is better for the planet is and will increasingly be better for business and better for Australia's future. 19:07 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I'd like to thank the member for Werriwa for moving this motion. Any time spent speaking about the benefits of the National Reconstruction Fund is time well spent indeed, especially time spent speaking in this place about boosting Australia's manufacturing industry. I'll soon start to sound like a broken record because of my passion for manufacturing jobs, but it exists for a number of reasons. In large part, it exists because of three words—and I would suggest the member for Capricornia take notes! General Motors-Holden. Whilst not the only company providing manufacturing jobs in the northern suburbs of Adelaide at the time, it provided a great deal of additional work for component manufacturing and all the way down to jobs for the trucks that came down to the plant to sell lunch to the workers on site. On one fateful day, Joe Hockey dared GM-Holden to leave, and—queue shock—they left. The company closed down their plant. Sons had followed their fathers in working there. They closed up their operations. It beggars belief that you could be shocked when a company does what you publicly dared them to do. But I digress. The closure of Holden is still felt by those in Spence. I'd like to hope that those opposite learnt their lesson. After all, at the time Joe Hockey made that fateful statement, a large number of those opposite were not yet members of this place. Yet, during the debate in this place concerning the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill, you could see that many on the other side of the chamber still had a lot to learn. Using the tried and true libertarian line that the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers was a path well travelled. I can only look at the thousands of people in Spence who were directly and indirectly impacted by Joe Hockey's act, daring GM-Holden to leave, or the omission—by withdrawing government support to the company. The government made an affirmative decision to pick a loser, and it's one the north will always remember. Those opposite are big on values statements. They denounce big government except when they are part of one. Thankfully, the National Reconstruction Fund can put jobs on the menu again—good, well-paid manufacturing jobs. The National Reconstruction Fund provides for $15 billion to be put toward national priorities, such as the renewables and low-emissions technology sector, the medical manufacturing sector, value-adding in the resources sector, critical technologies, advanced manufacturing and the agricultural, forestry, fisheries, food and fibre sector. One sector worth mentioning is the medical manufacturing sector. The COVID-19 pandemic has made it ever so apparent that when the attitudes of now, thankfully, former governments were not to support our manufacturing industries, it becomes very hard to un-ring that bell. It is very hard to bring things back online and upscale with very little notice—plant, equipment and personnel—in the event of an emergent increase in demand for goods. This is as true for cars as it for medical masks or other kinds of personal protective equipment. While the demand for PPE skyrocketed locally, nationally and globally, when shortages existed within our aged-care sectors and even within our hospitals, we were reliant on seeking additional supplies of masks from abroad at a time when countries were attempting to shore up their own domestic supplies and stockpiles. Instead, how lucky we are, as Australians all were, that a coterie of Liberal Party donors and mates all decided to pivot their careers in the moment. It must be that agile entrepreneurial spirit that they all talk about on that side of the chamber! A lot of them certainly got themselves into the import-export business with PPE. But, as we all know, it certainly would have been much easier to have been able to upscale our industry at home with a running start. Those opposite may not wish to suffer a country with the government picking winners and losers in the market, but they certainly appeared time and time again to tolerate, if not cultivate, crony capitalism. It may have been a tender point to many on the other side of the chamber, but this issue may have been slightly alleviated by competitive tender processes. I can think of a number of songs to add to the soundtrack of the previous government, including one by the Chaser, but one that is a little bit out of left field would be 'Love Me Tender' by Elvis Presley, because they did loves themselves a tender process, so long as it was closed. 18:12 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash It's not often I agree with the member for Spence—I've listened to his speeches!—but I couldn't agree more in regard to the car industry in this country, especially in relation to GM,. They had been here since 1949. They didn't want to leave. We sent them packing. I can't go into the great difficulties that caused because it will take the whole five minutes, but I actually believe that we will manufacture cars in this country again, either out of necessity or out of our own ingenuity. I have a great belief in Australians. We still have the capability to build cars. We still have the capability to design cars. We still have the ingenuity and the determination to make different products that we can export around the world. We need to become a country that does that. We heard about hydrogen from the previous speaker. My problem today is that I'm in the moment, and in the moment, as the members of this parliament know, one of the major inhibitors to what we're doing as a country is our supply-chain issues. There cannot be a better example of supply-chain issues than around shortages of antibiotics, for instance, in this country. In Australia there are shortages of antibiotics. There are shortages of amoxicillin. There are shortages of warfarin, which a lot of people rely on to control their blood pressure. There are shortages of the ingredients of antibiotics that your pharmacist would use to mix you the drug themselves. Some pharmacists still have the ability to do that. They'll mix you the drug themselves so you can be protected. If they can't get hold of it from their supplier, they will make it for you. It may take a little bit longer, but at least you can be serviced. We cannot afford, in this country, the issues supply-chain problems cause. It's been said: 'It's manufacturing. It's unexpected increase in demand.' No, the demand has been pretty consistent all the way through, unless the nation's getting sicker and sicker by the day. I didn't believe that to be the case, perhaps until now, where we are being confronted with hospital ramping right across the country. All of our hospitals are filled, and no-one's asking any questions. Why is this happening? Why do we have shortages of all these antibiotics? Why do we have shortages of warfarin? Surely it can't be that somebody's holding something back. There's no reason to; they want to sell their product. Now we're talking about things like paracetamol—that you should stock up on paracetamol because the government is going to start to ration paracetamol. A lot of people rely on paracetamol to get through the day, for whatever reason for their health and wellbeing. I know that each government that I've seen come in—and I've seen a lot of governments come and go—has had a different view on the area of manufacturing and how they will go about it. I see this program as, really, the government renaming an old government program that was of great benefit to my electorate in supporting new innovations, supporting jobs and supporting the growth of industries, especially West Gippsland sawmillers, who became West Gippsland trusses and then West Gippsland manufacturers. For all of those issues, whenever government has come in and offered support, that has grown business and has made a difference. I believe the government is determined in this area to make a difference. However, we need to address these critical shortages now, before it becomes a crisis, because, with the way we're going with the shortages of pharmaceuticals, this could become a crisis overnight, right across Australia. That's a crisis we can't afford. We can't afford it for our belts, for our older people especially and for our most vulnerable and their children. It's up to us. The buck stops with us—remember that. We're the last port of call. The buck stops here in the federal parliament. It's got nowhere else to go, only here. So these shortages have to be addressed and addressed now. 18:17 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The COVID-19 pandemic showed us how vulnerable Australia's supply chains really were. It taught us that revitalising Australian manufacturing was so important because we had to not only diversify our economy and create sustainable and secure jobs but guard against future shocks. Our government was elected last year on a mandate to drive the transformation of Australian industry and to revive our ability to make world-class products in Australia—sophisticated products, advanced manufacturing products. Manufacturing matters because it creates full-time, meaningful work and secure jobs, and insures against those shocks. We saw through the pandemic that our supply chains were under huge pressure. Products we expected to have were hard to obtain. We need to revitalise manufacturing after years of neglect—let's be honest—from those opposite, the coalition government. They had nine industry ministers in nine years, and, as a result of that lack of continuity and a lack of genuine desire to have a manufacturing industry that is sophisticated and world-class, the manufacturing industry is in tatters. As the member for Spence quite correctly articulated, they goaded the car manufacturing industry in Australia, in South Australia, to leave the country, and it did. As the member for Monash—who I've got a lot of time for—reminded us, General Motors-Holden had been making motor vehicles here since 1949. When I saw former treasurer Joe Hockey in the parliament last week, I was reminded how Holden were goaded into leaving. Back then he was on the cigars, celebrating, when it was such a shameful period of federal government in this nation. Thankfully, we now have a Labor federal government which believes in Australian manufacturing industry, and that's why we are delivering the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, a key platform to support, diversify and transform Australia's industry and to create those sustainable, well-paying jobs that I just mentioned. The NRF will provide finance—including loans, guarantees and equity—to drive investments in seven priority areas of the Australian economy. These will leverage Australia's natural and competitive strengths, support the development of strategically important industries and shore up our supply chains. I think it's worth mentioning the priority areas, which are: resources; the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector; transport; medical science; renewables and low-emissions technologies; defence capability—so important in this day and age—and other enabling capabilities. Our government has previously announced targeted investment levels for specific priority areas of up to $3 billion for renewables and low-emissions technologies; $1½ billion for medical manufacturing, which is where we have so much potential; and $1 billion for value-adding in resources—so not just digging it and shipping it, but doing more processing here. There's $1 billion for critical technologies and $1 billion for advanced manufacturing, such as what we will be doing up in Darwin, which is building, constructing, aircraft—amphibious aircraft. And that company, AAI, has already got presales coming in. But that would have been unthinkable under the former government, the same mob who chased the advanced manufacturing sector in motor vehicles out of the country. There's $500 million for value-adding in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and fibre, which is so important to our farmers. I really look forward to this fund getting to work, and I congratulate the minister for the work he has done to date. We're looking forward to hosting him next month, up in Darwin. Australia is rich, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, as you well know, with critical resources. I also note that next month we will have an ASPI critical minerals conference up in Darwin. The Northern Territory has abundant critical minerals. They're important for our transition to renewable energy, and they go into things like phones and will go into EVs into the future. So there will be car manufacturing in this country again, under our government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 I thank the member. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Trucking Industry 171 18:22 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges the vital role the Australian trucking industry plays in the transportation of goods along the supply chain; (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; (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; (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; (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. If there's one thing that the last 11 months of the federal Labor government has shown—and what is shaping, sadly, to be the Albanese Labor legacy—it is that almost everything costs more under Labor. Fruit and vegetables are up 8.5 per cent, bread and cereals are up 12.2 per cent and dairy products are up 14.9 per cent. I'm not even going to go into the price of households' energy bills. The fact is: this Labor government is hell-bent on implementing policies whose net effect is to increase the cost of living for every Australian. Last week I spoke about how those opposite have opened tenders for water buybacks to recover water for the environment in the Murray-Darling Basin. I spoke about how this policy would drive up the cost of fresh fruit and vegetables because less productive water available for irrigation of crops means more expensive water, and more expensive water means more expensive fruits and vegetables. Today I'm speaking on how Labor's plans to increase truckie taxes will drive up cost-of-living pressures on local families and businesses and accelerate closures for families and small operations in the transport sector. The proposed 10 per cent—10 per cent!—annual increase to the heavy vehicle road users charge would see the tax that heavy vehicle operators pay at fuel pumps go from the current 27.2 cents per litre up to 36.2 cents per litre by 1 July 2025. The proposal also includes the state and territory governments raising the road components of heavy vehicle registration charges by up to 10 per cent per year for three years. It's a 10 per cent double whammy. All the goods we buy get to the shops where the consumer is by travelling on the back of a truck—everything, whether it be grown locally on a farm or made in a factory. At a time of high inflation and with the cost-of-living crisis impacting families, it beggars belief that the Labor government wants to excessively increase taxes on transport, which is an essential input into everything we buy. It's a reckless proposal that will only exacerbate the reality that everything costs more under Labor. Labor wants to increase taxes on our nation's truckies to pay for road maintenance. This is despite cancelling, cutting and delaying road infrastructure projects in October's budget and failing to approve a single project under the Northern Australian Roads Program over their nine months in office. Labor is proposing to increase the heavy vehicle road user charge on fuel and truck registration charges by up to 10 per cent. As I said, this will lift the fuel cost at the bowser from 27.2c per litre to 36c per litre. This is not the right time to be increasing road user charges, particularly heavy vehicle road user charges. Those opposite either have a tin ear or don't want to listen. Everywhere I go, the first, second and third issue of concern for people is cost-of-living pressures. If you were trying to develop a policy which inevitably would drive up the cost of everything we buy, whether it's at the supermarket, the mall, the rural store or even a fair, you would increase the road user charges, because, as I said, every good we buy got to the shop—or, if not to the shop, got to our porch—on the back of a truck and, in many cases, on successive trucks. So I implore those opposite: can you just pause for a minute and listen to your constituents, unless of course, like Senator Farrell, you're going to stand on your pins and say, 'I haven't had anyone approach me on these issues.' The DEPUTY SPEAKE 265980 Is the motion seconded? Mr Birrell 288713 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak 18:27 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I look forward to getting into the meat of the motion in a moment, but first I must address some of the issues the member for Barker has raised. The crocodile tears from those opposite about the cost of living cannot be ignored. This is a mob that, over nine years in government, had a deliberate policy to keep wages low in this country. They were very happy to see penalty rates cut for low-income workers and shift workers, they were very happy, when the opposition leader was the health minister, to see Medicare increases, and, of course, we know they also voted in December against energy price relief. Yet they come into this place and cry these crocodile tears about the cost of living, when, for nine years, they did just about everything possible to drive up the cost of living for households and keep wages low. This government, since coming to office, has introduced cheaper medicines. That's one concrete step we've taken. We're introducing cheaper child care, which is a major issue for families, and of course we're backing higher wages. These are some of the very important things we are doing to address the cost of living. The reason for the cost-of-living increases are well known and well ventilated. The war in Ukraine has driven global inflation higher, and not just in Australia. It didn't start under our government; it started under their government. Of course it's continuing now, and we are addressing it, as we take advice on how to do that. I stand before you today to talk about the vital role that trucking plays in the transportation of goods along the supply chain. Australians rely on trucking, and I'm proud to stand here as a supporter of the Australian trucking industry. In my home state of Tasmania, transport is the backbone of our economy. It facilitates growth in key sectors of construction, agriculture, aquaculture and exports. More than 12,000 Tasmanians are employed in transport and logistics, and I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank each and every one of them. It's worth noting that, in his latter years, shortly before his retirement, my late father was an owner-driver, an independent operator of a small flatbed truck. He did a number of jobs over his years—merchant seaman, machinist, nurse—but his last job before his retirement was as an independent flatbed truck owner-operator. The Albanese Labor government is delivering on a $140 million heavy vehicle rest area initiative. These are being rolled out across my electorate. It's fantastic to see them going in. We are also committing to an $80 million Freight Capacity Upgrade Program which further improves freight access on Tasmania's state road network. This program will increase the freight capacity of critical and regional freight routes throughout Tasmania by strengthening or replacing various bridges and improving sections of road. The first stage includes the strengthening of 11 bridges, the replacement of two bridges and road improvements at 14 sites across Tasmania. In my electorate this includes replacing Sassafras Creek Bridge and strengthening the Wellard Bridge and the Denison Canal Bridge. The Albanese government is committed to improving road safety and freight efficiency, and this investment will ease congested roads while also creating opportunities for Tasmanians. When I say we are committed to improving road safety and freight efficiency, that goes directly to the member for Barker's motion, because you need money to improve and maintain roads. I think the member for Barker forgets this—that trucks travel on roads, and roads need money to be maintained and upgraded. This may have escaped the notice of the member for Barker, but trucks are getting heavier and bigger, and there are more of them, and the road network needs to take account of that. That's why it's important to have the funding. It is really important, and I'm sure my good friend the member for Spence will go into this in some detail. This is a collaborative approach. The approach that the member for Barker is barking about in fact is a collaborative approach. It's not just the federal government. We are doing this in partnership with the states and territories and industry groups. This is people talking together, finding out what is the best way forward for the industry to make sure that we have the road network that we need to keep goods moving and to have a safe environment for the truck drivers, who we all have so much incredible respect for. They do incredible work, day in, day out. The Labor government will always stand with truck drivers and their families, because there is nothing more important, frankly, than making sure a truck driver comes home to their family safe and sound. 18:32 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I'm very pleased to speak in support of the motion from the member for Barker. Like the member for Barker, I represent a significant food bowl, and it isn't just delicious apples, pears, plums and tomatoes that come from the fertile irrigated soils of the Goulburn Valley. Those early orchardists soon realised they needed to transport their goods to market, so they bought a truck. Many started carting fruit for others, and then they bought another truck and then another, and, as well as carting produce to market, they started carting goods back from the capital cities and later expanded to general freight and interstate transport. Nicholls is a real trucking area, particularly around the greater Shepparton region. The result is that, historically, around 30 per cent of all heavy vehicles registered in Victoria are based in my electorate. That is why I have no hesitation in speaking against this proposal for up to 10 per cent annual increases in heavy vehicle charges for three years running. As soon as I heard about it, I did what you should do as a local member and I met up with transport operators and representatives from the fruit industry in my electorate. Their message to me was that this would mean that smaller players and independents would be unable to pay the proposed tax increases or pass them on, making them unviable and the industry less competitive. They said that larger transport companies would pass on the costs, and primary producers would have to absorb some of the pain, making them less profitable and viable, and costs would also be borne by the end user, the consumer, and Australians would end up paying more for the clean, healthily grown food that this nation is so renowned for producing. Transport companies and supply chains are still recovering from the disruption of the pandemic and are dealing with higher fuel prices and operating costs. The cost-of-living pressures are hitting all Australians through more expensive grocery prices, inflated fuel costs, soaring energy costs and rising interest rates, causing mortgage stress. So at a time when Australian families are already struggling to balance their household budgets we have a government that literally wants to drive a truck through it like a proverbial wrecking ball. Every heavy vehicle that uses Australian roads pays a vehicle registration fee. Operators also pay a road user charge on diesel and fuel. State and territory governments use the money to maintain and improve the roads for heavy vehicles. Truckies have no issue with tax, but Labor is proposing to increase these heavy vehicle road user charges on fuel and these truck registration charges by up to 10 per cent per year for three years. That would lift the fuel tax truckies pay from 27.2 cents a litre to 36.2 cents a litre by 1 July, according to the National Transport Commission, raising an additional $2.6 billion over three years. There's no support for this huge hike. The industry groups I've talked to—farmers and truckies—are not supportive. Not one submission in response to the implementation options paper supported the 10 per cent cost-recovery model. There's another option on the table to increase charges by 18 per cent over three years. This would also have widespread negative impacts. The Australian Trucking Association submitted in response to the options paper that truck charges should be frozen for 2023-24, followed by modest annual increases of 2.7 per cent. The former coalition government froze the heavy vehicle road user charge in 2020 in consideration of the economic impacts on the transport sector and economy from the COVID-19 pandemic and border restrictions. Common sense was applied, and common sense should apply here. That's what we do in the Nationals—bring common sense to Canberra. Australian families are already getting the inflationary hamburger with the lot. The cost of bread and cereal is up 12.2 per cent, the cost of fruit and vegetables is up 8.5 per cent, the cost of dairy is up 14.9 per cent and the cost of meat is up 8.2 per cent, based on some terrible policies towards agriculture, quite frankly. This will just add to it. Don't add to the already high cost of living under Labor. Apply some common sense and scrap the truckie tax increases. 18:37 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke I rise today to speak on the important matter of making sure that our trucking industry across Australia is safe, is sustainable and works for all Australians. Transport workers keep our country moving. Our supply chains rely on them every day. Those workers show up and have shown up all the way through COVID. It is altogether welcome that those opposite finally recognise that the trucking industry is made up of hundreds of thousands of hardworking Australians. They want to embrace that, after 10 years of not having done so. They're just late to the party on this. It's great that they're there finally, but it has taken them 10 years, 10 years of undermining and taking advantage of this workforce and this industry. Finally you've come to the table. That's great news. We welcome you. You're a little bit late and you've stuffed up a few things along the way, but you finally got there, so that's ripping good news. Make no mistake, those opposite, despite what they say in here, are not on the side of truckies nor logistics workers in general. They've done everything in their power to make it harder to be a truck driver in this country. They did that for the last decade while they were in government. Our roads are the workplaces of so many Australians. In my electorate of Hawke we know what it means to work in the transport industry. More than 2,300 are people employed in road freight and transport in Hawke alone. This industry has the second-highest employment rate out of any industry in our community. It's second only to health care and community services. We're surrounded by freight and logistics businesses. We're not far from the port of Melbourne and are bounded by the Western Highway, Australia's second-biggest freight corridor. This matters to my community. My community gets it. Road transport is a major contributor to Australia's economy, delivering around $31.1 billion in the 12 months to June 2022, and it will keep growing. Our road transport workers are the backbone of our nation's supply chains. We found that during COVID. Supporting our transport industry by paying our truck drivers fairly means safer and more secure work conditions for those workers and safer roads for our community. Pressure on our nation's truck drivers has real-life consequences, and those consequences, as we know, can be disastrous. There are always improvements to be made in this sector, and I'll be on the side of the transport workers every step of the way. The industry comes with its own set of challenges, particularly when it comes to safety. Sadly, road transport remains Australia's deadliest industry. Truck crashes are leaving families devastated and wreaking havoc across our communities. Incidents of injury, death and chronic health impacts are all too common, and, when coupled with perilous working conditions and wage theft, it's clear that this is an industry that sorely needs reform. This is all part of the push for a fairer system—one that recognises the pressures faced by transport workers and operators, and rebalances the system. The top end of the supply chain shouldn't be the only ones that reap the dividends of the hard work put in every step of the way by transport workers. Better conditions and safer rates are the basic premise of improvements that need to be made to this system, and we have a Labor government that's on your side when it comes to this, so that mums and dads come home to their kids and can provide for their families, put food on the table and keep the lights on. The Liberals have form when it comes to undermining transport workers and our transport industry. In 2008, the National Transport Commission found that low rates of pay for truck drivers were linked to dangerous outcomes for transport workers and for the community. Following this, the Labor government established the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which secured minimum pay rates and lifted standards across the industry. But, as they always do, in 2016, the previous Liberal government got rid of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, Australia's road safety watchdog, and turned their backs on transport workers across our country. As usual, we're moving to clean up standards in the industry, with the key outcome from our recent Jobs and Skills Summit being to consider allowing the Fair Work Commission to set fair minimum standards to ensure that road transport industry is safe, sustainable and viable. So, while those opposite push for out-there changes that make things abjectly worse for transport workers that and disregard the industry when they say that they need certainty and responsible oversight, it's Labor that time and time again has to clean up their mess. Rather than throwing stones from the sidelines, we're getting on with the job of governing for all Australians. That's what responsible governments do. That's what this government must do to clean up the mess left by the previous government and back in transport workers across our country. We'll keep working collaboratively to make sure we get this right because every worker in Australia deserves a safe work place, especially our transport workers who keep our country moving. 18:42 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright Thank you, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Before coming to this parliament I was fortunate to have 25 years in the transport sector. I was a small business man. I owned a company by the name of CQX, or Central Queensland Express, and Toowoomba Express Couriers. I employed 105 people in the sector and I ran 14 depots around Queensland in regional and remote areas. I want to commend the member for Barker for bringing this very technical motion before the House. I fear, listening to the valued contribution from those opposite, that they may have picked up the wrong speaking points when coming into the parliament to make a contribution to what is something that will have an enormous shockwave through the transport industry. I can only assume that the member for Barker has brought this motion forward because of the collapse the other day the other day of Scott's Refrigerated Logistics, which, I believe, is in his electorate. It shows how fragile the industry is. As a former transport minister in this space, I would like to shed some light on Scott's of Mount Gambier, if you want to search it. An honourable member interjecting— Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Yes, but they've got depots all around the country with their refrigerated warehousing. When we get to what the member for Barker is fighting against, it's a 10 per cent annual increase. This increase just doesn't happen organically. Normally, we hold it at CPI. It's a decision that's made by each of the state transport ministers and the federal transport and infrastructure minister. During COVID we froze those numbers because the industry was on its knees. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the transport industry during COVID for getting everything that's in this place. Everything that's on our shelves, everything we wear, all our clothing and all our food arrives through the transport sector. The transport industry clip the ticket. At the moment, the transport industry has been absorbing a CPI cost of around 2.4. I think the last time I met with the ministers was when we applied a CPI cost. This calculation that's been put forward by the department for a 10 or 11 per cent increase was done on a sliding scale, and they're applying a depreciation model of the assets of our roadways. That's fine if you're having to borrow money and you're applying that depreciation schedule across the board. But the bulk of the funding from the states is done on a fifty-fifty ratio, so my argument is that the depreciation schedule shouldn't be applied at the 11 per cent—that's the accounting side of it—because the industry cannot substantiate or handle a 10 per cent increase. Making arguments around safe rates couldn't be any further from the motion that the member for Barker has put forward. This is not about the safe rates of truck drivers who, as a nation and a parliament, we owe a great debt of gratitude to for what they do. Without them, as the slogan goes, our country would stop, and there are no truer words. I'm sharing with the parliament that, as a former transport operator, an increase like that is not something that can be simply passed on to the sector. There is a thing called an annualised fuel levy that you can pass on. But if you're contracted—and I know, from the contracts that I had with major companies—there's no provision to actually pass that on. When you think about transport companies, please, as an Australian public, do not think that the biggest transport operators are the norm. The average transport operator in Australia has got five trucks, and they're not those big companies with the flash logos that automatically come to your mind. They're mums and dads. They're family businesses. Most of the dads are in the truck driving, and there are two or three other drivers. Mum is at home doing the bookkeeping, and, on the weekends—I tell you what—they're doing oil and grease changes. They cannot handle a 10 per cent increase. For those on the other side, when you want to speak against this, get up close and leave your name on the microphone. If you're going to own a 10 per cent increase to the transport sector— (Time expired) Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 Before I call the next member, I ask that we please respect each other in this place, and can we please ensure that the member who is on their feet is heard in silence. 18:47 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I rise today to contribute to the debate on the trucking industry. Since I was elected the member for Hunter I've been doing lots driving—a lot of driving to and from Canberra and a lot of driving all around my electorate, which spans from Muswellbrook in the north all the way to Wyee in the south. This alone has been enough for me to gain an even greater respect for our truckies, because, while I say I do a lot of driving, it's nothing compared to what those in the trucking industry do. They often drive through the day and night in large vehicles, doing hard hours and spending time away from their families. I have no doubt that being a truck driver is a tough job. It is an industry filled with hard workers, who all make their own fair share of sacrifices to show up to work every day and provide for their families. As I drive around I see a lot of trucks of all sizes carrying all sorts of goods. Sometimes as I drive behind these trucks all around my electorate I notice a sign on the back of a truck that reads 'Without trucks Australia stops'. This could not be any truer. Trucks, and the truckies who drive them, are the reason our supermarkets have food on the shelves. They are the reason our servos have fuel in their bowsers. They are a big reason why our farmers can get their produce to market and to export and why our cattle farmers can put steak on our plates. Road transport is a major part of our economy. In the 12 months to June 2022, the industry contributed $31.1 billion to our economy. To put it simply, truck drivers and the trucking industry are the reason we are able to move goods to all corners of the huge country that we live in and live the way that we do. For this we all owe a great deal of appreciation and a great debt to this industry and those who are in it. My electorate of Hunter knows how important the trucking industry is and so do I. There are parts of my electorate that do not even have a train station or a train line which is currently in use. The only way that these parts of my electorate—like Cessnock, which has a population nearing 60,000—can get goods that are needed by all who live there is by having them transported by trucks. Another part of my electorate, Morisset, is located smack-bang in the middle of one of the busiest transportation routes in this country. It is the perfect spot for truck drivers going between Melbourne and Brisbane to stop and have a rest before continuing their long and tiring journeys. So, yes, I understand the importance of the trucking industry, and my electorate understands the importance of the trucking industry. The government understands the importance of the trucking industry and the heavy reliance that we all have on it as a nation. State and territory transport ministers, along with the Commonwealth, have collectively asked the National Transport Commission to undertake consultation on the next increase to the road user charge. This is not a process the Commonwealth undertakes independently. The National Transport Commission has been consulting on a range of charge options. Consultation is what responsible governments do, and I can advise those opposite that no final decision has yet been reached on this heavy-vehicle charge. Rather than whingeing from the sidelines or opposing for opposition's sake, this government will continue working collaboratively with the states and territories to deliver more certainty for the road transport sector and to ensure investment in our regional roads can continue. This is what governments must do to clean up the mess left from the previous government. There is not a single member in the Labor Party who wants to see the trucking industry doing it tough. As I said, we understand how important this industry is and we appreciate the industry. More importantly, we support the trucking industry. We want to see them continue doing the important work that they do in order to pay their bills and support their families. I want to finish by once again saying thank you to all in the trucking industry: thank you to the truck drivers, thank you to the admin workers, thank you to the freight coordinators, thank you to the forkies—and I must thank all the families of the drivers who are waiting for their husbands and their wives to come home to their kids. This is one of the most dangerous industries we have in Australia, and I thank them for all they do. I really wish they all get home safely to their families. 18:52 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I want to acknowledge the member for Barker for bringing forward this motion to the House this evening. I am also calling on the government to rule out the proposed increase in the heavy-vehicle road user charge because, if it goes ahead, the tax increase would affect nearly every owner-operator and transport business right around not just my south-west but the whole of Australia. It will push up the cost of living even further for families, increase the cost of doing business and increase the risk to our transport and logistics operators. For those who may not be aware, my father was a pioneer of transport, cartage and earthmoving in the south-west, and my broader family is still deeply involved with the transport sector, so it's something that I have a lot of interest in and a direct passion for. When we consider that there are 60,000 small and family owned businesses already operating on really tight margins, with, as we've heard previously, the average transport business having five trucks and being a small business, we know that they cannot pass on the increased costs from a 10 per cent annual increase. This is not about safe rates, as one of the operators that sent me an email said. He said the government is overlooking the impact that this will have on remote areas, where quite often—and this is something that not everybody understands—the value of the transport is more than the value of the product. That may be fruit and vegetables going into remote areas and stores, where, otherwise, communities would be seriously disadvantaged. That's often overlooked, and I think it has been overlooked by this government in looking at this particular issue. When you look at Wyndham, for instance, freight forwarders are simply not sending food that is not of a high profit margin for them, so we end up with, basically, fruit and vegetables disadvantaged to the chicken and chips on each load. That is no good for individuals. I had another email, and this was from a small operator: We are in the transport business and I know if that you put this $.10 levy on the tax Fuel a lot of small businesses like mine and multiple others will not be able to cope with another Tax I think we pay enough tax already by our registrations and insurances and multiple other things that we have to pay out we are finding it already hard enough to deliver the goods around Australia especially around W.A. You will find that if this $.10 goes on there will be a lot of companies that will not be able to survive this which will up the cost of everybody else getting things delivered … That really says it all. I just want people who are listening and maybe watching to think about, for instance, your breakfast. If you're having cereal, the fertiliser and grain comes on the back of a truck. The grain is carted from the farm to the processor on the back of a truck. Then it is the same when it goes to go a small manufacturer, a supermarket or a distribution centre: it goes on a truck. To produce the milk that goes on your cereal, my farm operates with fertiliser, feed and cattle carted by a truck. The milk goes in a refrigerated truck to the processor and then on to the supermarket once it has been manufactured. That's only breakfast, and that's just cereal. Before I finish, to every truck driver that is out there: just know there are a lot of us in this place who are as passionate as you are about this industry and really respect and value what you do, day and night. I know very well about the long-distance truck drivers, the drivers of B-doubles and road trains. The work you do is extraordinary. My dad always said there were two types of truck drivers: drivers and operators. He said, 'A driver will hang onto the wheel, and an operator will care about the machine, the truck, and look after it so that, when it comes back, it's in mint condition, as much as they can manage.' So, to all of the operators out there, I say thank you very much. I'm well and truly on your side. I respect what you do. I know that my colleagues on this side of the House who've had a lot of experience in this space respect that as well. I also want to really thank the very small operators, the small businesses—some of our livestock transporters and others—who often find it very difficult to operate in very remote communities, but they keep doing the work we need them to do to keep Australia moving. I thank them very much for their efforts. 18:57 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Barker. The member never fails to bring about a lively debate during private member's business. As we have come to know, it's all bark and no bite from him at times. Yet we can still reach across the chamber and agree on a number of things across a number of policy areas. In fact, it would be quite easy to agree with the statement in the member for Barker's motion which acknowledges the vital role the Australian trucking industry plays in the transportation of goods along the supply chain. If this was ever a surprise to anyone, the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic certainly put an end to anyone's misgivings about the importance of our trucking industry and freight more generally. Road transport keeps Australia moving. The industry generated a whopping $31.1 billion for our economy in the 12 months prior to June 2022. It's an industry that has been growing year by year, both in what it generates for our economy and by way of tonne kilometres travelled across Australia. The member for Barker, and indeed anyone who knows me well enough, would know my background as a proud member and senior official of the Transport Workers Union. On top of that, I have had more than five years driving in the cash-in-transit industry. Whilst the road user charge is indeed ranked amongst issues faced by those in the industry, I'm sure the member for Barker would agree that there are issues such as adequate rest stops for a truck drivers, dealing with issues around fatigue. I will just correct the record. The member for Wright made a comment earlier regarding Scott's of Mount Gambier. The company that went broke just a over a week ago was Scott's Refrigerated Logistics. The reason I know that is that I've represented those workers for more than half a decade. So I know those drivers, and I know those people that are inside those facilities packing those trucks. I won't take lectures from those opposite regarding my knowledge. As well as discussing some of those matters and trying to correct the record, I think it's worth noting that, in reference to the figure $31.1 billion which I quoted earlier, I'm aware that at the same time $33 billion was invested in our roads. I can recall the member for Barker moving a motion in this place earlier this year regarding road funding. Despite all else, he pleaded with this chamber to call on the government to spend 100 per cent of what was raised by the fuel excise on roads. However, I know that the member for Barker would have been aware that the heavy vehicle road user charge is set by state, territory and Commonwealth governments cooperatively. The charge is to assist with funding repairs and maintenance from wear and tear from heavy vehicles traversing our roads. As important a job that road transport does in our economy as part of our supply chain, the fact is that heavy vehicles' use of roads will cause a need for repairs over time, and the more funding that goes into pre-emptive repairs rather than repairing large defects to the roads makes roads safer for all road users. Previous members spoke about this. You're 13 times more likely to die on the road as a truck driver in this country. It's an absolute travesty. We do need roads which are safe and which allow our freight to be delivered around this country in the safest possible way. The member for Barker should also know that the freeze of the charge in 2021—which was done in support of truck drivers, rather than in spite of them—had what I'd like to believe were some unintended consequences. The road user charge does not directly increase the cost of diesel in the way you'd think it would; rather it decreases the fuel tax credit a heavy vehicle user can claim. Logically, knowing this, you can see the consequences this would have on truckies who were, only moments earlier, jubilant to hear of a freeze being put in place. Ultimately, transport ministers in all levels of government and of all political persuasions have asked for an increase to be set over a number of years in the future to allow for certainty in the industry. This is an outcome that everyone from active participants to observers can see is a positive step in the right direction in the industry. I want to close on one final thing. This is a really important matter and, if it matters so much to the member for Barker, he would have shown some respect and stayed in this chamber until the close of this debate. I thank the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next day of sitting. Economy 177 19:03 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey It is an honour to speak on this motion. The member's motion talks about the decade of challenges. I was looking for where it acknowledges the COVID crisis which we all lived through for three years and which obviously impacted a lot of these challenges that we faced as a nation. But there was no acknowledgement of that in the motion, so I'll take that as a comment from the member for Hawke. In detailing the activity during the 10 months of this government, the member for Hawke talks about the minimum wage increase. There is a very interesting part of the wages discussion that he has not spoken about. During the campaign, the then opposition leader and the then shadow treasurer, who are now the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, spoke a lot about real wages, but we find that, after the election, we're not getting anything from this government or from this motion about real wages. It makes you wonder why they're choosing not to talk about real wages, and the answer is that real wages are falling. In fact, the fall in real wages is the deepest fall in real wages on record. The then opposition leader, who is now the Prime Minister, talked a lot prior to the election about how he was going to get real wages moving. They don't talk about that now because they don't like the fact that real wages are going backwards. We then move on to the second point, about cheaper child care and cheaper medicines. Again, the devil is always in the detail. They talk a lot about cheaper child care, which had bipartisan support. Everyone across the House supported this policy. But the government didn't move when, late last year, there were calls from those in the industry, from across the country, to bring forward to 1 January the rebates, to give genuine relief to Australians who were struggling then. They didn't move to bring them forward to 1 January. In fact, we had the Prime Minister in question time last week crowing about how, in a hundred days time, people would get relief. We've been in this parliament for 10 months and we've listened repeatedly to this government talking about the amazing things it's doing in child care, which have bipartisan support. But when the opportunity came to bring it forward to make a difference to Australians today—they need relief and help today, not in a hundred days time—this government wasn't there for the Australian people who needed it. They talk about the amazing work they've done on cheaper medicines. They're happy to talk about that. But they're not prepared to talk about the mental health sessions that they have cut. Mental health sessions were at 20, and they've moved them to 10. They're very quick to go, 'That was a decision of the former government.' Guess what? You're in government. You have the ability to change that. There are plenty of things you've changed. This government were very happy to rip $100 million out of my electorate—when there was a written contract to seal roads, which had bipartisan support. They were happy to make that change. So it's pretty galling when they stand here and talk about what they're doing for health when they've ripped money out of mental health sessions. The motion moves on to energy. Ironically, they're talking about cheaper energy, but there won't be. There's that number that the Prime Minister does not like to talk about, the $275 reduction in power bills. That promise, again, was made prior to the election. Twenty-eight times after the invasion of Ukraine, the Prime Minister, then the opposition leader, continued to make that promise. He knew he was using modelling based on December numbers. A key input was the Russian war on Ukraine, which he has acknowledged changed that. Yet he still made those changes and did not look to change his language until after the election. We then go down to talking about responsible budgets. This is one of my favourites. Forty-five billion dollars—that's an important number. It's the amount of off-budget spending this government has committed to so that the Treasurer can stand up and talk about the responsible budget that he's delivering. It is all about spin and optics, because every dollar that they're spending is driving inflation. And there are question marks against whether any of that off-budget spending is actually going to deliver a commercial return. That's the sting in the tail for them. It has to deliver a commercial return. So it's a great motion moved by the member for Hawke that lacks the complete details. It's all politics and spin, which is all we get from the Albanese Labor government. 19:08 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I thank the member for Hawke for bringing this motion to this place because it really outlines what this government has done in 10 short months—not only putting into practice the promises that we took to the election but dealing with the challenges that we've faced since we came to government. For too long, hardworking Australians have been struggling to make ends meet as their wages have gone backwards, as their bills have grown and as the cost of essential goods and services have risen. From energy bills to child care, housing and healthcare costs, the daily cost of living has become a massive burden for many Australians. And last year the Australian people knew that they needed a government that was not afraid to take these issues head-on. They wanted a government with a plan, not one that was focused on themselves and not one that ignored their concerns. That's why they put their faith in a new government to take on the important responsibility of repairing our economy after a decade of neglect and indifference by those opposite. This government has a plan to address the complex economic challenges that our country faces, and we now know what a terrible job those opposite did in managing our economy. We heard today in question time minister after minister identifying program after program that was not funded in the budget. They were empty announcements with no funding, leaving the budget booby trapped for the incoming government. They also had no plan to deal with inflation. They hid energy price rises instead of being honest with our community, and they left us with a trillion dollars worth of Liberal debt and with nothing to show for it. The Liberals and Nationals had no plan to fix the economy that they trashed. So the nation elected a new government to deal with it. We have delivered and we will continue to deliver not just short-term measures to help address this problem but also a comprehensive and multifaceted approach to address the root causes of these issues and to provide Australians with long-term solutions and economic stability. We are providing genuine relief to household budgets through a large range of measures that we have already delivered. Because of Labor, child care will be cheaper. For nearly 10,000 families in Bennelong, child care will be cheaper from 1 July, putting money back into household budgets. Because of Labor, medicines are already cheaper. There's been the first reduction in the cost of medicines on the PBS from $42.50 down to $30, delivering millions of dollars back to families across the country. And because of Labor, there are more university places available. There are 180,000 fee-free TAFE positions that are already in the system, helping workers retrain for the jobs of the future. And we know that, because of this government, we have got wages moving again. We also know that we'll deliver more renewable energy and build 400 community batteries, which will add gigawatts and gigawatts of the cheapest form of power available to the grid today. By prioritising the development of renewable energy sources, we'll provide not only affordable power but also long-term sustainable energy supply for all Australians. And, of course, we brought back parliament to implement a price cap on gas and coal, to shield households, industry and manufacturers from energy price spikes, to ensure that they keep their jobs and that they can deal with the hidden cost increases of the former government but also have a buffer against shocks in the future. We're also working hard to deal with the housing crisis. We know it's tough for lots of Australians to afford a home, especially if they're trying to buy or to rent for the first time, and we know the importance of secure and affordable housing. So we have legislation, which has passed the House and is awaiting approval in the Senate, to get hundreds of millions of dollars in investment into affordable housing, to make it easier for people to rent and own a home but also easier for institutional investors to invest in social housing. We've passed the National Reconstruction Fund, which will help deal with our supply chain issues and create jobs, stimulate economic growth and benefit all Australians. The coalition will continue to ignore all of these achievements. In 10 short months we've delivered a lot for the Australian people, but there is so much more to do. The coalition will continue to feign care for those impacted by the cost of living. They'll come up here and ask questions and put up matters of public importance. But they'll never present any solutions. As a responsible and new government, we'll continue to work with and be honest with the Australian people, to deliver restraint and repair of the budget—as we know, it definitely needs repair. By focusing on the economy and putting in policies and initiatives, we'll work hard for all Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber a djourned at 19:13