2023-03-28 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 28 March 2023

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

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023, Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023, Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023 1

Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023

Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that unless otherwise ordered the Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023, the Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023 are referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Joint Committee 1 Membership 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 53517 I've received advice from the Chief Government Whip that she has nominated Ms Templeman to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity in place of Ms Murphy. 12:02 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—I move: That Ms Murphy be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and that, in her place, Ms Templeman be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. Public Works Joint Committee 1 Report 1 12:02 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the committee's report 2 of 2023, Department of Defence, Cocos (Keeling) Islands airfield upgrade project and other works. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr PERRETT HVP by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's second report for 2023, and I see the deputy chair waiting eagerly on the other side of the chamber. This report considers two proposals referred to the committee in November last year with a combined value of just over $600 million. The first proposal, from the Department of Defence, is for a Cocos (Keeling) Islands airfield upgrade. The second proposal, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, is for the second stage of the Abuja Australian High Commission project in Nigeria. The purpose of Defence's airfield upgrade project is to improve the Cocos (Keeling) Islands airfield to support the operation of the Air Force's primary maritime surveillance aircraft—the P-8A Poseidon. The Cocos (Keeling) Islands are strategically important to Australia's west and uniquely positioned to support defence operations in the Indo-Pacific region. The total cost of the proposed project is just under $570 million. The committee noted throughout the inquiry that the project will have a strong impact on the small local community and was pleased to hear from Defence that extensive consultation has been undertaken, with a clear effort made to address community concerns. The committee urges Defence to continue a high level of community consultation and to quickly address any problems that might arise during the airfield works. One particular concern is the risk that the project poses to the water source on West Island, which was visited by the committee. The main aquifer sits directly under the runway, so water security for the local community is obviously of great concern. The committee notes Defence's collaboration with the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts to ensure a long-term water source. The agreed solution is the construction of a new seawater reverse osmosis plant. This project is currently being considered separately by the committee. The second project covered in this report is the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's Australian High Commission in Abuja, Nigeria. This project proposes building a new compound, including a permanent purpose-built chancery, a new head of mission residence and supporting facilities. The total cost of the proposed project is just over $38 million. Having an Australian high commission in Abuja enables Australia to showcase its physical presence in Nigeria and more widely in West Africa. The new compound will have a higher level of security and amenity than the existing buildings. The committee was interested to hear about the modular method of construction that will be used. Buildings will be prefabricated here in Australia, shipped to Nigeria and then reassembled on site. This method provides greater value for money, ensures compliance with relevant building codes and supports Australian manufacturers. The committee would like to extend its thanks to all those who provided written and oral evidence in support of these inquiries. The committee would particularly like to thank personnel from the Department of Defence and the department of infrastructure who made the committee's visit to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands possible—we did not go to Abuja. Viewing this unique and challenging location greatly helped the committee to assess the proposed works. Lastly the committee would like to thank the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories and her staff for facilitating and sharing the committee's travel to the Indian Ocean. For both projects, the committee recommends that it is expedient that the proposed works be carried out. I commend the report to the House. 12:06 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I'd like to make a brief contribution as the deputy chair. I'd like to thank the secretariat and the travelling delegation and acknowledge the work of the chair and the minister in what are some very remote locations in Australia. At Cocos, in particular, it's absolutely critical that a separate water source is provided. The three lenses that currently exist, two of which are contaminated, are essential—necessary not only for life on the island but for the upgrade, for the additional population that will find its way there and for this very substantial and significant investment in what is a remote territory for this country. The runway is obviously a key defence asset, and it is the only access apart from ship for the people who live on Cocos. In a rather unique turn, there is a golf course that gets suspended every time a plane lands, because it runs along the strip. I was so very pleased to see at both Cocos and Christmas Island the Australian flag flying proudly at the local official residences. I say to the individuals at Cocos and Christmas: you are part of Australia and you are part of our country. Our eyes are on you, and we are looking to provide support. As a separate aside, even I didn't know how big a contingent was based at Cocos in World War II. For example, there was an entire Spitfire squadron there, with many, many people working there. Christmas Island itself is unique. As we saw, there are more patches than pipe in the local water supply, and that is a critical investment which we discussed and looked at. I do want to acknowledge those who are working at the CI mine, the phosphate mine. It does deliver the majority of the economy. They are clearly very large users of not only the water supply, other resources and the ports and roads; they do provide a substantial number of jobs. I'd very strongly recommend to those who are looking at the expansion that they consider that favourably. There are just under 3,000 tourists who go to Christmas Island, who of course utilise that infrastructure as well. In that part of the world, they are the front line of Australia, and I do want to acknowledge the people who live in those remote and far-flung territories for the work that they do. Thanks to the minister for her support and, of course, to the delegation once again. Debate adjourned. BILLS 3 BILLS Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023 3

Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 3 12:09 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer The Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023 seeks to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 with three administrative changes, which are supported by the coalition. The bill will improve access to the Medicare Benefits Schedule for eligible persons requiring treatment for cleft and craniofacial conditions by removing the age restriction, which is currently 22 years. Schedule 2 enables Services Australia to use a computerised system to action decisions made by a specified body to place doctors on and remove doctors from the Register of Approved Placements. Schedule 3 is a technical amendment that relates to the Bonded Medical Program, rectifying inconsistencies and the length of a bonded participant's return-of-service obligation between the act and the rule, and making other related amendments to enhance the administration of the program. This legislation arose following the findings of the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review Taskforce report on the cleft dental services NBS items in 2020. It suggested that the current age limit of 22 years for eligible persons requiring treatment for cleft and craniofacial conditions be lifted. Age limits for access to the scheme were initially established on the basis that patients with cleft and craniofacial conditions would generally have completed most specialist dental work associated with their condition once their facial growth was complete—on average, at 22 years of age. However, there continues to be a small number of patients who are denied treatment on the basis of the age limit in circumstances where that treatment would be clinically beneficial to the patient's condition and general health. This bill will also serve the important purpose of enabling patients who have had their surgeries deferred beyond the age of 22 due to the COVID-19 pandemic to access Medicare benefits for the treatment they require. Cleft lip or palate conditions affect one in every 800 babies born in Australia. This bill will not significantly alter average patient numbers, but will nevertheless support improvements to patient treatment plans to ensure support is available for those affected by these conditions. The Albanese Labor government has stated that this bill will strengthen Medicare by making it fair and equitable for young people needing cleft palate and craniofacial procedures to access those procedures regardless of their age. The coalition absolutely supports the intention of this bill to improve access to affordable and life-changing procedures for those Australians impacted by these conditions and to ensure increased access to critical health care through Medicare. However, if the government is serious about strengthening Medicare and improving access to affordable and potentially life-changing or life-saving health care then they must pursue further urgent action to do so. The Strengthening Medicare Taskforce report, released by the government, whilst clear on the problems facing primary care in Australia, contains no specific actions, no funding and no time lines. Disappointingly, the report had no urgency. There's nothing in the report to address the immediate challenge facing our health system, which is workforce shortages. For months and months we have seen the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Aged Care talk about the crisis in health care and the workforce shortages that are putting significant pressures on the system. But we have not seen any tangible plan from the government to address this critical issue. In fact, all this government has done to date is weaken our Medicare system. Bulk-billing levels, which were at a record high when the coalition left government, have dropped because the health minister has broken confidence in the system by prioritising politics over healthcare outcomes. The government has cut hospital funding and slashed Medicare subsidised mental health support in half. They have ripped doctors out of rural, regional and remote Australia by changing the distribution priority areas for overseas trained doctors, and they have cut 70 telehealth items from Medicare. At a time when Australians are struggling with skyrocketing energy prices, mortgage repayments and grocery bills, we're now seeing the cost of going to the doctor skyrocketing too. Following the release of the report, the opposition has called on the government to immediately provide the time lines and details of the funding required to ease the pressure on Australia's hardworking doctors and nurses. The government needs to stop talking about the challenges facing Australians and start doing something about them. Actions speak louder than words; all we have seen from the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce report is just more words and still no actions. Aspirations are commendable, but without urgent action to follow they're not going to assist Australians with the significant cost-of-living pressures that are only continuing to rise. It's $55 for a script and $60 out of pocket for a GP, all while energy bills are increasing and inflation is skyrocketing. The coalition has remained absolutely committed to ensuring the sustainability of Medicare and that all Australians have access to Australia's world-class to health system. In government, the coalition increased Medicare funding every year. Total annual funding for Medicare increased under the coalition from $19 billion to $36 billion a year, increasing by over $1 billion annually. The introduction of universal telehealth under the former coalition government was also the most significant reform to Medicare since it was established. This saw more than one hundred million telehealth services delivered under the coalition, ensuring greater and more flexible access to healthcare support for over 17 million Australians, including those in rural and regional Australia. The Albanese government does not have a plan to address the critical workforce shortages in Australia's healthcare sector, particularly relating to general practice. Once again, we support the administrative improvements that are being introduced through this bill, particularly the affordable access to critical procedures that this legislation will provide to more young Australians impacted by cleft palate and craniofacial conditions. However, we will call on the government to follow up the release of their Strengthening Medicare Taskforce report with urgent tangible action to address the issues currently facing our healthcare system. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023 4

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023

Second Reading 4 12:16 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson This bill combines a number of tariff proposals that were tabled in parliament in August and November last year, as well as making minor name changes to align with the 2022 harmonised commodity description and coding system. In summary, the proposals incorporated in schedule 1 of this bill include: section 1, a 35 per cent tariff on top of the existing tariff payable on goods from Russia and Belarus; section 2, a free rate of tariff on goods that are the product or manufacture of Ukraine; section 3, an extension of free tariff designation on essential hygiene and medical related goods as established in response to COVID-19 pandemic; and section 4, a free tariff for certain electric and low-emissions vehicles. I want to make it clear from the outset that the coalition supports the first three tariff proposals in the strongest possible terms. The additional tariffs in relation to goods produced in Russia and Belarus, as well as continuing free status for goods from Ukraine, help meet our international obligations. The international community has rightly continued its strong condemnation of the Russian war on Ukraine. The invasion of Ukraine, over a year ago now, was illegal and unprovoked and has resulted in thousands of deaths. We have seen the ongoing violence and destruction over the past 12 months, and Australia has been clear: we stand with all democratic nations in our condemnation of Russia and in our admiration of the resolve of the Ukrainian leadership and people. Australia has been one of the largest non-NATO contributors and we have done so across a range of pillars. We have provided military support, and our unique Bushmaster vehicles have been particularly welcomed. We have provided cyberexpertise and support to help respond to Russian cyberattacks on key systems, including energy. We also provided humanitarian support, putting in place measures to help Ukrainians who were fleeing, in terms of visa access and the types of support they receive in Australia. As the coalition stated very firmly on the anniversary of the invasion, we honour the bravery and strength of the people of Ukraine, who continue to courageously defend their sovereignty, their freedom and their home. We grieve the fatalities and casualties at the hands of Russia's abhorrent actions, their brutality the cause of more than 7,199 civilian deaths and more than 11,756 injuries. Under the former coalition government, $255 million of defence military assistance, including 40 Bushmaster armoured vehicles and $65 million in humanitarian assistance, was provided to Ukraine's fight for freedom and to assist its people. Australia must not grow fatigued of helping Ukraine defend itself. It is imperative the Albanese government provide additional humanitarian support and further military assistance. The Australian embassy in Kyiv must be reinstated and join the 67 diplomatic missions which have already returned. This is our pledge and we will work in a bipartisan way to support government efforts towards these goals. Economic sanctions and penalties are another important part of Australia's response as part of the international community, so we strongly support sections 1 and 2 of schedule 1 in this bill. We also support section 3 of schedule 1, which permanently extends the tariff concession on medical and hygiene goods, including masks, soap, gloves, protective clothing and testing kits. This was first introduced in March 2020. The temporary concession was extended several times, most recently to 30 June 2022. In the March 2022 budget the coalition announced that the concession would be made permanent and the scope of the concession expanded to also provide a free rate of duty for ingredients and primary containers used in the manufacture of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. So we obviously welcome this measure. And we note that Australia's health record during the pandemic was among one of the best in the world. The strong measures the federal government took to secure our national border and to ensure the availability of vital medical products undoubtedly saved many thousands of lives. The one aspect of this bill that is a cause for concern is the decision to create a free rate of tariff for low emissions vehicles under the luxury car tax threshold limit. Our position on this has been clear. The coalition expressed opposition to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 on the basis that the money provided as a subsidy to some individual taxpayers would be better off invested in EV infrastructure for the future. That tax measure along with this tariff concession were the major platforms of Labor's EV policy, which we opposed prior to the election. I'd like to place on the record a few important facts in relation to this tariff cut. Direct EV subsidies and tax concessions are some of the most expensive forms of carbon abatement possible. The Productivity Commission has found that state and federal EV subsidies and tax exemptions have implicit carbon prices in the range of $2,000 to $20,000 a tonne of CO2, compared to the average $16 Australian carbon credit unit price under the coalition. It's also important to note that, as an importer of vehicles, EV supply is already constrained in Australia due to global demand and the scarcity of right-hand drive models. Subsidies and tax incentives increase demand without altering supply and; therefore, also have an inflationary effect. Importantly, 70 per cent of the top 10 countries from which we import passenger motor vehicles are already covered by a free trade agreement, largely secured by the coalition. So this measure only applies to a fraction of EVs, yet it constitutes the majority of the financial impact of this bill, representing a $140 million loss in revenue over forward estimates. The coalition's view is that consumer choice needs to be supported. What most people considering the purchase of EVs really want is a greater network of charging infrastructure. They want to know they can charge their car quickly. Greater charging infrastructure is what would improve uptake, not a personal subsidy. That is why, in government, we delivered the first national Future Fuels and Vehicle Strategy, which set out how the government would support a technology-led approach to reducing transport emissions, because that is the smartest and most efficient way we can support emissions reduction. The coalition committed $2.1 billion to partner with industry to support the uptake of low- and zero emissions vehicles. Our strategy would have generated around half a billion dollars of private and public co-investment and would have seen 84 percent of the population have convenient access to fast public charging. The coalition committed to back the strategy further with an expanded $250 million Future Fuels Fund to build the infrastructure that will allow motorists to charge or refuel across urban and regional Australia. This would have added to over 400 charging stations the coalition committed to in round 1 of the fund, which delivered a total of $79.9 million of public and private investment into Australia's fast charging network. Clearly, the revenue forgone with this tariff reduction would have gone a long way and done more to support uptake if invested in infrastructure. On this side of the House we recognise that tariffs, both their imposition and any concessions, are an important economic tool that can achieve significant outcomes and send a clear message on government policy. Our free trade agreements, championed by the coalition, have meant that Australia, a net export nation, faces fewer barriers to trade, and that is good for our farmers and our manufacturers. But tariffs should always be utilised in the national interest and in a way that is responsible and effective. The first three parts of schedule 1 achieve that objective. The fourth part does the opposite. It is inflationary and it is ridiculously expensive as a tool for emissions reduction. The coalition will support the bill on the basis of the significance and importance of the first three measures in schedule 1. Debate adjourned. Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023 5

Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 5 12:27 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I rise to speak on the Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023. The purpose of this bill is to extend the application of the Special Recreational Vessels Act 2019 by a further two years to 30 June 2025. Currently, the act is scheduled to sunset on 30 June 2023. The act enables foreign special recreational vessels, otherwise known as superyachts, to be able to operate in Australia and be made available for hire or charter. The federal coalition welcomes this bill and supports its passage through the parliament. The bill is seeking to extend the application of legislation that was introduced and implemented by the former coalition government. This is legislation the coalition parties believed was important in 2019 to provide opportunities for foreign flagged recreational vessels to operate and offer charters in Australian coastal waters. We believe it remains important. In Australia, superyachts include vessels greater than or equal to 24 metres. However, internationally they are defined as luxury vessels 30 metres and longer, with a mast and crew, carrying 12 guests or fewer—not including staff. Superyachts represent an important economic opportunity for Australia—especially, but not solely, in Queensland. Queensland has the Queensland Superyacht Strategy, intended to support the sector and grow Australia's reputation as a destination for superyachts, with four major hubs providing high-quality support services to the sector in Cairns, the Whitsundays, Brisbane and the Gold Coast. The Queensland government estimates that superyacht activity has the potential to contribute more than $2 billion to the economy and support more than 5,360 full-time jobs between 2021 and 2025. Important support services to benefit from the superyacht sector include maintenance, food and catering, onshore accommodation, hospitality and tourism. It is estimated there will be more than 6,600 superyachts worldwide by 2025. In 2019-20, there were an estimated 364 superyachts operating in Australian waters, of which approximately one-quarter were foreign vessels. Significantly, the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic games are anticipated to attract at least 200 additional foreign flagged vessels to Australia, generate $1.8 billion within the Australian economy and support more than 7,600 full-time jobs nationally. I've outlined this to highlight that both the domestic and foreign flagged superyacht sector makes a valuable contribution to our nation's economy. It's important for government to facilitate the sector and make sure that Australia remains an attractive destination. It would be to the detriment of our nation if foreign flagged superyachts pass by Australia for other destinations. The former coalition government introduced the Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Act 2019 to permit foreign flagged superyachts to opt into the regulatory regime under the Coastal Trading Act, and to allow them to apply for temporary licenses to offer charter services in Australia. Prior to the act, there was no mechanism by which foreign superyachts could be offered for hire or charter services in Australian waters, as recreational vessels were not covered by the Coastal Trading Act. This was a flaw in the coastal trading legislation introduced by the Rudd government. The Special Recreational Vessels Act was necessary because efforts by the former coalition government to reform the Coastal Trading Act to accommodate superyachts had been frustrated by the then opposition and now government. Under the Special Recreational Vessels Act 2019, the owner, charter or agent of a vessel is able to apply for and obtain a special recreational vessel temporary licence for 12 months, enabling the vessel to be offered for hire or charter. The original act include a sunset clause to expire on 30 June 2021. The sunset clause was inserted at the time at the request of the then opposition. The sunset date was extended to 30 June 2023 in 2021 to give the former coalition government additional time to consider reforms to coastal trading legislation that would have accommodated superyachts. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated supply chain disruptions delayed attempts to finalise a long-term legislative solution for the sector. The government has indicated it will consider the outcomes of the work of the Strategic Fleet Taskforce that it established, including any wider reforms to the coastal trading legislation and longer term proposals for regulating superyachts. The federal coalition is willing to work constructively with the government on any proposal to streamline the legislative system that will enable the superyacht sector to operate in Australian waters. There are major benefits for regional communities, especially in coastal areas, from growth in superyacht visitation and activities. The federal coalition therefore supports the passage of this bill and commends it to the House. Debate adjourned. Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 6

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 6 12:32 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I rise this afternoon to briefly support this movement by the government. It is minor change and, as such, we need not delay the House. The purpose of the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 is to deliver minor and uncontroversial amendments, ensuring consistency of veterans' entitlements across acts. It facilities and makes compulsory an annual report, which, by the way, we've being doing since 1994—the annual report of the Repatriation Medical Authority. It modernises some language and updates references to some superseded acts. We are just sweeping up. The coalition government invested $11.5 billion each year to support the wellbeing of around 340,000 veterans and families. This bill makes minor technical amendments to four acts governing veteran affairs legislation: the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986, otherwise known as the VEA; the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, known as MRCA; the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, known as DRCA; and there is also the Defence Service Homes Act, known as DSHA. This amendment cements what has been an ongoing practice and legislatively requires the Repatriation Medical Authority, the RMA, to provide an annual report on its activities to the minister at the end of the financial year for tabling in parliament. The amendment, supported by the previous coalition government, delivers on previous recommendations of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation committee. This will align with the requirement on both the Repatriation Commission and the Veterans' Review Board. In practice the RMA has been publishing annual reports since 1994, as I stated earlier. The RMA was established in 1994 as an independent authority reporting to the minister. It consists of five practitioners who set statements of principle for disease, injury or death that could relate to military service, based on medical or scientific evidence. In schedule 2, consideration of claims under the Military Rehabilitation Compensation Act and the Defence-related claims act, the amendment substitutes the words 'refuse to deal with claim' in the MRCA and the DRCA with 'defer further investigation of the claim' until a claimant gives the commission or relevant authority the requested information or a copy of the document. Schedule 3 corrects references to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 in the Veterans' Entitlement Act and other acts. The references are to outdated clauses. In each case the amendments reflect correct or updated clauses in the respective acts. In schedule 4 in relation to the risk against the government to do with insurance it says: The Statement of Conditions is a legislative instrument that sets out the risks against which the Commonwealth will undertake insurance under the relevant part of the DSHA … …   …   … The new provisions continue to ensure that any revocation or variation of the Statement of Conditions must not remove the right of a person to receive a payment to which the person had become entitled before the revocation or variation took effect. Schedule 5 is to do with compensation for journey costs, making sure everybody receives the same rate per kilometre. I won't delay the House. It's substantially sweeping up and making sure the act is updated. Its purpose of course is to support our veterans, which is so vitally important. We will see with the conclusion of the royal commission a more fulsome discussion about issues pertinent to how we better deal with veterans. I've always said one thing the government can do is put their minister onto the front bench and not have them in the outer cabinet. I think that's a poor reflection on the work of our veterans and the service our veterans give. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023 7

Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023

Second Reading 7 12:37 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I rise to speak on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023. The coalition will be supporting this bill. The coalition stands for lower taxes, not higher taxes. We believe it's important to have a tax system that encourages people to get out, invest, take risks, work hard and get rewards for it, and that is absolutely central to our core beliefs. But we also recognise an effective tax system is a requirement for effective government. Australia, when compared with other advanced economies, already collects a lot of tax. In 2021-22 the Australian government collected $550 billion in tax receipts. As a percentage of GDP we collect more income tax than most of the G20 economies and almost all of South-East Asia—more income tax, for instance, than South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and New Zealand. Tax is the foundation of the social contract between government and the people. We collect tax because we want good government services, and there is a role for government. For the majority of Australians, tax is the main experience of the coercive power of government in their lives. For this reason discussions about tax go beyond technicalities to the very essence of what our country is and what our democracy is, so it's critical governments keep their promises on tax. Governments should always keep their promises on tax—something we haven't, sadly, seen from this government. It's critical that governments get their tax settings right, and that means ensuring our tax system is simpler and fairer for all individuals and families, making sure our tax system facilitates—rather than blocks—economic activity, investment, work and taking a risk for small businesses, sole traders and the big employers, heavy industry, as well. It means making sure that our tax system provides certainty and predictability for our retirees, investors and our not-for-profit sector. Fundamentally, it's critical that governments never lose sight of who pays the taxes. There is no magic money tree that the ATO can shake as it pleases, just as there's no magic pudding and no goose laying golden eggs. Tax is paid by individuals and hardworking families, small businesses, employers, service providers, manufacturers, producers and consumers. They all pay tax, and it all comes out of their pockets. Behind every dollar of tax raised is a person trying to get by in the economy, and that's why we can't tax our way to prosperity. Every dollar of tax is a dollar that could have been spent on school uniforms, new machinery, a pay rise for staff—all of those things can be paid— Mr TAYLOR 231027 I'll take the interjection from the member opposite, who I think would like to tax everything that moves, which is the Labor way. They love to tax everything that moves. In 2019 we saw an election on taxes, and we know what happened. We shouldn't talk about tax reform as raising more taxes. When those opposite talk about tax reform, we know what they mean—they mean higher taxes. Instead, we should talk about how we make the tax system simpler and fairer to better support aspiration and enterprise in this country for everyday Australians. That's what we need to focus on when we talk about tax. When it comes to this bill—and this has been brought forward by the government—the good news is that we do see some of these principles being followed. That should come as no surprise because not one, not two, but every measure of this bill is an initiative of the former coalition government, from double taxation treaties to equalising tax treatment across entities, streamlining charities and administration, and cutting red tape for small businesses and brewers. This is a bill that extends the coalition's proud record of cutting and lowering the cost of doing business and streamlining our tax system. This is something we haven't seen enough of yet from those opposite, but we're very pleased this has come forward. In fact, the last bill of this nature is currently stuck in the Senate. Small businesses are waiting for certainty around tax incentives which they were promised back in May last year. This is despite the government expediting all sorts of interventions in our economy or cultural priorities: DGR status for the voice was rushed through; unprecedented market intervention in our gas market was rushed through; reregulation of the labour market was rushed through. But tax incentives for small businesses—delay, delay, delay. So we see where the priorities of those opposite are. They're very clear. But at least this is something that we can get behind and support. While we will be supporting this bill, we will rely on the Senate economics committee to ask questions and make sure that it's being done the right way, in the spirit of wanting these issues to succeed. Sadly, while this bill has many measures we can support, it doesn't make up for Labor's broken promises on franking credits, on superannuation taxes and on taxing unrealised capital gains. I tell you, that's really opening up a whole new area of taxation for those opposite, which I'm sure they're looking forward to getting themselves stuck into. Many small businesses will be captured by Labor's superannuation changes and their attack on unrealised capital gains. Many charities will lose out in Labor's broken promise on franking credits. It's a full-blown assault on franking credits—something they promised they wouldn't do, but it's clear now that it's happening. Labor's broken promise on superannuation taxes means that, with soaring cost-of-living pressures, Australians will be worse off as they look forward to their retirements. This is not just a broken promise; it undermines confidence in our superannuation system. The whole point of our superannuation system is that people put money away for extended periods of time—often not for just 10 or 20 years but for 30, 40 or even 50 years. That means there is enormous trust that has to be put in politicians in this place that they are not making changes that would breach trust with the Australian people on money that is put away for very long periods of time. Despite promising no changes to superannuation before the election, this government is proposing doubling super taxes on one in 10 Australians. That's their numbers. By the time they retire, it could easily be many more. The government are stopping companies from offering franking credits to Australian investors, super funds and charities. It's important to remember that franking credits are not to the benefit of the company; they are to the benefit of the individual, the investor. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is the minister seeking to make a point of order? Dr Leigh BU8 Yes. Mr Deputy Speaker, I didn't mind the shadow Treasurer straying from the topic of the motion a little, but now he is engaging in tedious repetition. To break one standing order is forgivable, but he has broken two and I think you need to sit him down. Mr Buchholz 230531 Thank you very much for the advice. I will listen to the member for Hume closely. Mr TAYLOR 231027 I will seek to remain absolutely relevant to the fact that this government wants to raise taxes on superannuation, on franking credits, on unrealised capital gains and no doubt on many other things. In fact, we saw yesterday in this place a long list of ministers standing up in question time and saying to the Treasurer that they want more money. I'll tell you what: there's a conga line outside the Treasurer's office as they line up asking for billions and billions of dollars. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The minister has the call on a point of order. Dr Leigh BU8 I'm as sorry as he is that he didn't get the MPI today, but this bears no relevance to the bill that is before the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKE R: Member for Hume, I'll just remind you that the bill you are speaking to is the Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill. Mr TAYLOR 231027 I will continue to talk about our tax system and how those opposite are not refining and improving it. In fact, they are making it much worse. But 'refining and improving' is the topic, and I will stick very much to that topic of how we should improve our tax system and how those opposite aren't. Despite claiming that fewer than 80,000 Australians will be affected by their superannuation tax, independent research has shown that, by retirement age, more than 500,000 Australians will be hit by their tax. That's not refining and improving. That is making our system much worse. What's even worse is the government can't explain how these changes will work. It's true that the real economists on that side of the House don't get to speak on these things. They have to sit behind the Treasurer, who really has no background in economics. It's not hard to see that there is a real problem with the calibre of the people. Trying to explain all of this is the member for Parramatta and the member opposite me here, the member for Fenner. But the truth is that we have had no real explanation of these policies. The Assistant Treasurer has no capacity to explain these policies. They certainly don't refine and improve our tax system. The Prime Minister says it will impact one in 200 people. The finance minister says it is one in 10. If the government can't explain it, how can Australians understand it? Australians are right to be wondering what Labor will do next. Small-business owners were shocked to see it buried in last year's budget when those opposite were ending the extension of the instant asset write-off. This is a big deal for small businesses. If that is the government's version of refining the tax system, we should all be deeply worried. There was no media release from the minister or statement in the parliament; there was just a quote in the newspaper, as small businesses got hit. Sole traders would be right to— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The minister is seeking the call on a point of order. Dr Leigh BU8 Deputy Speaker, I would ask you to ask the shadow Treasurer to follow the standing orders. His comments for the last five minutes have borne no relevance to the bill before the House. He knows there are other places he can make these arguments. He hasn't moved a second reading amendment. He hasn't put forward a matter of public importance— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the minister for his contribution. The title of the bill is the Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill. The member for Hume is talking about the tax system and refining it. Mr TAYLOR 231027 It's clear I've upset those opposite. I will seek to focus on the substantive issue, which is that all of this boils down to one key question: how can Australians trust Labor when they say one thing before the election and another thing after it? Labor's promises on tax were clear—there were to be no changes to franking credits; there were to be no new superannuation taxes—and they've broken them, alongside their broken promises on cheaper mortgages and the $275 reduction in electricity prices. Remember the promise of low inflation? All of those promises have gone. While the coalition will support this bill, we call on the government to stop breaking its promises on tax and energy, and to support Australian small-business owners with more red tape reduction, more incentives to grow their businesses and more support to resolve labour market shortages before the cost-of-living crisis gets completely out of control. Debate adjourned. Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 10

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022

Assent 10 Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 10

Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023

Second Reading 10 12:51 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 was first passed over 10 years ago, and since that time, findings from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency's dataset tell us that workplaces have a key role in making a difference in the lives of women and men. This bill cements that role. The bill charges employers with greater accountability towards gender equality in their workforces and helps drive the actions required in the workplace to bring about higher levels of gender equality in Australia. As Australians, we pride ourselves on being a fair and equal society. However, for many in the workplace, that is not their experience. Improving workplace gender equality is critical. Australian women deserve fair and safe working conditions. They deserve equal opportunity and equal remuneration. In 2022, Australia's national gender pay gap was 14.1 per cent. In practical terms, as of May 2022, the average weekly full-time earnings of a woman in Australia, across all industries and occupations, was lower than the equivalent for men by $263.90 per week. Women have on average 23.4 per cent less super when they come to retirement age than men. They are overrepresented in industries with lower wages and underrepresented in positions of leadership. Though women make up half of Australia's workforce, they represent less than a quarter of all chief executive officers.About one-fifth of all boards and governing bodies have no female directors, and women hold just 18 per cent of chair positions and 34 per cent of board member positions. Of course, gender discrimination in the workplace doesn't just impact women. It is a constraint upon the whole of the Australian economy. The gender pay gap alone represents a cost of $51.8 billion a year. In 2021, a review of the act made 10 recommendations that would help Australia accelerate progress towards workplace gender equality as well as making reporting easier for employers. The review identified where further action was needed to strengthen the act and enhance our ability to improve the quality of data and the level of support provided to employers. The Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023, together with the remade instruments under the act, fulfils almost all of the recommendations of the review requiring legislative amendment. It also fulfils a key election commitment of this government to close the gender pay gap at work, including by boosting pay gap transparency and encouraging action to close gender pay gaps within organisations. The bill will be a key driver for employer action, transparency and accountability and will help to speed up progress towards gender equality in the workplace. It will do this by, for the first time, allowing the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to report gender pay gaps at employer level, not just the industry level. The current approach of publishing aggregate industry gender pay gaps is not creating the transparency, accountability and insights we need in order to close the gender pay gap fast enough. The United Kingdom has reported employer-level gender pay gaps since 2017, and there is clear evidence from the UK's experience that publishing employer gender pay gaps led to companies prioritising gender equality and a lowering of the gender pay gap. Research indicates the value of publishing employer gender pay gaps in encouraging employers to address adverse gender dynamics in the workplace, and nudging individuals—both employers and employees—towards real-world action that will make change in their workplaces. These new measures mean that the Workplace Gender Equality Agency will publish the first set of private sector employer gender pay gaps in early 2024, using data from this reporting period, which ends on 31 March 2023. This gives employers time to prepare and for the agency to work with employers to ensure that they are ready. Employers won't be required to collect any new data for public reporting as it will draw on data that they have already provided to the agency. However, if they choose to, employers will be able to provide a statement to help explain any context related to their gender pay gap and actions that they are taking to address it. This will sit alongside their gender pay gap information which, again, will be published on the Workplace Gender Equality Agency's website. The bill further improves public transparency and accountability by requiring relevant employers to provide certain reports—the executive summary report and the industry benchmark report—to their governing body. This means that the measures in this bill will also strengthen the agency's ability to support employers as they progress gender equality in their organisations. In parallel to this bill, the remade instruments will streamline aspects of existing reporting that employers have reported to be 'pain points', reducing regulatory burdens and freeing up businesses to focus their efforts on gender equality action. Again, the bill will align the act with the Workplace Gender Equality (Matters in relation to Gender Equality) Indicators) Instrument 2013 (No. 1) by including 'sexual harassment', 'harassment on the ground of sex' or 'discrimination' as gender equality indicators within the act. This does not change reporting obligations, as relevant employers already report to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency on sex based harassment and discrimination. Rather, this change recognises the importance of those core gender equality indicators and updates the act to bring it in line with its instrument and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, as well as other legislative changes, including the Respect@Work reforms. The bill reflects the increased ambitions of all those measures to strengthen gender equality, and to improve outcomes for both women and men in the workplace, by amending the act to rename current 'minimum standards' as 'gender equality standards'. This bill is the first step—there is, of course, more that we want to do, not just broadly on workplace gender equality but specifically with regard to how the Workplace Gender Equality Agency can help us understand and close the gender pay gap. For example, recommendation 3 of the review calls for the addition of a new gender equality standard requiring employers with 500 or more employees to commit to and achieve specific targets, and report their progress against the targets to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. The government is absolutely committed to this reform and to getting it right. The development of these gender equality targets requires close consultation with businesses and other stakeholders, to make sure that they are genuine, measurable, achievable and meaningful metrics which are shown to help progress gender equality. The Minister for Women has asked the agency to undertake necessary consultation to progress this important work ahead of further legislative amendments to make these targets a reality. In addition, since 2021 the Workplace Gender Equality Agency has been collecting, on a voluntary basis, workplace data that captures employees who identify as non-binary. One of the recommendations of the review was that the act should be amended to enable the mandatory collection of this data. This is a change we want to make—it will bring this important piece of legislation in line with other Commonwealth standards, such as those used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, when collecting data on gender. It will also enable a more fulsome picture of our workplaces—and one which will more accurately reflect Australian society. But this change needs to be done carefully, in close consultation with businesses and employees, and with representation and advocacy groups and members of the LGBTQIA+ community. We want to do this in a way that ensures people who identify as non-binary feel safe at work to disclose this information, with the confidence that their privacy will be preserved, that their personal information will be protected and that they will not experience adverse consequences in their workplace. The minister has asked Workplace Gender Equality Agency to prioritise work in partnership with specialist organisations, the community sector, unions, and industry groups to develop an approach to collecting this data that is safe and respectful to people who identify as non-binary. The minister has also asked the agency to develop best practice guidance materials and provide education and support for businesses so that they're ready to collect this data when the time comes. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency will progress this work together with the research it's conducting as part of recommendation 6 of the review, which recommended that the agency should undertake research and consultation on the collection of additional diversity data such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background, cultural and linguistic diversity, and disability. Employees do not have to wait—they can voluntarily provide additional diversity data and can start moving towards greater diversity data collection, with support from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. Employers can seize the momentum of these reforms and to play their part in helping to close the gender pay gap. There are further reforms to come and the Office for Women in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will continue to work to identify the best pathway for us to legislate these important changes. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency will work with employers to ensure they are supported and able to step up. Every measure in this bill has been designed in close consultation with stakeholders across Australia, including: the business and not-for-profit sectors, employee organisations, higher education providers, the women's sector, users of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency data, Australian government and state and territory government and of course the agency itself. At every stage in the implementation of the review, government has shown a genuine willingness to consult—we've been transparent with stakeholders on our policy positions and reasoning, and indeed, many of the amendments in this bill have been fine-tuned as a direct result of the invaluable stakeholder feedback. The government has also committed to reviewing these legislative amendments five years after they are passed—this will ensure we are able to critically consider and robustly interrogate how effective these measures have been in achieving their objective of accelerating progress towards gender equality in Australian workplaces. This bill represents a critical piece in the government's ongoing commitment and action towards gender equality. Together with our new National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality, and working in concert with the respect at work; secure jobs, better pay; and improvements for families and gender equality legislation passed by this government, this bill will help us to achieve our goal of being one of the best countries in the world for equality between women and men. I commend the bill to the House. 13:03 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise today to speak on the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023. The opposition will be supporting this bill for a number of reasons, and we are pleased that the government has chosen to implement the reforms which began under the coalition. Whilst we've come a long way, it is clear that we must do more to promote gender equality in our society, be it in the workplaces around Australia, in our communities or even within this building. A key pillar in promoting gender equality is to ensure that we continue to drive down the gender pay gap. In 2021, the coalition government commissioned a review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act and provided $18.5 million to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency in the Women's Budget Statement 2022-23 to support the implementation of the recommendations from the review. The review, which was released in March 2022, concluded that the gender pay gap in Australia was not closing at a fast enough rate. Whilst there has been a lot of work and effort put into progressing women's economic equality in Australia, progress began to stall in 2021 and 2022, with the Workplace Gender Equality Agency employer census finding the pay gap remained at 22.8 per cent. The review considered whether the agency had the appropriate powers, tools and levers to achieve the objectives of the act and made 10 recommendations. These recommendations were aimed at accelerating the rate of change in women's economic equality in the workplace as well as reducing the reporting burden on businesses. As I mentioned previously, we have come a long way as a society when it comes to gender equality. I've spent the majority of my working life in male dominated fields, so in some ways I feel I've been at the coalface of this shift. When I first left school, I dreamt of being a pilot. My subsequent career in aviation was an important lesson in perspectives, and the prevailing perspective at that time—which wasn't that long ago in the scheme of things—was that women were not pilots. To get a start as a female pilot in those days, you had travel a long way. Aviation was anything but an equal opportunity employer. In my case, the only job I could get in aviation was in the air traffic control centre in Sydney, where I had occasion to hide in the cupboard to avoid crying in front of my male colleagues. Then I moved to a place called Thargomindah, in Western Queensland, to actually get my first job as a pilot. I'd advertise my services in the paper as a newly qualified stock mustering pilot. A couple of farmers replied how nice it would be to have a female companion and assured me that a flash plane would be thrown in, which didn't quite suit. But then the next caller said: 'I don't care who you are. My pilot has just walked out, so get up here straight away.' So, be it in the air traffic control tower, aviation industry or Parliament House, the culture towards women in the workplace has really come a long way, but there is more work to do. This bill includes six amendments to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 that will require the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to publish gender pay gap information of relevant employers of over 100 people for each reporting period; require relevant employers to provide executive summary and industry benchmark reports to all members of their governing body; rename the current minimum standards as 'gender equality standards'; include sexual harassment, harassment on the grounds of sex or discrimination as gender equality indicators; change the title of the director of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to chief executive officer; and make a technical amendment to the definition of 'reporting period'. As referenced, this bill introduces new provisions to allow the agency to publish gender pay gap information by organisation as opposed to by industry, which had previously been the case. Publication of pay gaps at an organisational level will promote accountability as well as encourage accelerated action and change within organisations to see the gender pay gap close. The coalition is particularly supportive of the way these recommendations have been implemented to ensure there is no further regulatory burden on businesses. Currently, organisations with over 100 employees must provide remuneration data to the agency. As such, there is no change required by employers in terms of reporting processes or change to the type of data that's already being provided. These reforms are just one of the important actions we undertook when we were in government to boost women's position in the workplace. As I have previously said, the coalition has a very proud record on reducing the gender pay gap as well as boosting workforce participation for women to record highs. After we came to government in 2013, we created around 1.9 million jobs, and around 60 per cent of these went to women. Female workforce participation was around record highs, at 62.2 per cent when we left government, compared to 58.7 per cent when we came to office in 2013. We delivered landmark funding of $5.5 billion for women through our two women's budget statements, including the $18.5 million we provided to the agency to ensure that the reforms in the bill could be met. More broadly, the coalition delivered $3.4 billion in the 2021-22 women's budget statement and $2.1 billion in the women's budget statement which included $1.3 billion to drive change for women's safety and additional funding to increase women's workforce participation, support women in leadership and improve health outcomes for women and girls in Australia. These budgets build on the coalition's government's 2018 and 2020 women's economic security statements. I would like to thank the director of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, Mary Wooldridge, for her work in ensuring these reforms came to fruition. I would also like to thank all of the organisations and peak bodies who have engaged in the reform process right from the beginning when the coalition undertook the review of the act. And as I say to any women who may hear these remarks or any others made by me: back yourself. We need your voice and your perspectives in all of our workplaces around the country. If you have something to say or if you have a contribution to make, step up and make it. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 13

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

Second Reading 13 13:11 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak about the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023. There is a lot of history behind this bill. It is bordering on a bit bizarre, actually, and quite hypocritical. The fact of the matter is the bill has the intent of getting people onto a rebadged version of the cashless debit card. It will be an enhanced income management program. But the bizarre side of the thing is that, at the last election and for two years beforehand, the current government was arguing against what they are now installing. It is incredibly hypocritical. The cashless debit card came into being following the Andrew Forrest review of 2014 that pointed out quite presciently and accurately that income management or BasicsCard which was in effect across all of the Northern Territory and in Cape York. It came in after the Northern Territory emergency response to try and get a collar on the income management for people who are delinquent in their responsibilities to the Crown and to their family, or who had drug and alcohol programs, and so on and so forth. We on this side set up the cashless debit card and it worked very well. It was set up with all the required functionality, including the ability to purchase things online. It was set up by the Indue Corporation and badged as a Visa card, and it allowed down to the merchant level the inability to buy smoking, alcohol, gambling products or withdraw huge amounts of cash, depending on where the trial was. In Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, it was limited. You could get 20 per cent of your welfare payments in cash from your debit bank account but you couldn't use the card to buy those things I mentioned—alcohol, smokes, gambling products. I actually went to Kalgoorlie, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay and saw it in action. It works remarkably well. It has exactly the same functionality. In fact, it is the same card that has been rebadged, recoloured and rereleased and is now called the SmartCard. So what those opposite have introduced, of course we're going to support it. It is exactly what we brought in ourselves. But those opposite resisted for two years and made false claims that it would be applied to all age pensioners, for goodness sake—what a load of hogwash. But there are some people who will be moved on to the enhanced income management and they will be using the old cashless debit card, and everyone will think, 'Hunky-dory. Isn't this wonderful,' but the other side is seeming to rewrite history. The BasicsCard was an initiative or a plan that came out of the Northern Territory Emergency Response. It came in between 2008 and 2014 on an extended site basis by the Labor government. Former speakers on this issue, including the member for Scullin, have criticised us for not doing anything. They were objecting to it and raising all sorts of ridiculous assertions about it when we did try and expand it. The cashless debit card eventually got extended into the Northern Territory and into the Cape York sites. But when they were running the BasicsCard they not only had in the Northern Territory, the Cape York communities asked for their people to go on the BasicsCard. And the BasicsCard was expanded at Playford in South Australia, at greater Shepparton in Victoria, at Bankstown in New South Wales, at Rockhampton and Logan in Queensland. And subsequently, in 2012, it was expanded into the APY Lands and into other Indigenous lands, including Kurri Kurri in WA. What we have now is a failure of policy where the substance has been ignored and the political argument has destroyed a really great initiative. We've had people from affected Western Australian local government bodies in this building briefing members on how the loss of the cashless debit card has destroyed all the benefits that they gained. The increased school attendance, the less alcohol and drug fuelled violence in these communities has been swept away. Crime rates in Ceduna, for instance, are now double what they were when the cashless debit card was present. The CDC was working very well there. We have got a mayor who briefed members of parliament in this building just yesterday. He comes from a family that's got five generations involved in this local government area and he knows it well. They have called it as it is, that abandoning the compulsory nature of the cashless debit card means that instead of having 17,400 people having their income support managed via this there are now only 30 in that local government area, and that's why you can see that there has been an increase in violence, alcoholism and all the bad things that they were getting control of. The cashless debit card had total functionality across 900,000 EFTPOS outlets. It could be controlled right down to the merchant category code. The new so-called SmartCard, which is better described as a different coloured CDC, will have all those benefits too. There will be control at the merchant category code level. So it means in one establishment you can go and buy a steak and a meal but if you went to the bar and tried to buy alcohol it wouldn't work, if you wanted to go to a coffee shop you could buy a coffee and a snack but you couldn't buy cigarettes, and so on and so forth. Depending on where you were, you still had access to some cash but you had to do it through your bank, not just at a cash terminal. At least in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area it was a 80 per cent, 20 per cent split. So 80 per cent was there to pay for things like food at home, schoolbooks, excursions, uniforms for school and the weekly groceries, rather than blowing it all on alcohol and other things that aren't good for family life. So I support this bill, but I just want to put on the record that there's a dose of hypocrisy in retrospect coming from the other side because they argued against the CDC and have taken the exact same technology and are planning to merge all the people on the BasicsCard onto the new one. People are still uncertain whether the government will have all the capability in place. We have not been reassured that it will kick off on 1 July 2023, as planned. The 17,000 people, roughly, who were on the cashless debit card are now only on income management if they have volunteered to go on it, and those who have volunteered to stay on it are the ones who are actually functioning well in society and hardly need the guidance or the restrictions that the CDC puts on them. It doesn't restrict the amount of money but just restricts how they can spend it. I would add that, if the same outcome were to happen and the new enhanced income management were on a voluntary-only basis, that would be a very bad outcome. The explanatory memorandum outlines that most of the criteria that existed in Cape York and the Northern Territory, like failure of parenting, failure of school, alcohol and drug dependency—all those things that either the community or the government saw as indicators to put someone on income management—will still be there in the enhanced income management scheme. I hope that doesn't happen, but future performance usually reflects past performance, and their past performance and ideological obsession to get rid of a scheme that actually was supported by former Labor Party governments is really quite hypocritical. Overall, I commend this bill to the House, but now it's on the record that there has been a huge amount of hypocrisy and hubris exhibited by people who should be serious about this but who are using the old CDC as an attack point, rather than saying, 'Hey, this is actually working.' It worked well. You only had to hear the speeches from the member for Hinkler, the member for Grey, the member for O'Connor and the member for the other Western Australian electorate in the east Kimberley region to know that this is a good bit of policy. We just want to make sure that the appropriate people are on income management and are not given a leave pass to waste the financial support that the government and the taxpayer gives them so that their families and their communities are a lot safer. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I think you were referring to the member for Durack in your contribution. 13:23 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane I move the second reading amendment, as circulated in my name, to the amendment moved by the member for Deakin: That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the Government committed to abolish compulsory income management in opposition, the House is of the opinion that the bill should not proceed and calls on the Government to: (1) provide a clear plan for an end to all compulsory income management, which disproportionately impacts First Nations peoples; and (2) urgently and significantly increase the funding for community and support services through a jobs and services plan, including redirecting any savings from the abolition of compulsory income management to these services". While in opposition, the Labor Party promised that they would end compulsory income management. Now, not even one year into their term of government, they've put forward a bill to reintroduce it and empower the minister to do so. In April 2022, the member for Barton, now the Minister for Indigenous Australians, was quoted in the Guardian as saying: Our fundamental principle on the basics card and the cashless debit card, it should be on a voluntary basis. A day later the ABC reported: Federal Labor will make the controversial basics card optional within the first term of government if it wins the election next month, making a commitment that any broad-based income management should be voluntary. Key stakeholders who were working with those who are directly impacted by compulsory income management welcomed this clear announcement from Labor. The Northern Territory Council of Social Service welcomed Labor's commitment to scrap compulsory income management, stating that it is 'a discriminatory and coercive policy, affecting more than 24,000 Territorians, the vast majority of whom are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples'. They went on to say that income management should only be ever offered on an opt-in basis. This bill breaks Labor's promise to abolish compulsory income management. It represents a complete reversal of the position that Labor took to the election. So either Labor has had a horrific case of institutional amnesia or there's been a deliberate decision to reverse a clear election commitment. My question to the Labor Party and to the members sitting on the government benches is: which is it? Did someone lose all the election commitments you made before the election, or are you just pretending that they don't exist? I want to revisit why Labor's position in opposition was so warmly welcomed and why it is so disappointing and concerning to see this backflip from the government. Fundamentally, compulsory income management does not work. We have the submissions of experts and review after review to show that it doesn't. As the Australian Council of Social Service said: There is no credible or conclusive evidence that these policies have delivered better outcomes for individuals or their communities. Instead, cashless debit and income management are paternalistic policies that restrict basic human rights. Similarly, Associate Professor Elise Klein summarised the research on the impacts of compulsory income management, stating that peer reviewed research has also shown that compulsory income management 'causes more harm than good'. For example, research published by the ARC Centre of Excellence and the Life Course Centre examined compulsory income management in the Northern Territory and showed a correlation between it and negative impacts on children, including a reduction in birth weight and school attendance. In 2016 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted: … evidence before the committee indicates that compulsory income management is not effective in achieving its stated objective of supporting vulnerable individuals and families. Why is Labor choosing to ignore pages and pages of evidence from experts and impacted communities that shows that compulsory income management does not work and is actively harmful? At the same time, the parliament has just debated the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 as part of the journey towards a referendum on the Voice. It is heartbreaking to see the government entrenching a framework that has disproportionately harmed First Nations communities. Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory doesn't support compulsory income management. They assert that 'compulsory income management is a vehicle for disempowerment' that perpetuates the stigmatisation of Aboriginal people. They went on to say: … compulsory income management contradicts the Commonwealth and NT governments' commitments through Closing the Gap … They also said: … continued income management, in its current form, breaches the Australian Government's existing commitment to Priority Reform 3: to systemically and structurally transform mainstream government organisations to improve accountability, and to respond to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It should be noted that this fundamentally unjust, racist policy has its origins in Howard's Northern Territory intervention. The Greens welcomed the steps by Labor to roll back the cashless debit card in locations across the country, but, at the time, we specifically called for action to support those people in the Northern Territory. Now, with this bill, the Labor Party is reversing its course in an incredibly concerning and harmful way. The bill specifically entrenches compulsory income management by taking the legislative framework for the income management regime—or the BasicsCard—and applying it to what Labor are calling 'enhanced income management'. Let's be clear: enhanced income management may have a different name and a different number to call, but, as my colleague Senator Rice uncovered in Senate estimates, it is still Indue that's running the card. It is basically the same technology, and people still have the same account numbers on the cards that Indue are issuing to them. But what the changes in the legislation do is give the minister power to expand compulsory income management in new areas, using the technology provided by Indue. So, whereas the cashless debit card had a sunset date and required changes to legislation, this bill will give the minister powers to expand compulsory income management without requiring legislation—without a sunset date, without geographic restraints in this act. And it's Indue's card, but with the minister now having the power to roll it out to new areas by legislative instrument. This bill is the worst of both worlds. It is technology that enables Labor to roll out Indue's cards to new parts of the country and it is legislative powers that give the minister the power to do so at the stroke of a pen. It is appalling and incomprehensible that Labor ran on progressive change to abolish compulsory income management but, now they are in government, they're seeking to entrench it. Fundamentally, many of those members in this chamber who represent themselves as progressives are putting themselves in the position of supporting a failed policy that disproportionately impacts First Nations people. Before the election, the member for Bruce made a lot of public comments about the cashless debit card. He still has a page up on his website, actually, talking about the privatised cashless card. Now in government, he's going to vote for a bill that expands that program by Indue. The member for Lyons still has a page up on his website campaigning against the cashless debit card; now he's about to do the same, and vote for a card that is expanded by Indue. The member for Richmond seconded a bill, introduced by the member for Bruce, abolishing the cashless debit card; now, as an assistant minister, the member for Richmond is part of administration that is giving more money to Indue and giving the minister power— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Your speech was interrupted, so you will be granted leave. I remind you to make sure you have a seconder when you get back to resume your debate. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 17 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Tasmanian AgriFutures Rural Women's Award 17 13:30 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Congratulations to Sisters Creek agri-businesswoman Melissa Duniam, who has been awarded the 2023 Tasmanian AgriFutures Rural Women's Award. Melissa has been recognised for her groundbreaking and fascinating work in human resource development. She's the founder of Leading Rein and uses equine-assisted learning to empower people and teams. Participants in her courses improve their leadership and team management by learning how to interact with horses. Their challenge is to learn how to communicate and to lead horses using nonverbal communication alone. This, in turn, makes them better leaders of human teams. Congratulations also to Belle Binder, who was awarded the AgriFutures Encouragement Award for her work changing the culture between farmers and seasonal workers. Like Melissa, Belle has reimagined a different way of doing things. Her business, LeftField, is dedicated to changing the culture of seasonal worker programs with the development of mutual respect between workers and their employees. Belle's Calm Your Farm workshops—and I love the name—provide growers with tools and information to help them with employee retention, which in turn helps them retain their workforce of skills. Congratulations to both Melissa and Belle; they are representative of a wonderful young agricultural entrepreneurial spirit in Tasmania, and I wish them all the very best in the future. White, Edith Alexandra McQuade 17 13:31 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I'd pay tribute today to Edith Alexandra McQuade White, an outstanding Territorian who served as a nurse and as a senior Army officer during World War II. Edith moved to the NT in 1937—before the war—and joined the Army in 1941. She served as a matron of a 1,200-bed military hospital in Darwin. This is where Edith was the day that time stopped for Darwin as Japanese planes dropped bombs on 19 February 1942. Hundreds of patients were burned and one died in the bombing. Matron White was at the wharf the next day to help the 190 severely wounded people off an Australian hospital ship. She movingly described the scene of devastation with the wharf and ship still burning, and bodies washing up on the shore. She helped 300 refugees from the Philippines who were fleeing the war and was known for her great skill in treating burns. Edith was promoted to lieutenant colonel in the Army Nursing Service in 1943 and became the Northern Territory's principal matron. Despite all of this outstanding service to Australia and on the home front, Edith was never recognised. I agree with Dr Jan Hills, who spoke at Adelaide River War Cemetery recently, that this needs to change and Edith needs to be recognised in some way. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 17 13:33 Mr P 300120 Bowman IKE () (): Fiasp is the fastest-working new-generation insulin available. For my constituents Jess, Cam and Tamara, it has significantly improved their quality of life. They are just three of over 14,000 Australians who rely on this drug. Without any consultation with these individuals—or any warning—the Labor government managed to drive itself into a dispute with the manufacturer by imposing a significant price cut on Fiasp. The price cut has made it no longer commercially viable to provide the medicine to market, resulting in this wonderful drug being slated for removal from the PBS. Today a script costs $7; when it's taken off the PBS it will cost $280. Following a massive public backlash, the government has established a supply-only arrangement, but this will last only until September. Patients with a current prescription can keep buying the drug, and those with no prescription are urged to see their doctor before 1 April, just a few days from now. The government is trying to blame the manufacturer, but the fact is their price officer was and remains ridiculously low—much lower than what is offered for much older and less-effective medications. The Labor government has failed to keep this life-changing drug on the PBS. They have failed to reach an agreement with the manufacturer, and they have failed to consult with or even inform those affected families. Due to these failures, my constituents and thousands of others are left having to decide between paying exponentially more or using a less-effective treatment. Minister, fix this mess you've created before we get to September. Greek Independence Day 17 13:55 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Last weekend, 25 March marked Greek Independence Day. Greek communities all over Australia celebrated with events, wreath laying ceremonies and church services in every major capital, including here in Canberra. The member for Bean and I attended a wreath laying ceremony, and I know that in Darwin the member for Solomon also attended events, because he kept on sending me selfies with different members of the Greek community for most of the day! In my own electorate in Adelaide, commemorative church services were held and then a wreath laying ceremony was held at the North Terrace War Memorial. As I said, I was extremely honoured here in Canberra to be invited by the Greek community, together with the Member for bean, David Smith, to attend the Canberra events. These included a church service at the St Nicholas Church at Kingston in the morning, followed by a wreath laying ceremony at the Greek war memorial near the War Memorial, and that was then followed by a lunch at the Hellenic Club. That was attended by a lot of people, including John Loukadellis, a tireless worker for the Greek community; Father Petros from St Nicholas Church; Bishop Bartholomew; Ambassador George Papacostas, the Ambassador of Greece; and the High Commissioner for Cyprus. It is a very special day for the Greek community not just in Australia but all around the world. All I can say is, 'Zito i Ellas!' That means, 'Long live Greece!' Economy 18 13:36 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I hosted a conversation with Ross Garnaut, one of Australia's pre-eminent economists, in my electorate of Curtin. To a sell-out crowd, he emphasised Australia's sources of comparative advantage in the new economy, including an abundance of solar and wind resources, energy transition minerals and resources that need green processing. These opportunities are especially significant for Western Australia, which has a track record of pioneering innovation and bold decisions in the resources sector. We have the most to gain but also the most to lose from the green energy transition. WA's current deep reliance on fossil fuel exports is driving a sluggish response to the green economic pivot, which Mr Garneau identified as an inevitable part of transition. Those who think there's something to be gained from delay will delay. The Investor Group on Climate Change, with members from some of Australia's largest institutional investors, told me last week that the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act has caused capital to migrate towards energy transition projects in the US. Their message is clear. The government's job is to provide certainty for investing. Once the right rules are in place, capital markets will do the heavy lifting on energy transition. Australia and WA will need to respond boldly to the Inflation Reduction Act by identifying and incentivising areas of comparative advantage, like green hydrogen, battery mineral processing and green steel processing to ensure Australia's prosperity for the coming decades. Easter 18 13:38 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt The Easter holidays are fast approaching. As we know Easter, is a time of reflection and celebration for all Christians around the world. In the lead-up to Easter, we observe 40 days of Lent, starting on Ash Wednesday and ending on Holy Thursday, the day before Good Friday. Easter Sunday symbolises the resurrection of Jesus Christ three days after his death by crucifixion. Many across my electorate, including my family and I, attend mass on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. We then celebrate on Sunday with a beautiful lunch with my whole family and close friends. For me and my family, this symbolises the importance of those closest to us and how we always need to be grateful for what we have. This is common for people of all faiths and backgrounds, who look forward to spending the long weekend with family and friends and doing the things they love the most. I also thank those who give up time with their families to work during these public holidays. You deserve your penalty rates. I would like to wish everyone across my electorate of Holt and across Australia a blessed Easter period, and I hope the Easter Bunny comes and gives you heaps of Easter chocolate! Independents 18 13:39 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar The community Independent movement has reinvigorated democracy in this country. In the New South Wales election last weekend, people again voted in droves for Independent representation. In the state seat of Wakehurst in my electorate, for the first time in history there will be Independent representation across all three levels of government. In the other half of Mackellar, in the state seat of Pittwater, the race is still so tight that it's too close to call. Why are these once extremely safe seats moving? More and more ordinary Australians have been feeling cut out and shut out of their democracy. Instead, they want someone who will listen and genuinely represent the views and values of their community rather than simply toeing a party line. They want their representatives to work constructively across the political spectrum to find solutions to the major challenges that face our nation. The respectful and solutions focused approach of community Independent MPs is working. In the last 10 months already we have seen improvement, strengthening and passing of major bills that will vastly improve the future of our nation, including the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, the Climate Change Bill 2022 target and, this week, the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023. Although teal is a lovely colour, it does not do justice to the essence of this powerful and positive movement—the community Independent movement. Climate Change 19 13:41 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I rise to address an issue of upmost importance, and that is the recently released AR6 synthesis report: climate change 2023. This report, produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, provides the most up-to-date and comprehensive assessment of the state of the climate crisis, its impacts and the options for mitigating and adapting to its effects. This report leaves room for no doubt. The earth's climate is changing alarmingly, and human activities are the primary cause. The report confirms what we already know: Australia is experiencing the effects of climate change, including more frequent and intense weather events such as bushfires, floods and droughts. These impacts are only going to get worse if we do not take immediate and sustained action. That's why it's so important for this parliament to pass our reforms to the safeguard mechanism. Thank you to the crossbench for their support for this landmark legislation in this House. I would encourage all those in the Senate to support it too. This week, our parliament and our democracy are faced with the opportunity to pass the most ambitious plan for emissions reductions this country has seen, after 10 years of climate neglect and denial from those opposite. Australia used to be a leader in climate action. Under their watch, we failed, but now it's time for us to return to that position. Pass the safeguard reforms. Climate Change: Safeguard Mechanism 19 13:42 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler It's another Green-Labor stitch up. We've seen it again this week. Someone is misleading. Someone is providing misinformation. Someone is telling the Australian people what is not the truth, because they can't both be right. Jacob Greber yesterday wrote, 'Gas the loser after Greens back Labor's carbon plan,' and Stephen Rice says, 'Narrabri gas project likely to be fast-tracked.' You cannot have it both ways. You simply cannot. We saw the leader of the Greens celebrating changes in share markets today and yesterday for resources companies in this country. Those shares are held by Australians, by self-funded retirees, by mums and dads, and by superannuation funds. To celebrate the fact that they have lost money because of the dirty deal done in this Green-Labor government is absolutely appalling. Out in the regions, they rely on the resources sector for jobs. Those high-vis heroes dragged this country's economy through COVID. They are going to contribute almost $460 billion to our economy. They deserve the support of this parliament and the people who are in it, not a dirty deal that will put a stop—according to the Greens—to almost $100 billion worth of projects. To those listening: think about the last time you saw a $5 billion, $10 billion or $15 billion project in your patch giving you jobs. We should be thanking the resources sector and its people, not attacking them. Endometriosis 19 13:44 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney Women are strong, resilient and patient and often endure pain in silence. Endometriosis is this pain often endured in silence. It is something that affects one in nine Australian women. The experience that each woman faces is different and unique but no less traumatic to the individual who endures this pain. These are women that I know, love and care for—women like my sister, Cindy. She suffered for 20 years and endured several very painful surgeries. It had such a big impact on her life. I cannot even begin to know her struggle, but it is why I wholeheartedly support women in their access to the services that improve their health and wellbeing. Our government would deliver an endometriosis and pelvic pain clinic in my electorate of Tangney. This is so significant to so many women. Women in my electorate and beyond can now visit The Garden Family Medical Clinic in Murdoch. as it will receive more than $700,000 in funding over the next four years. This will reduce diagnostic delay, promote early access to care and treatment, and raise awareness of endometriosis and pelvic pain. I'm so thankful that our government has made this happen. Durack Electorate: Jurien Bay Marina 19 13:45 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise today to speak about the ongoing issues with the Jurien Bay boat harbour. Jurien Bay is a beautiful town in my electorate of Durack, known for crayfishing and ocean tourism industries. At just 2½ hours drive north of Perth, it offers the chance to swim with sea lions or catch some deep-sea fish, and it attracts state, interstate and international tourists alike. Unfortunately, the Jurien Bay Marina suffers from extensive water quality issues caused by seagrass and sediment accumulating and decomposing in harbour waters. This deprives the water of oxygen and has led to many large-scale fish and marine life kills. This issue has significant environmental impacts, along with identified health risks to swimmers and a smell described by many as 'simply unbearable'. The WA Department of Transport, after extensive data collection, trials and environmental studies, have determined that a redesign of Jurien Bay's harbour entrance, with a 150-metre spur groyne, will rectify the issue. All they need is for the state government to commit the funds. Many representations have been made to the state government by wonderful community action groups, yet they refuse to address this alarming problem. So I call on the WA state government to please listen to the Jurien Bay community, and to fix their marina as a matter of urgency. They deserve nothing less. Robertson Electorate: Copacabana Community Men's Shed 20 13:47 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to acknowledge the recent opening of the brand new Copacabana Community Men's Shed and the tremendous work undertaken by the Copacabana community to get this project completed. Men's sheds are invaluable community infrastructure and play important roles in our community—especially in regional Australia, like on the Central Coast. On the Central Coast we are often limited by the level of services and support that older Australians can access compared to metropolitan areas, and men's sheds often help fill these gaps. Men's Sheds provide a safe space for men where they can discuss issues, support one another and work on projects together. I have been privileged to have visited many of the men's sheds across our electorate of Robertson, from the Gosford Men's Shed, Umina Beach Men's Shed, Broadlands Men's Shed, Kincumber Men's Shed to Erina Men's Shed, and now the Copacabana Community Men's Shed. The camaraderie and solidarity displayed every time I visited is truly special and the community commitment is admirable. I would like to thank Dr Michael Mitchelmore, OAM, Copacabana men's shed coordinator; the members; and its sponsors who have helped make Copa men's shed a reality. I look forward to upcoming visits and seeing the outstanding work and support that comes out of the Copacabana Community Men's Shed. Dawson Electorate: Queens Beach State School 20 13:48 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson Our youth are our future. One of my favourite parts of this job is that I regularly get to visit the fantastic schools and childcare centres across my electorate. I'm always impressed to see young people showing interest in how parliament works, and I love meeting our up-and-coming leaders. A couple of weeks ago it was question time at Queens Beach State School in Bowen, with year 5s. The little ladies and gents didn't hold back firing questions at me. Some were, 'Mr Wilcox, why did you want to be the federal member for Dawson?' I said that I had a genuine desire to help people and that I want to make our region, and Australia, a better place. 'How did you get your job?' I said I was elected by a democratic vote, that the people of Dawson knew that I would work hard and so I won the position at the 2022 election. 'Mr Wilcox, how much you get paid?' I told them that I get paid a lot, which is why it is important to vote for somebody you believe in, who is a hard worker and who will be a strong voice for you in Canberra. 'Mr Willcox, what's it like in Canberra?' 'Well, it's cold most of the time, and I miss the warm, sunny days we're so lucky to have here in Dawson. It's very busy. I start early in the morning and I finish late at night. But there is always something going on.' I think it's safe to say that the future of Dawson and our nation is in safe hands with these little legends coming through. Thank you, QB State School. Golden Oldies World Rugby Festival 20 13:50 Ms 264170 Paterson SWANSON () (): Even though they say it's the game they play in heaven, old rugby players never die; they just go to the world's biggest golden oldies festival. Recently that festival was held in Perth, where teams from all around the world descended for the week-long Golden Oldies World Rugby Festival. Fun, friendship and fraternity, and probably a few frothies as well—this sums up what golden oldies rugby is all about. The Golden Oldies World Rugby Festival is an opportunity to meet new people and rekindle old friendships with people from all across the world. The games are played in good spirit, and there is a saying in golden oldies: 'The older we get, the better we were.' Oh my God, isn't that true—probably in politics too! Players from the Paterson electorate were in attendance, with a team representing Nelson Bay and Raymond Terrace boarding the plane to Perth. The Nelson Bay Grey Gropers and the Raymond Terrace Uglies, as they're better known, headed off to defend the world title that they won in Christchurch back in 2018. This is the jersey from that one. The team, made up of Ray Milton, Grant Mason, Phil Parkinson, Ian Allwood, Brett Moss, Shane Paton, Les Atkinson, Brenden Flynn, Stuart Davison, Brett Keating, Mark Stephenson, Tony Drinan and the one and only Chad Griffith, who is the right hand of the big man from the Hunter, took on the world's best over three days, and they did the deed. Well done, world champions, and go, Raymond Terrace and Nelson Bay golden oldies rugby! Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 21 13:51 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden Hundreds of sick children are unfortunately being made to wait even longer to access a miracle drug because the government is not acting quickly enough. Trikafta, for those aged six to 11 years with cystic fibrosis, has been approved by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee but, unfortunately, in the PBAC minutes from the March meeting, page 26, the government is sending the drug back to the advisory committee 'to request reconsideration of the financial estimates for Trikafta for the treatment of cystic fibrosis in patients who are aged six to 11 years'. That's what the government has done. The Treasurer is here in the House. Treasurer, I implore you: we are talking about the lives of 500 young Australians here. I don't think a single person in Australia would question the Treasurer providing these young Australians and their families with hope. Scott from Paradise Point in my electorate told me that cystic fibrosis is a war. Every cold, flu or COVID case is a battle. He said, 'Every day that this drug is not available to the 500 or so kids aged six to 11 that need it is a day that we lose ground, we lose lung function and parents lose their sanity.' It's a war that at this stage these young children are losing. So, Treasurer, I implore you: there is no time like the present. PBAC has approved the drug for cystic fibrosis. Please approve Trikafta for ages six to 11. New South Wales State Election 21 13:53 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean The communities of Bean and Eden-Monaro are close. In particular, the communities of Jerrabomberra, Googong, Tuggeranong, Lanyon and the Snowy Mountains are close. We don't just share borders; we share lives. We work together, play sports together and share education journeys. Our communities share many of the same challenges and hopes for the future. Fundamentally we want representatives who are committed to working together for the common good. We want greater support for our health and education workers. In that respect, it's been a privilege to work alongside the wonderful member for Eden-Monaro, and I look forward to working together with my friend Steve Whan. Steve has provided mighty service to the Monaro region before and will do so again. Thank you to all the volunteers from both sides of the border that helped out on the weekend and across prepolls. Election day was held in good spirits by all involved. It was good to see the member for Nicholls out at Jerrabomberra for most of the day. I looked very hard, and he is not hard to miss, just as he had been absent from the campaign everywhere else, the member for Dickson could not be seen anywhere near the seat of Monaro click spellcheck could validate. But, when education and health are priorities, it's not a surprise. South Australian National Football League 21 13:54 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt This weekend is the first round for the South Australian National Football League, the SANFL, in my home state of South Australia. I want to wish the Norwood Redlegs, my local team, all the very best in their defence of the grand final cup that they won in spectacular style last year. It was a very nerve-racking game that resulted in a goal by Matthew Panos just before the siren which saw the Redlegs win that game by one point. I'll start by saying to the Redlegs that we don't want any more one-point wins this season, thank you very much! If you could do it by a few more goals that would be great. But I particularly wish them all the best for Friday night. They have the first game of the competition against the Woodville-West Torrens Eagles on the parade and I'm confident and hopeful of a win and, more importantly, an excellent season for the Redlegs. I'm really proud of the support that we provided to that club. In my first term as the member for Sturt we made a significant investment into the Wolf Blass centre there, which has really transformed the club's ability to host a lot of additional community events and which has provided the club with a great platform which they were able to turn into a grand final win last year. So congratulations again, and all the best for the season ahead. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 21 13:56 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta It's great to see businesses getting on board with the Voice to parliament. BHP supports the Voice to parliament, Wesfarmers support the Voice to parliament, Rio Tinto supports the Voice to parliament and businesses across Australia are lining up to support the Voice to parliament. They say that you need bipartisanship to get a referendum up in Australia. I'm pleased to say that we have it: Coles is supporting the Voice and Woolies is as well! And I'm pretty sure that IGA will get on board with the Voice, because we know that good local independents support the Voice! Yesterday the opposition asked the question on everybody's mind: will the Voice to parliament affect the Reserve Bank of Australia? That's keeping people up at night, and I'm pleased to say that the banking sector does support the Voice. CBA has come out for the Voice, the National Australia Bank has come out to support the Voice and Westpac has come out to support the Voice. Those opposite like to think of themselves as the party of business, but businesses are walking away from them on the Voice, just as they're walking away from them on climate change and just as businesses are walking away from them on fairness and gender equity. If the coalition doesn't even understand business support for the Voice then they have no business getting in the way— (Time expired) Deakin Electorate: Netball 22 13:57 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin There was a huge turnout for the 2023 Deakin Junior Club Twilight Tournament on Sunday, which I was proud to sponsor again. There was so much high-quality netball played this year. The tournament was organised by the outstanding committee of the Melbourne East Netball Association. The event was held at the Maroondah nets, with competitions for under 11s, under 13s and under 15s, with a total of 54 teams competing during this very fun afternoon. The Deakin Junior Club Twilight Tournament is one of the biggest tournaments run each year by the Melbourne East Netball Association, with a huge turnout by local clubs, supporters and local vendors. It truly is a fun local event which brings together junior netballers from across our community. Games consist of two seven-minute halves, with a new round starting every 15 minutes all day. Medals were awarded to the winners and certificates to runners-up, with perpetual trophies awarded to the winning section 1 teams. I again want to acknowledge the Melbourne East Netball Association committee and all the clubs, parents and volunteers who made this happen from the Blackburn Lake Netball Club, Heathmont United Netball Club, Holy Spirit Netball Club, Trinity Netball Club, Our Lady's Netball Club Ringwood, Ringwood North Netball Club, Nunawading Netball Club, Park Orchards Netball Club, East Ringwood Netball Club, Southwood Netball Club, St James Netball Club and the Mullum Netball Club. We look forward to— (Time expired) Walking Football 22 13:59 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Let me tell you about walking football. For clarity, by 'football', I mean the beautiful game, the world game, more commonly known in Australia as soccer. Four years ago in South Australia a man called John Walker, a British expat, heard about walking football. He was a lifelong football fan and couldn't play anymore and just went, 'That's for me.' First, he press-ganged his family into doing it. His first team was, in fact, him and his family. A few weeks ago I went along to their awards and now it is a whole roomful of people. Walking Football is fantastic for older people who want to continue doing their sport. It's great for physical fitness. It's great for mental agility. It's good for social connection. It's really good for mental acuity and addressing memory loss. It is, however, no less intense and they do like to compare their injuries, with corked thighs, twisted ankles and the like. They have now entered the Masters Games, and we are looking forward to having a whole-of-Australia walking football game. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living 22 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister repeatedly promise to cut power bills before the election but has never mentioned this promise since the election? Given the Prime Minister once stated, 'If you make a promise and a commitment, you do have to stick to it,' why did he say one thing before the election and another after it? How can Australians be expected to believe anything the Prime Minister says when it comes to the cost-of-living challenges facing Australian families? 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition, and I welcome him back to the playing field. He was the Neale Fraser of the opposition, the non-playing captain, just observing the team. But today he is back, and that is a very good thing. We inherited, as the Leader of the Opposition is aware, a circumstance where we had the Russian invasion of Ukraine and we also had supply chain issues. That's something that was identified, indeed, by the Leader of the Opposition. So I refer the Leader of the Opposition to his own comments about supply chain issues and the impact they were having on inflation and also to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. I will just hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI It's on relevance, Mr Speaker. This was a question about the Prime Minister's truthfulness and why he can't be believed when he says one thing before an election and does the complete opposite— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The question was about commitments before the election. It was about the issue of the cost of living. It was, by anyone's interpretation, quite a broad question. The Prime Minister is being relevant. If he is not, I will pull him into line with the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 The Leader of the Opposition said this about inflation: … it's a reality of a world where there's inflation. I think Australians understand that they're at historically low levels, but there's a lot of pressure—upward pressure—on interest rates at the moment. The shadow finance minister said: We know the pressures that the international situation and supply chains are putting on inflation and subsequently interest rates. The shadow finance minister, personally chosen by the Leader of the Opposition, had that to say in March 2023 in a moment of clarity and a moment of honesty. But they come in here and pretend something very different. Climate Change: Safeguard Mechanism 23 14:04 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How will the Albanese government's safeguard mechanism reforms strengthen our economy, and what's been the response to the passage of this through the House yesterday? 14:04 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank my honourable friend for the question, and I know how proud she is to be the member for one of the great industrial and energy powerhouses of our nation. I know her that Hunter colleagues, her Illawarra colleagues and all the regional colleagues on this side of the House know that the regions that have powered Australia and have been the economic centre of Australia for so long will be the centre of a renewable Australia as well. They know we have to seize the opportunities. Increasingly, economic success for industries and for countries will be determined by those countries that have the best framework for decarbonisation. Investors will demand it, insurers will demand it, and consumers demand it as well. Increasingly, economic success and climate success are interlinked, and that's why the passage of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 through the House yesterday and its passage through the Senate later this week will be so important for our future. The honourable member asked me about the response. It has been welcomed across the business community, because what the Albanese government is doing this week has received the support of the Business Council and the Climate Council. It's received the support of the ACF and the AiG, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Industry Group. That's what this government worked so hard on—getting the policy right to reduce emissions and increase economic activity. The Business Council said yesterday it is a 'tough but achievable' framework that the government announced. Ai Group, the Australian Industry Group, said: The treatment of new facilities appears to strike a workable balance, providing pathways for new projects that stack up to go ahead without adding to burdens on existing facilities or threatening national emissions goals. The Investor Group on Climate Change has said: The reforms will help to unlock investment in the new and existing industries that will maximise Australia's competitive advantages in a net zero world. That's what the business community thinks about these reforms. Those opposite think they know business better than the Business Council. Those opposite think they know industry better than the Australian Industry Group. The shadow minister this morning was railing against safeguard reforms, and it was put to him by Laura Jayes: 'Business disagrees. How do you square that away?' He said, 'Well, you might say business disagrees. There are some business associations that have supported the principle.' But that wasn't his best answer. He was then asked, 'You did sign up to net zero. How are you going to get there?' His response? 'Great question.' Well, while he's asking great questions, the Albanese government's delivering on the job. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting. The member for Fairfax— An opposition member: Very good interjections! The SPEAKER 53517 I can hear his interjections. If he continues to do so, he'll be warned. Housing 23 14:07 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Data realised by Finder shows that more than a third of Australians with a mortgage are struggling to make their mortgage payments as a result of Labor's rising interest rates. Will this out-of-touch Prime Minister finally admit that Australian families always pay more under Labor? 14:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the substitute question of No. 2. It comes as some surprise that they're mixing it up today. Honourable members interjecting — The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin and the member for Hume will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm asked about housing and the cost of housing, and I say to the member who asked the question that he does have an opportunity to do something on housing, which is to support the Housing Australia Future Fund that is before this parliament now. What the Housing Australia Future Fund—along with the Housing Accord and other measures—is aimed at doing, of course, is increasing supply of housing. That has an impact on price. It's economics 101. It has an impact. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom and the member for Hume will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 There is massive support out there. The Property Council of Australia— Mr 242515 Mr Speaker— Mr ALBANESE R36 They really are mixing it up. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is answering a question about mortgage payments and the cost of living, and he's referencing housing. Mr Sukkar 242515 The point of order is on relevance. He's speaking about the Housing Australia Future Fund, which has nothing to do with— The SPEAKER 53517 The tag at the end of question about the cost of policies makes what the Prime Minister is saying relevant. If you don't want him to refer to that, don't add the tag to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. Mr Taylor 231027 You are so out of touch. The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Hume, if you interject again, you will be warned. Let's just get back to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 They've got excited by the change of order. The chief executive of the Property Council of Australia said this: The legislation … is an important first step to get government working together with industry to bridge the national housing deficit and stimulate new supply that Australia desperately needs. That's the chief executive of the Property Council. The Community Housing Industry Association: We need to get moving on building a better supply of social and affordable housing and these … legislation are important building blocks. National Shelter—the Housing Australia Future Fund is a good start to addressing the significant unmet need for social and affordable housing. The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing Association say it would start to address the housing challenge. Homelessness Australia say: It's important that the Housing Australia Future Fund … get going now. The Housing Industry Association supports 'the government's goal to build 30,000 social houses and believes it's a worthy goal to get behind'. More supply means cheaper rents. The fact is that we have a comprehensive plan on housing. Those opposite, like in everything else, just have a plan to say no. Housing Australia Future Fund 24 14:12 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness: why is the passage of the Housing Australia Future Fund so important, and what are the implications if it is delayed in the Senate? 14:12 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for Boothby for her important question. She of course in her previous role before coming to this place dealt with this issue on a day-to-day basis, and I thank her for all of the work she has done in that community. She does support the Housing Australia Future Fund because she understands the challenges Australians are facing. They are dealing with rising interest rates and they are dealing with rising rents, which is why we moved immediately last year to unlock $575 million to get more social and affordable housing on the ground quickly. It's also why at the very first opportunity we brought the Housing Australia Future Fund and other related bills into the parliament, which is why we want to get these bills debated. We want to make sure we're getting these homes on the ground as quickly as we can for the people that need them most. We know that on census night in 2021 almost 123,000 Australians were homeless— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting. Ms COLLINS HWM 123,000 Australians without a safe place to go home. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will cease interjecting as well. M HWM We know that turning all this around will take some national leadership. We also know we need to change the levers and we need to work with the states and territories, which is what the Housing Australia Future Fund is all about. It's about working with other tiers of government. It's about working with community housing providers. It's about working with institutional investors to get more houses on the ground more quickly. Today, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, we've heard from some critical organisations about why we need to get this done. Emma Greenhalgh from National Shelter said: We badly need government investment and intervention and time is of the essence. This is a national crisis, action can not be deferred. Here is a peak body of providers saying that this is urgent, because it is urgent. Of course we have Wendy Hayhurst from community housing, who said: We need to get moving on building a better supply of social and affordable housing and these three pieces of legislation are important building blocks. They know we have to get moving on this quickly because it is urgent and there are people on the ground who need us to get this done. Kate Colvin, from Homelessness Australia, said, 'It's important that the Housing Australia Future Fund, Housing Australia and other key bodies get going now,' because this is urgent. We need to get it done. We are being told by these organisations that we need to get it done quickly, so I say to members in this place, particularly members of the coalition over here and members of the Greens: talk to your senators. Tell them how urgent it is that we get this done. Talk to some of these organisations. I say to them: what you are saying is 'no' to actually getting homes on the ground for people who need it most. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 25 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Richards, Ms Shorna-Kay 25 14:15 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is Her Excellency Ms Shorna-Kay Richards, the High Commissioner for Jamaica, and advocates of workers from the transport sector as well. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 25 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Pensions And Benefits 25 14:15 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney My question is to the Minister for Social Services. A single parent with two children loses over $100 a week in payments when their child turns eight and they are forced off the very modest parenting payment single and onto the even lower JobSeeker payment. What advice does the minister give single parents—mostly women, many of whom are survivors of family violence—who the government are forcing to make a choice between living in poverty or returning to violence? Will the government commit in the upcoming budget to restoring access to the parenting payment single for parents until their youngest child is 16? 14:16 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I would like to thank the member for her question and say that the Albanese government is very much committed to supporting single parents to help them manage work and family responsibilities. Of course, this includes a range of social security payments, paid parental leave and cheaper child care. This government knows that Australians are doing it tough, and we are always looking at ways that we can better support them. That's why we've made a number of commitments to help with the cost of living: cheaper child care, cutting the cost of the PBS co-payments and, of course, announcing the energy bill relief fund, which will deliver targeted and temporary relief on power bills to eligible households, including those on income support payments. Through the social security system, single parents can be eligible for parenting payment and, as the member rightly indicates, as their child gets older, most parents are able to increase their level of employment and reduce their need for income support. Of course, there are still those that do continue to rely on income support as their child gets older and do move to the JobSeeker payment and receive a higher rate is the principal carer to ensure they do get additional support. In addition, single parents also can get a range of extra supplements and supports. I say to the member that this government is always looking at how we can better support Australians, particularly those on low incomes, and the government has recently established the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to provide advice on economic inclusion and tackling disadvantage ahead of every federal budget. Some of the payments that will be looked at include those being received by single parents such as parenting payment, JobSeeker payment and Commonwealth rent assistance. Opposition members interjecting— Ms RISHWORTH HWA I don't understand why those opposite are interjecting, but I can tell you that this government will take those most vulnerable and their living situation seriously. We will consider it through the budget context, and I look forward to continuing to work with the member on how we best deliver to those most disadvantaged in Australia. Albanese Government: Legislation 26 14:19 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the three major policies the government is progressing this week—the safeguard mechanism, the National Reconstruction Fund and the Housing Australia Future Fund—work together to build a better future for Australians? 14:19 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Pearce for her question. Of course, this week we are making progress on all three of our signature policies. All three are ones that we took to the election, to the Australian people, last May, and we received a mandate for support. The safeguard mechanism is a commonsense way to curb emissions, to give business certainty and stability, and to get us on a path to net zero. And that's why it's been supported by the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Conservation Foundation. I thank all member of the crossbench, in both chambers, who've been constructive about this, who know that we need to end the decade of delay and denial when it comes to climate policy. The National Reconstruction Fund is also very important. We want renewables and cheaper energy to be built and then to flow through to advanced manufacturing in this country. We need to be a country that makes things again here. It's a matter of our national resilience. During the pandemic we received a reminder of how vulnerable we are if we're just at the end of supply chains. This is about making our future here and creating secure jobs. The Housing Australia Future Fund is about making sure that we have investment in social and affordable housing, making sure that veterans are looked after, and making sure that women and children escaping domestic violence also receive support. It's about emergency housing as well. These three policies all work together. Along with our other actions, they're the foundations of a better future. Safeguards are ensuring more cheap, reliable renewable power into our grid, and that cheap renewable energy is driving an Australian manufacturing boom, boosting new industries like critical minerals. They are all working together. We're training people for those jobs with 180,000 fee-free TAFE places, which are making such a big difference. When I was in the electorate of Aston last week, Mary Doyle was very supportive of our plan to train and skill up people in that community. They also have something else in common, because those opposite say no to all three, in spite of the fact that we clearly went to an election and two of these three policies were announced as part of budget replies, when opposition leaders had policies and alternative policies for the government. Those opposite have no solutions and no ideas—just no. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 26 14:22 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Every single person in this country wants to see better outcomes for Indigenous Australians. There is no moral high ground and no monopoly on good intentions. Australians have made it clear over many decades that there are no blank cheques on constitutional reform. Will the Prime Minister release all advice from the Solicitor-General and any other legal advisers on the Voice so that Australians can fully understand all of the implications of the proposed change? 14:23 Mr R36 Grayndler ALBANESE (—) (): I thank the member for her question. I certainly agree with the statement that Australians want to close the gap, and Australians want reconciliation to be advanced. I'm asked about legal opinion. The government's position on cabinet papers is the same as that of the former government. A range of legal opinion has been put forward and words have been put forward. I want to make this point— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. The member for New England. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Macnamara will cease interjecting immediately. Mr ALBANESE R36 I want to go to where these words that will be put to the Australian people have come from. The 'con con' alliance developed a proposal in 2014—see if it sounds familiar—proposing a new chapter of the Constitution. It said this: There shall be an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander body, to be called the [insert appropriate name, perhaps drawn from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander language], which shall have the function of providing advice to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It then went on, in clause 2, to say: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, roles, powers and procedures of the [body]. They were the two key clauses that were put forward in 2014. One of the authors was the shadow Attorney-General, who was a part of that body that was put forward in 2014. He is a lawyer, and the fact is that lawyers, including the member for Berowra and the shadow Attorney-General in this country, have put forward that wording, which has been backed up— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I will hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN I rise on a point of order: relevance. I accept that the question— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for skills will cease interjecting. Ms Ley 00AMN I accept that the question was broad but what it did not do was invite the Prime Minister to reflect on the opposition. Every part of the question went to the government's approach about this specific referendum. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was a long question about legal advice and about the current constitutional reform. The Prime Minister is being relevant, but I will listen carefully to ensure that he is sticking to the question. It was also about outcomes for Indigenous Australians. I give him the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 I certainly am. The point is this has been more than a decade in the making. The 'con con' alliance included Julian Leeser, Damien Freeman, Marcia Langton, Megan Davis, Greg Craven, Anne Twomey and Noel Pearson. Just as the former Chief Justice of the High Court— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. The member for Deakin and the minister for the environment will cease interjecting immediately or be warned. The Prime Minister has 30 seconds. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thank you, Mr Speaker. The former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Justice French, made his views very clear in an article in the Financial Review on Saturday, as has Anne Twomey, the leading constitutional academic in this country, as has the shadow Attorney-General in terms of the words that have been put forward by the shadow Attorney-General. It is as simple as that, and I can't understand how that is controversial. (Time expired) Budget 27 14:27 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong My question is to the Treasurer. What is the impact on the budget when ongoing programs are left unfunded, and what impact will it have on Australians in funding for these programs isn't continued? 14:27 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the member for Bennelong for his question. The budget is six weeks away today and it will be handed down at a time of uncertainty, cost-of-living pressures and substantial fiscal constraints. The fastest growing area of government spending is the cost of servicing the trillion dollars of Liberal debt that those opposite left behind. So in this environment, there is a premium on what is responsible, affordable and sustainable, and we have been upfront about the pressures on the budget as we methodically work our way through and try to deal with them. In October we had to find $4.1 billion for pressures that our predecessors couldn't be bothered funding in an ongoing way. And in May we will have to find billions of dollars more for spending and for programs that they announced but didn't fund in myGov and My Health Record or dental care for pensioners, the Brisbane Olympics or esafety or radioactive waste. Time after time after time they were all press release and no provision. The member for Hume was asked about this fakery and trickery today and he said it is all part of managing the budget. This is what happens when you put this ringleader for rorts in a key economic portfolio. No wonder they had— Mr Fletcher L6B I rise on a point of order. That is clearly unparliamentary and abusive language, and he should be asked to withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 To assist the House, I will ask the Treasurer to withdraw that comment and keep moving. Dr CHALMERS 37998 I withdraw, Mr Speaker. This is what happens when you put somebody like the member for Hume in the key economic portfolio. No wonder they had almost nothing to show for a trillion dollars of debt, and now we know it was even worse than they claimed. The Leader of the Opposition was a key part of the Morrison government as a member of the Expenditure Review Committee that deliberately left hanging Australians who rely on these programs. The Leader of the Opposition can hide from the voters of New South Wales and he can hide from the voters of Aston, but he can't hide from his record as a key member of the Morrison government or the mess that they left behind. We take our responsibilities seriously at a time of global uncertainty, cost-of-living pressures and substantial fiscal constraints. It will take more than one budget. It will take more than two budgets to clean up the mess that those opposite left behind. Whether it's the member for Hume or the angry captain of the cookers over there who bears responsibility for this mess, we take responsibility for cleaning it up. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There's far too much noise on my left. If this continues, people will be warned and they won't be here much longer. Infrastructure 28 14:31 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay My question is to the minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. I refer the minister to her failure in parliament last week to address regional program delays for local councils. Given it has been 10 months since the federal election and five months since the budget, when will councils receive guidelines for the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program so they can plan for critical road upgrades? 14:31 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro Thank you very much to the member opposite for the question. It's so great to see members of the LNP on the road to Damascus about guidelines. We know it wasn't a big priority for them previously, but it is great to see that they're interested in guidelines now. Five months ago, we announced our budget. Local roads and community infrastructure is a huge part of that budget, and we know how important it is to local councils. It is an untied grant fund that allows them to deal with community priorities. What we are doing on this side of the House is engaging directly with local councils, local government organisations and associations. For the first time ever, we are talking directly with them about the things that matter most to them—consulting with our trusted delivery partners in local councils. So far in the 10 months I've held this role, I've met with nearly 200 local councils. All 200 of them have told me of the importance of untied grant funding. All 200 of them have told me that they've spent time and money putting in applications to previous grant funds that were never assessed on their merits by those opposite. In contrast— Mr Littleproud 265585 Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: the question is very specific and was asking for a time line for when they will receive those guidelines. The minister failed last week, and we're giving her another chance. It now gets to a point in time. The SPEAKER 53517 It doesn't quite work that way. Resume your seat. I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW I was rising to object to the add-ons at the end. The question itself refers to local government grants that the minister is talking about. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is being relevant because she is referring— An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, I'm aware that that was part of the question, but what you asked was a broad question. And she is referring to the programs. You might not like the answer, but she is being directly relevant because you asked a question about that program, and she is referring to it. If she's not, I'll bring her back into line. I give her the call. Ms McBAIN 281988 Coming back to the answer, if you would care to listen, I'm telling you that we are consulting with local governments. You failed to do it. We are doing it. We are talking directly to them, and we will continue to do that because local governments are a trusted delivery partner. We brought them back to the table of National Cabinet. We're listening to them. We are implementing the Australian Council of Local Government after you got rid of it, after a decade where you failed to understand they are the critical delivery partner across the nation—546 of them. And perhaps if you took any care at all in your communities and backed their local ideas and understood how they deliver for us you would be interested in engaging with them too. Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games 28 14:35 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government working to deliver a successful Brisbane 2032 Paralympic and Olympic Games? What legacy was left by the previous government? 14:35 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank very much the member for Moreton for his question and commend him on his ongoing work on the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games and ensuring that they are a success and that they leave a lasting legacy across the community. Of course, these games will be the largest event to be ever held in Queensland. For two weeks the eyes of the world will be on Brisbane, and across that fine, fine state of Queensland, as the best athletes in the world go head to head for the race to gold. Brisbane 2032 will be another opportunity to show the world just what Australia can do but it has to do more than that, it has to provide a lasting benefit. That's why this government is partnering with the Palaszczuk government to secure infrastructure projects that will have a long-term and transformational impact on Queensland as we count down to 2032. The Queensland government will fund the $2.7 billion redevelopment of the Gabba, while the federal government will provide $2.5 billion for the Brisbane arena development. Sixteen new or upgraded venues will receive close to $1.87 billion in co-funding on a fifty-fifty basis between the two governments. The Brisbane arena is planned to be built within the Roma Street precinct with easy access for people of all mobilities to the city bus network. But, of course, I'm asked about what the legacy is of the previous government when it comes to the Olympics and that can be summed up in two words: absolutely nothing. The previous government did not commit a single cent to the Brisbane Olympics. I went looking, when we came into government, to see where the was money for the Brisbane Olympics. What we inherited from the previous government was one line in a letter committing the Commonwealth to fifty-fifty funding. I went looking. I thought, 'Is it in the previous May budget? Is it in the contingency reserve?' You would think someone, a Queenslander maybe on ERC, would have thought, 'Maybe you need to put some money in the contingency reserve for this commitment to the biggest event ever for Queenslanders.' But what was there? Zilch, nothing, not a single cent provisioned for the Brisbane Olympics. The other side of the House are full of talk on this. The member for Fairfax may still spruik whatever make-work job he had made up for himself, but the reality is that their last budget did not commit a single cent to this event, not a single cent. What we inherited from the previous government was one line in a letter: no funding. We know how important the Olympics are to Queensland. The Olympic flame is going to be lit in 2032. Brisbane will be ready and it will be no thanks to those opposite. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Flinders, there's far too much noise in the chamber. The members for Deakin and Groom are now warned. You've had a good go. Energy 29 14:38 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders My question is to the Prime Minister. The government's deal with the Greens for a hard emissions cap will force up power prices and further risk domestic gas supply. This comes after the Australian Energy Market Operator's warning of gas shortages in Victoria. Can the Prime Minister guarantee there will be no disruption to gas supply to Victorians this winter? 14:39 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Only a party addicted to secrecy, cover-ups and denial would say that it's a bad thing that this parliament is prepared to work with colleagues across the parliament in order to achieve reform and change. We make no apologies for engaging across this parliament. It's just a pity that those opposite are now the observers rather than the participants in this parliament. They chose to be nowhere near any of this. It's no wonder that the member for Bass had this to say: I'm utterly exasperated by the lack of engagement from my own side to come to the table and engage in a constructive conversation … The fact is that we— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fairfax will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm asked about arrangements in this parliament in order to achieve the legislation that is through. What we had from those opposite was ongoing scare campaigns. Remember when we met in December the member for Hume said, 'Labor's diabolical plan will undermine new investment in Australia.' The Leader of the Nats: 'It will tear away at investment confidence.' The Leader of the Opposition: 'It will disrupt investment into our country.' Well, have a look at what's happened today on investment. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance, a straight question: can the Prime Minister guarantee there will be no disruption to gas supply to Victorians this winter? The SPEAKER 53517 That was part of the question. Mr Fletcher L6B Please give us a straight answer, Prime Minister. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The point of relevance is not just to pick out the point of the question that you want answered; it is the entirety. If you want to read the whole question out, that's not okay. You just need to state the point of relevance. The Prime Minister is being relevant and may continue. Mr ALBANESE R36 Today we have, in the Financial Review: Canadian giant Brookfield has pledged to invest billions of dollars to accelerate the decarbonisation of Origin Energy after sealing a long-awaited $18.7 billion deal to buy out the Australian electricity and gas supplier together with US partner EIG. It went on to say this: … the binding agreement puts to bed any lingering doubts in the market that what was the second-biggest takeover proposal announced in 2022 in Australia would be derailed by the federal government's intervention into energy markets to rein in runaway prices. No wonder they're against solar power, because they keep predicting the sky will fall in. That's why they're against solar power—because they keep predicting that the sky will fall in. The sky won't fall in. We have the best solar resources in the world, and we're going to use them. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina, if he continues with that interjection, will be warned. myGov 30 14:42 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta My question is to the Minister for Government Services. Why is it important to support the delivery of government services through the myGov platform? What are the current financial circumstances of the myGov platform? 14:43 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Members of the House would be aware that myGov provides a secure and convenient way to access 15 government services. For example, there are 19 million myGov accounts which are linked to Medicare, and 97 per cent of the claims which people made in the last 12 months for disaster relief were done through myGov. On average, every day 1.4 million people use myGov, which is more than people who use public transport to commute to and from work. Also, myGov helps protect people's personal information. I believe that myGov will be developed as a trusted system which will be used to verify someone's identity, avoiding the need for private-sector organisations to pile masses of data which then can be inconveniently hacked. The myGov user audit, which was done this year as part of our election policy, has proposed ideas which we're currently considering to improve reliability and functionality and provide a user-friendly experience. It's built upon David Thodey's independent review of the Australian Public Service, and I think it adds to the roadmap of how myGov can achieve a better vision for the delivery of government services and build trust between citizens and their government. The audit thinks that it's an indispensable national digital infrastructure. This is a good story and good news, but there is a catch. The previous government decided that the job would be done by 30 June this year. The Francis Fukuyamas, the End of History people, believed that history would end on 30 June and that we would reach Utopia. There was no need to do any more—mission accomplished, as a former American president said! And when you look at the 2021-22 portfolio budget statement, there's $92 million dollars in 2021-22—good, tick—and $80 million in 2022-23. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG But when you look for the next year, there's nothing. The real import of this— Opposition member s interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG And despite the howls from those opposite— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will resume his seat so I can hear from the member for Hume. Mr Taylor 231027 A point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. The government had a budget in October. They could have included— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat, member for Hume, that is not a point of order. I ask the minister to return to the question. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The summary of this issue, and the reason it is important to people listening to parliament, is that the previous government was absolutely guilty in its budgets of cooking the books. They would pretend that they needed to make no provision for the future, and in that way they were misleading the Australian people on every budget night. And that habit has to stop. Environment: Prickly Acacia 31 14:46 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy My question is for the Minister for the Environment and Water. There are 24,000 kilometres of prickly melodica weed tree, the worst environmental disaster in our history. It is reducing what some have described as Australia's best natural grasslands into degraded, eroded wastelands bereft of native flora and fauna, dooming, inter alia, the western dunnart, to extinction. Minister, as North Queensland's mid-west population has fallen from 40,000 to 24,000, will the Hughenden irrigation scheme be a template for overcoming the degradation and creating the freedom of property and space, a nature wonderland of hope, prosperity and— (Time expired) 14:47 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney It's wonderful to have a question from the member for Kennedy. I have the opportunity to talk to him often about the issues that he is concerned about in his electorate, and I value this opportunity to talk about the prickly acacia. He is quite right that prickly acacia is a weed of national concern. It is a serious issue that is degrading the grasslands, undermining stock on that land, causing erosion and seriously putting pressure on dunnarts. If people want to look up Julia Creek dunnarts while I'm talking, they'll see a very cute little marsupial. That's why one of the things I've done recently is allow the importation of a new biological control. This new biological control, the gall-inducing thrip, targets the prickly acacia specifically. The member has also asked about the Hughenden irrigation scheme. There are three things that the Albanese Labor government is interested in knowing about the Hughenden irrigation scheme. We are very open to the scheme, as I've told the member for Kennedy on many occasions, but the three things that we've asked for first are: an adequate water allocation from the Queensland government; assessment of the project by Infrastructure Australia; and co-funding from the Queensland government. I understand that— The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN The Prime Minister has returned, but members are required— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. That is not a point of order. As the member knows, there are times when she leaves the chamber as well. Members do leave the chamber. I don't think that's helpful or appropriate. Those sorts of points of order are disorderly, and if the deputy leader continues with that, she will be asked to leave the chamber. The minister has the call. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M It's not the Gold Coast, but Julia Creek matters too. I understand that the water allocation has progressed to the next stage of the water allocation process. I'm told that the proponent has submitted a detailed case to Infrastructure Australia. I understand that the Queensland government is actively considering the project. We will always support better infrastructure when it stacks up. I remind the member for Kennedy as well that, in the October budget, we committed three-quarters of a billion dollars to water infrastructure in Queensland, including $600 million for Paradise Dam near Bundaberg, over $100 million for the Cairns Water Security project, $11½ million for better water security planning in Queensland, $3½ million for Mount Morgan, another $8 million towards Big Rocks Weir and another $12½ million for groundwater improvement and water efficiency in the Lower Burdekin. One difference between us and those opposite is, when we promise water infrastructure, we deliver it. We won't promise 100 dams, as those opposite did, and deliver two in nine years. National Science Institutions 31 14:51 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. Why are the national science institutions so important to Australia, and what has caused their current funding circumstances? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin is on a warning. If he mentions one more word, he will leave the chamber. 14:51 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Thanks to the member for Canberra, who, like many of us here, is very proud of our world-class science agencies, be it Questacon, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation or the National Measurement Institute. They're providing public services that people rely on every day but may not necessarily realise are there. Here's an example. A few weeks ago, we had an issue where the nation's attention was captured by the loss of an object no larger than a 10c piece in remote Western Australia. That object was a radioactive capsule. It needed to be tracked down. ANSTO stepped forward to help, with their own device, developed in house. They located that object while travelling 70 kilometres an hour on a 1,400-kilometre stretch of road. It was like ANSTO had found one needle in a million haystacks. It was truly remarkable. It is not just ANSTO. Look at Questacon, who play an essential role in inspiring the next generation of STEM students. They are skills that we will really need in the economy and the country longer term. The National Measurement Institute help keep Australians safe and healthy. They secure the quality of food produce that's exported. They test water quality. They also help support law enforcement agencies with drug testing. They'll also help in the lead-up to the Brisbane Olympics, making sure that we've got that drug testing working properly. These are the kinds of services that are absolutely relied upon by the Australian public, and we need to ensure that those services are backed in with patient investment. But what gets me is when you look at the decade of chronic underinvestment by those opposite. They squeezed vital funding for these agencies that are doing very important work. Under the coalition's watch, Questacon's facilities deteriorated. They have been using buckets to catch rain from leaking buildings, affecting the experience of, particularly, school students in our area. Under the coalition's watch, the National Measurement Institute was squeezed for money to deliver the analytical services we rely upon. Under the coalition's watch, ANSTO facilities, vital in producing cancer and diagnostic medicines, were ageing. It wasn't that the coalition couldn't find money—$1 trillion debt, sports rorts, building commuter car parks nowhere near public transport, as long as it was in a marginal electorate. They had the money there. They just didn't want to invest it in anything other than their political interests. That is the worst thing. The person who leads the opposition was on the Expenditure Review Committee helping make those calls. They've learnt nothing and will continue to do the same and will continue to dud Australians. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 32 14:54 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Prime Minister. In the Prime Minister's press conference yesterday, in response to a question about the scope of the Voice's powers, the Prime Minister said, 'The Voice is not about defence policy; it's not about foreign affairs policy.' Prime Minister, what other matters are excluded from the remit of the Voice? 14:55 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Well, a learned colleague once wrote about what the Voice was about, and he said this. He wrote that Noel Pearson proposes 'a consultative body that merely provides advice. It cannot veto parliament but rather it provides greater input into the policy-making process which should lead to policy improvements and greater buy-in from Indigenous people across Australia. It is important that, if the parliament is going to make laws about Indigenous people, Indigenous people should be consulted about those laws. There is nothing incongruent about articulation of that rule of the Constitution. The Constitution is where rules for parliament are set out. In my view, the proposal for an advisory body has real merit and sits most comfortably with the nature of the Constitution. It is the kind of machinery clause that Griffith, Barton and their colleagues might have drafted, had they turned their minds to it.' These were indeed very wise words from the member for Berowra in 2016, from Uphold & Recognise. The member for Berowra knows— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left cannot continue to shout while the Prime Minister is speaking. Mr ALBANESE R36 Mr Speaker, that members of the coalition are shouting while I'm quoting the shadow minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs and the shadow Attorney-General is just extraordinary. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Government members interjecting— The 53517 Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Member for Lyons. The member for Bennelong. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, on a number of previous occasions you've directed the Prime Minister back to the terms of the question—a very specific question: what other matters are excluded from the remit of the Voice? It was a question asked by somebody who's demonstrated his good-faith— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, on points of order from the Manager of Opposition Business, consistently he is pulling a section of a question and pretending in the point of order that it was a whole question. It wasn't. And even if it was only that section, the Prime Minister is being relevant to the scope of the Voice. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is referring to advice and information regarding the Voice, which the question included. I want to be clear on this. You may not like the part of the question that the Prime Minister is answering, but as long as it is relevant to the broad question, he is able to answer that way. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 The reason it is relevant to put into the context the development of the proposal to do two things—to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution and, secondly, to consult them—is that this isn't something that has come from nowhere. This is something that has been around for a considerable period of time and been the subject of considerable discourse, including from legal minds, including the shadow Attorney-General. Indeed, in the report of the Joint Select Committee, tabled in this parliament— Mr ALBANESE R36 Seriously? The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The 53517 If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition continues this, she will be warned. You cannot continue to just interject constantly. I can't be clearer than that. It's the same with the member for Groom, who is on a warning. If he says one more thing, he'll leave the chamber. The Prime Minister has the call and will be heard in silence for the remainder of his time. Mr ALBANESE R36 There have been reports to this parliament. Indeed, the member for Berowra said this in his speech on the tabling of a joint select committee report in 2018, and I agree with him here: The voice will provide a mechanism for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be consulted and engaged on the policies and laws that affect them … Such a process has as its goals better social and economic policy outcomes for our First Nations people. Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 I find it astonishing that there are interjections during an answer such as this. The fact that this has been around— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Mr ALBANESE R36 That is the answer. (Time expired) Ministerial Standards 33 15:00 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle My question is to the Minister for Government Services. In light of the findings of the Watt report into procurements and contracts in the Government Services portfolio, why is it so important for publicly elected officials to act with integrity towards those they represent? 15:01 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Yesterday I updated the House on issues raised in Dr Watt's review into procurements and contracts entered into by Services Australia and the NDIA. A key thread in this reporting was the presence of de facto lobbying firm Synergy 360, owned by Mr David Milo and Mr John Margerison, friends of the member for Fadden. Synergy 360 was being paid by companies including Indian software giant Infosys and American technology giant Unisys for access to the member for Fadden's office. Leaked emails today in the Nine newspapers reveal that the cash-for-access business model of Synergy 360 extended beyond the member for Fadden and his office and to the important Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI. It received sensitive briefs on Australia's national security. ACLEI at the time was inquiring into the integrity of Australia's seaports and borders. Leaked emails reveal that Unisys had paid Synergy 360 in order for the member for Fadden to help the company set up the commercial pitch of its border security software called LineSight. We have an endorsement from the ACLEI committee that Unisys were hoping to sell this product to the Australian government. Leaked emails reveal that Unisys were set to make millions if they could reach a deal with the Australian government to purchase this product. Furthermore, these emails revealed that Synergy 360 would also receive 10 per cent of the contract value plus a $10,000 retainer per month. In anticipation of the pitch to ACLEI, the member for Fadden was provided by a Unisys executive with information about their product. I quote an email from an Asia-Pacific vice-president of Unisys to the American head office: I told Stuart I would get him something tonight. Tomorrow at the joint committee on Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI), he will be proposing that the committee formerly meets with Unisys for a briefing on our work with the US government … Furthermore, the member met with Synergy 360, his friends, the chairman of his fundraising group and Unisys reps on the Gold Coast at Mr Margerison's house to help them prepare a run-through for the committee. He lunched with them on the 29th as a thankyou from Unisys. He then helped arrange meetings not only with Unisys and with ACLEI but also with the now Leader of the Opposition—and I'm not saying the now Leader of the Opposition was aware of all the backstory. All these matters go to the core of the Watt review—the need to declare conflicts both real and perceived. I think, in order to assure the parliament and the Australian public that he's acted with integrity, the member for Fadden needs to immediately state whether he declared his conflict of interest before suggesting Unisys make a commercial pitch. I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to say if he's satisfied with the member for Fadden's conduct in all of these matters, which have dominated the front pages of the media. New South Wales: Roads 34 15:04 Mr GEE 261393 Calare My question is to the Prime Minister. Since the days of the gold rush, communities of the Central West have been advocating for a crossing over the Macquarie River at Dixons Long Point, between Orange and Mudgee. With a solid benefit-cost ratio, substantial funding had been committed, cultural heritage considerations were cooperatively addressed and the project had gone out to tender. There was even $27.8 million of allocated funding sitting in the kitty. Where is this money now? Will you and your government support this game-changing project? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina is warned. 15:04 Mr R36 Grayndler ALBANESE (—) (): I thank the member for Calare for his question and I also thank him for raising this issue with me on behalf of his constituents when we met in my office a while ago. I know that he is very passionate about this project to provide a road link between Orange and Mudgee. It is a complex proposal because it does, of course, involve a river crossing, and therefore the costs have been assessed. Unfortunately, it's been much higher than $27.8 million. Like many of the commitments that were made opposite, essentially, you can't fund half a road. You can't just have one side and you can't have it go just half the way. You need to have the entire funding there, which is why I look forward to and I have raised the issue with my minister for infrastructure and transport as to whether there would be an interest as well in the New South Wales government—the incoming New South Wales government—also being engaged with this project or, indeed, with the shire councils in this area. I will certainly come back to the member for Calare about this. We have allocated some $23 billion to New South Wales for infrastructure projects over the next decade, with substantial investment right across all states and territories. As the member knows, because I travelled with him to Calare during the natural disasters which, tragically, a lot of his electorate was impacted by, we continue to invest where it's needed to deal with the natural disasters that had a devastating impact—in particular, the floods in his community. I look forward to working with the member for Claire and thank him for the question. Health Care 34 15:07 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Why is it important for governments to work together to improve health services, and why are improvements needed? 15:07 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Spence for his question. He's doing such terrific work in the wonderful northern suburbs of Adelaide. He understands that this government has no higher priority than strengthening Medicare. We understand that this requires us to work closely with state and territory governments to address the deep range of challenges facing our healthcare system after nine years of cuts and neglect from those opposite, compounded by three years of a global pandemic. We work closely with all states and territories, Labour and Liberal alike, to finalise arrangements for 50 urgent-care centres that we've committed to deliver this year, delivering care in the community for non-life-threatening emergencies, extended hours seven days a week, fully bulk-billed and, importantly, a much-needed lowering of pressure on our crowded emergency departments. We're also working constructively with states and territories to roll out the Prime Minister's $100 million innovation fund he agreed at national cabinet. We're delivering a single-employer model across rural Tasmania for GP registrars and rural generalists, more nurse practitioners in Western Australia and much more as well. The contrast between this cooperative approach with state governments and the conflict that the last government was addicted to could not be clearer, and no-one pushed that conflict model harder than the Leader of the Opposition when he was health minister. In addition to his infamous GP tax and his attempt to jack up the price of medicines for every single Australian, he also tried to gut hospital funding. He tried to gut $50 billion from funding to public hospitals. He abolished the agreements we had with states to bring down waiting lists in emergency departments and for elective surgery. It's all contained in a release from the Leader of the Opposition as health minister, titled, I kid you not, 'Strengthening Medicare'. I think he meant 'Strangling Medicare', but autocorrect got the better of him! But in that release he includes perhaps his most extraordinary idea, and I quote: The Government— their government— will also remove the restrictions on state and territory governments that prevents hospital emergency departments charging a … fee for presentations— his vision of the fantastic triage nurses of Australia out the front of every single hospital emergency department with an EFTPOS machine to collect the Leader of the Opposition's hospital tax. No wonder Australia's doctors overwhelmingly voted this man the worst health minister in the history of Medicare. I table a media release from the Honourable Peter Dutton, ironically titled 'Strengthening Medicare'. Voice to Parliament 35 15:10 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Prime Minister and concerns the Voice. Can the Prime Minister confirm: The Voice is not about defence policy. It's not about foreign affairs policy. 15:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank member for his question, and they should know what the Voice is about, because for 10 years they were actually the government that established the committees, established the processes and produced the reports that dealt with the Voice to Parliament. Indeed, the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs proudly said in his first speech to parliament: In important public debates, in a time of increasing polarisation of views, we need people who can build consensus and find the middle ground. And so in more recent times, I have worked with Indigenous leaders and constitutional conservatives to find a constitutional way to make better policy about, and give due recognition of, Indigenous Australians while avoiding the downsides of inserting symbolic language into a technical document which requires interpretation by judges. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance, it was a very tight question. The totality of the question: My question is to the Prime Minister and concerns the Voice. Can the Prime Minister confirm: The Voice is not about defence policy. It's not about foreign affairs policy. The SPEAKER 53517 The issue we have here is you started your sentence with, 'My question is about the Voice.' Under the standing orders the Prime Minister is being relevant, because if you ask and state something in the first or second part of the question, he can refer to that. But he was asked specifically a second part of the question, and before he ends I'm sure he will address that part of the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm surprised quoting the member for Berowra's first speech is something that's controversial in this place. It was about the Voice, his first speech, and he deserves credit for the work he has done on the Voice, which is why it is so sad that what we see now is an attempt, ongoing, to raise issues in a way that is designed to undermine the opportunity Australians have to unite the country in a positive way—just like I offered to the former Prime Minister when we met in his office on the first sitting day of parliament in 2019. Bear this in mind: those opposite, prior to the 2019 election, made a commitment to advance the Voice to Parliament. Ken Wyatt, to his credit, was appointed as the first ever Aboriginal to hold the position of minister for Indigenous affairs, and I appointed as shadow minister the member for Barton. That was to advance— Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? Mr ALBANESE R36 No. The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Hume, I'm trying to hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI Your words were very clear before—that is, for the Prime Minister to answer the question before his time is up. He has 26 seconds left, and he continues to openly defy your orders. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat, thank you. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for New England will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister in conclusion. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting, as will the Attorney-General. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent for the remainder of this answer. The Prime Minister has 26 seconds to go. Mr ALBANESE R36 The wording of the referendum which was put forward for the Australian people makes it very clear that it is about matters that affect the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. That is what this is about—the 10 year gap in life expectancy. It is about doing something about that. (Time expired) Higher Education 36 15:16 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government building the skilled workforce and supporting students with cost-of-living pressures, in particular in Victoria? What has been the response to the government's plans? 15:16 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I would like to thank the member for Chisholm for her question and for her strong support for TAFE and the VET sector, not only in her electorate but across the country. Upon election, it was clear that not only had we inherited a $1 trillion Liberal debt but also a massive skills deficit, so much so that the occupations on the skills shortage list grew from 153 occupations to 286 in 12 months. The OECD reported that we had the second-highest labour shortage per capita among OECD countries. We also know nine out of every 10 jobs require post-secondary school qualifications. For that reason, we convened the Jobs and Skills Summit, we enacted Jobs and Skills Australia, and we struck eight agreements with state and territory governments—Labor and Liberal—in order to invest in 183,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places for 2023. I am happy to say that on Friday I accompanied the Prime Minister and Minister for Early Childhood Education and indeed the Labor candidate for Aston, Mary Doyle, to Swinburne University, a dual provider that is providing very important courses to fill the skills shortages in our economy. These students that we met at this campus are able to save up to $6,960 for these courses. So not only the likelihood of them enrolling in these courses has grown because of the fee-free TAFE approach by the government, but we are seeing these skills shortages filled as a result of the courses that are outlined. On 1 July, the Albanese government's cheaper child care will become a reality, providing more cost-of-living relief for around 1.2 million Australian families. But to ensure that we have the staff required, we must invest in skills and that is what we're doing through this process. All across Australia, students are enrolling in early childhood education courses and other areas of demand to supply these skills. But not everyone agrees with our approach to making skills and training more accessible. I am asked what is the response by others, and I'm afraid to say that those opposite have referred to fee-free TAFE as 'wasteful' spending. This is an opposition, a former government, that was happy to spend on sports rorts and car park rorts but they want to say investing in skills in areas of demand is a waste. Frankly, we will continue to invest in skills, invest in areas of demand, so that businesses are better off, so students are better off, and so the economy is better off. (Time expired) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 36 15:18 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Prime Minister, will the Voice need to be consulted on defence and foreign affairs matters? 15:19 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The question that will be asked is: A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration? That's the question. Here is the proposed change in the Constitution. The first bit is the recognition: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: 1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; 2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government— the same words used by the shadow Attorney-General in his submission way back in 2014— of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; That's there. And then the third clause gives primacy to this parliament for what will be considered. It says— Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is directly being relevant to the question regarding the Voice and the referendum. He is reading information into the Hansard regarding specifically what you asked about. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B The question could not have been tighter: will the Voice need to be consulted on defence and foreign affairs matters? The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, I understand the answer that you're looking for, but the Prime Minister can answer the question how he sees fit as long as he's within the standing orders, and currently he is within the standing orders. Mr ALBANESE R36 This goes to what will be considered by the Voice: 3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. This is an assertion of the primacy of the parliament for what the Voice will consider. That is why it is consistent with the views put forward by constitutional conservatives. This is a conservative and modest proposal that has been made even tighter as a result of the additional words that were added between the Garma speech and last Thursday to the legislation that will be introduced. The two key words there are 'matters' and 'including'. The primacy of the parliament is made very clear by those words, which is what the former chief justice French has agreed. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Bowman then left the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 It's what Anne Twomey has agreed. It's what the shadow Attorney-General knows full well, as well, because it's consistent with what he has been saying for years. Coalmining Industry 37 15:23 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to ensure fair long-service leave entitlements for workers in the black-coal mining industry? 15:23 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I want to thank the member for Hunter for the question. I acknowledge many members have been raising with me the way in which casuals are ripped off on long service leave in the black-coal mining industry, but in particular I want to single out the member for Hunter and the member for Paterson as being really strong advocates on this. Effectively, the challenge is this: workers in the black coal industry are in an industry where, under the award, casuals don't exist. Under the award, it's only part time or full time, but under a series of enterprise agreements casuals have been established. That has been the interaction with the Commonwealth law on long service leave. It means that casuals, even if they work above 35 hours a week, hit a maximum of 35 hours. I can explain how that means they end up not getting their entitlements. It's pretty common. For example, a standard roster at the Mt Arthur south mine in the Hunter Valley will be 48 hours, 48 hours, 60 hours and 24 hours, across four weeks. For the final one of those four weeks you get your 24 hours; for the first three, even though you're working way above 35 hours, it gets capped back down to 35 hours and you don't get your full long service leave. It's even worse in Central Queensland, where the regular roster in the coalmining industry is seven days on and seven days off. What then happens is that, for the seven days on, you work way above 35 hours, but it gets capped down to 35. The seven days off are not part of the average at all; they're just: 'Oh, you weren't working at that time because you're a casual.' This means there are examples of casuals getting as little as half the long service leave they would otherwise be entitled to. This is not the first time this has been raised. There was a report that went to the previous government in 2021 about how to fix the situation for casuals in the coalmining industry. They talked a lot about the coalmining industry, and—people might be stunned—what did they do to protect casuals in the coalmining industry? Nothing—absolutely nothing. This week, legislation will be introduced, because our view is that you shouldn't lose your entitlements if you're a casual. You shouldn't be in a situation where you're already facing insecurity of work, you're there long enough to qualify for long service leave, and the insecurity and rip-offs continue into the time that you're having long service leave as well. We have, in the member for Hunter and the member for Paterson, people who are willing to champion the interests of those workers, but among those in the opposition who represent the area I referred to, Central Queensland, not one has chosen to or sought to act on this issue. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 38 DOCUMENTS Presentation 38 15:27 Mr BURKE DYW Watson A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. STATEMENTS 38 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 38 15:27 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ROBERT HWT I do, once again, most egregiously. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr ROBERT HWT I completely reject the assertions made by the member for Maribyrnong regarding my role on the backbench seven years ago. I also reinforce to the House the findings of the Watt committee, after four months of deliberating over 95 contracts going back to 2005, that there was no clear finding of misconduct at all. Despite the report being delivered to the minister on 6 March, the minister—surprise, surprise!—kept it till this week, leaking to the Sydney Morning Herald leading into this week. I wonder why! Who would have thought! MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 38 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 38 15:28 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the Manager of Opposition Business proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The government's continuing failure to address the cost of living crisis facing Australian households and businesses. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:28 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Australians are facing a cost-of-living crisis. They see it every day in higher mortgage repayments, higher power bills, higher food prices, higher rents—everything is going up. This is the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister repeatedly promised Australians at the last election. We all remember the bold promises: lowering household and business energy bills by $275. We were told, 'Labor has real, lasting plans for cheaper electricity and cheaper mortgages.' We were told Australians would be better off under a Labor government. The Prime Minister personally promised his $275 power bill cut not once, not twice, not five times, not ten times. Was it thirty times? Was it fifty times? It was 97 times. It was personally promised 97 times by the Prime Minister. But, when we ask him about it now, those bold promises are replaced with weasel words, with equivocation, with obfuscation and with evasion. The simple fact is that the Prime Minister promised cost-of-living relief during the election, but life is only getting harder for Australians under this Labor government—even though, bizarrely, last week the Prime Minster claimed it's been a pretty good 10 months. Most Australians would have responded to that claim with incredulity. Let's have a look at what has happened when it comes to mortgages. There have been nine straight interest rate rises on this government's watch as inflation has surged. A family with a typical mortgage of $750,000 is now paying $1,700 a month more than they were when rates began rising last year. That is an extra $20,000 a year that a typical Australian family now needs to find. More than 800,000 Australian households will be moved off fixed mortgage rates onto variable rates this year. That will put even more pressure on already tight budgets. When the Prime Minister was directly asked about the quote, the comment, the promise, the undertaking—'Labor has real lasting plans for cheaper mortgages'—he couldn't scuttle away quickly enough. What do the facts tell us, as opposed to the misleading rhetoric from the Prime Minister? Research from Roy Morgan shows that an estimated 1.19 million mortgage holders were at risk of mortgage stress in the three months to January 2023. Just today, the NAB reports that more households are reporting financial difficulties. Australian families are 'starting to feel the pinch and are getting more worried about their financial future'. What does the Westpac-Melbourne Institute Consumer Sentiment Index say? 'Consumer sentiment holds near 30-year lows.' The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for O'Connor, I don't think it is especially helpful when your own Manager of Opposition Business has the floor to be interjecting. Mr Rick Wilson 198084 I'm trying to help— Mr FLETCHER L6B He is very helpful, and we are helpful because— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 If you do it again, I will ask you to leave. I want to actually listen to the debate. Thank you. Mr FLETCHER L6B we are a united team. We must notify the House, with a heavy heart, that the Westpac-Melbourne Institute Consumer Sentiment Index was unchanged at 78.5 in March, holding near historic lows. What did the spokesperson say? They said: This marks the second consecutive month of extremely weak consumer sentiment. Index reads below 80 are rare, back-to-back reads even rarer. Indeed, both the COVID shock and the Global Financial Crisis saw only one month of sentiment at these levels. Runs of sub-80 reads have only been seen during the late 1980s/early 1990s recession and in the 'banana republic' period of concern in 1986 … Is there a common factor between those times and these times? Indeed, there is: a Labor government. Yet, we see no economic plan from this government to deal with these matters, just an ever-expanding and ingeniously creative list of content excuses from the Treasurer, the commentator in chief. But this is no laughing matter for Australians. The member for McPherson raised last week the case of her constituent Jason from Robina, a 35-year-old father of two who has had to take on a second job and cancel his children's swimming lessons as his mortgage repayments are expected to almost double as he comes off a fixed rate loan. But it's not just interest rates where Australian families are feeling the pain. It is also power bills, which are a direct consequence of the extraordinary mismanagement from this government. Australians were told that their power bills would be going down by $275, yet we have just seen the recent default market offers. They show in state after state that, in fact, power prices are going up. In Victoria, half a million Victorian families and businesses will see their electricity bills rise from July. Yearly household bills will rise by about $400. Yearly small-business bills will jump from $5,600 to over $7,300 a year. For South-East Queenslanders energy bills are going up by $383. In New South Wales they are going up by $564. In South Australia they are going up by $485. And what does this incompetent government do? It has a set of policies which are putting at real risk the continued supply of gas. The Australian Energy Market Operator is warning of the very real risk that the gas will run out in Victoria during winter, literally leaving Victorians in the cold. We were all called back here in December. There was an urgent recall. Labor members were recalled from holidays around the world back to parliament, back to Canberra, in December. 'We are going to fix it,' we were told. But do you know what? We are three months on and not one dollar of the promised relief has in fact flowed. You could not more clearly expose what has happened as a naked political stunt. What are Australians experiencing while this government dithers? Caruso's Italian restaurant in the Sutherland shire in Sydney was forced to close its doors permanently. According to owners Rocky and Kerrin Pitarelli, rising electricity costs was one of the main reasons. Peter Spillane, an elderly gentleman on a fixed income in the member for Herbert's electorate, said he is having to choose between cooking his dinner and turning on his air-conditioning because of spiralling increases in power prices. Ross and Cynthia are age pensioners in South West Rocks in the electorate of the member for Cowper who were told by their provider that their new power bill will go up by more than 40 per cent to $474 per quarter. Kieran, who runs Hutch & Co cafe in Lilydale, a small business in the electorate of Casey, is bracing for the cafe's power bill to increase this year by $,2438. That's one hardworking small-business person of hundreds of thousands around Australians who are facing this extraordinary increase in costs thanks to the incompetence of the present government. We know that the impacts of this are running right through Australian society. The cost-of-living inquiry being carried out in the other place has revealed that, according to Coles, Aldi and IGA, Australians are changing the way they shop. They are moving from normal brands to home brands, they're buying less beef and they're moving from fresh food to canned food. Lifeline, the well-respected charity, is seeing record levels of activity from people seeking help and support. Anglicare Australia and emergency relief providers across Australia have all recorded an increase in demand for services ranging from 10 per cent to 50 per cent compared to the start of 2022. More people are having to seek emergency relief to pay rent and to keep a roof over their heads. What about Beyond Blue? A recent sample collected by this respected mental health organisation found for 37 per cent of respondents cost-of-living pressures have negatively impacted on their mental health either 'quite a bit' or an 'extreme amount'. A survey conducted by the Salvation Army showed that more than half of respondents were struggling to pay for one of their essential utilities. The fact is that things are grim for millions of Australians. They are grim because of the mismanagement from this lot opposite. The claim that it has been a 'pretty good 10 months' shows nothing other than that we have a Prime Minister who is absolutely out of touch with what Australians are facing. 15:38 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I am proud to be here as part of a government that has continually stood for building up the social safety net. Let's look at those who voted against energy price relief in December of last year. Mr Rick Wilson 198084 Come on, Patrick—tell us about your flight home, mate. Mr GORMAN 74519 They came into this place, having complained and complained, and then they voted against their own constituents getting energy price relief. But this is part of a longstanding— Mr Rick Wilson 198084 What's the carbon footprint of a private jet? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You are not in your seat, Member for O'Connor. If you are leaving the chamber, please leave quietly. Mr Rick Wilson 198084 I'm not allowed to discuss it? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Are you leaving the chamber, Member for O'Connor? If not, sit down. Sit down or leave the chamber quietly. I am asking you: are you leaving the chamber? Otherwise, sit in your seat and we will get on with the debate. Mr GORMAN 74519 This action from those opposite, who voted against energy price relief, is one in a long list of actions to undermine the social safety net which millions of Australians rely upon. Labor brought the age pension into reality in this country, which was undermined by the conservatives opposite. Labor built up Medicare and Medibank. They tore it down, and we had to rebuild it again. They undermined it time and time again—so much so that, if you want to become the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party, the best way to get there is to attack Medicare throughout your career. He proudly tried to introduce a GP co-payment of $7. The Leader of the Opposition proudly had his big policy idea to make sure that the first thing you needed to give when you rocked up at emergency was not your Medicare number but your credit card number. He tried to increase the price of medicines by $5, and because of all of those actions—many of which failed because those on the Labor side proudly blocked those terrible ideas—those opposite chose to make him leader of the federal parliamentary Liberal Party. Labor builds up the social safety net. We built up paid parental leave. Those opposite go to elections promising to expand paid parental leave, but they never actually follow through when in government. Again, we built up the National Disability Insurance Scheme, a proud outcome and deliverable of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and we made sure it was fully funded. Those opposite put a staffing cap in place and left people waiting and waiting for packages that they should have received. So I'm proud to stand as part of the Albanese Labor government—a government that came to office promising and committing to support a pay increase, whereas everyone on that side went to the election saying they didn't even think people should get a dollar-an-hour pay increase on the minimum wage. I want to go back one year in time. I know that those opposite often want to go back 10 months in time. I don't know why they only ever want to go back 10 months, but let's go back a whole 364 days: … war rages in Europe. The global pandemic is not over. Devastating floods have battered our communities. We live in uncertain times. They were the words of Treasurer Josh Frydenberg in framing his budget. Since then, we know the global outlook has become less certain. We've seen the impact of inflation and the interest rate rises which started under the coalition and continue to impact the budgets of governments around the world and, indeed, here at home. But there can be no doubt that this government has acted on the cost of living. I know those opposite might be sceptical, so don't take it from me; listen to the Leader of the Opposition. This is a quote from him before he went into hiding, before he lost his visa to the state of New South Wales, before he decided that he was no longer able to visit Victoria for unknown reasons that end about 6 pm on Saturday: … we commend several good measures in Tuesday's budget: the extension of the childcare subsidy to more Australian families; the commitment to reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment, to lower the cost of medicines; the support for housing for our veterans; the initiatives to combat domestic violence; and the funding to help Australians recover from devastating floods. It was a rare moment of honesty from the Leader of the Opposition in October 2022. I commend him for once—possibly the only time in his political career—actually saying that there was something good happening. He said more than just no. Indeed, he supported some important cost-of-living programs put in place by this government. They didn't do it in the 10 years they were in government, but I commend them for supporting it in their first year in opposition. We have to look at context. As they often say when you want to get somewhere: 'You wouldn't start here.' And you definitely wouldn't want to start here when it comes to the economic situation that was left by those opposite: a trillion dollars of debt, a 49 per cent increase in childcare fees, $3.4 billion for submarines that were never built, 85,000 Australian manufacturing jobs lost, an NBN built four years late with second-rate copper and $28 billion over budget. Who signed off on all of them? I got out the Expenditure Review Committee membership and there, right in the middle, is the now Leader of the Opposition signing off on the trillion dollars of debt, signing off on the closure of manufacturing jobs across this country, signing off on $3.4 billion for submarines that were never built, signing off on a 49 per cent increase in childcare fees. But there was someone who wasn't on the Expenditure Review Committee; I went down and looked for the member for Bradfield. He wasn't there. He was giving us lots of free advice, and he must have given lots of free advice when he was in government, back in the day, sitting around the cabinet table wondering why he hadn't been chosen to be placed on the Expenditure Review Committee. But that didn't stop him from doing huge economic damage. There was the $28 million blowout in the National Broadband Network, for which he was responsible. As arts minister, he was busily arguing against giving JobKeeper to the very arts sector he was supposed to be advocating for. He did achieve one thing, proudly: he purchased 21,000 kilometres of extra copper. That's enough copper to go all the way around the circumference of the world, purchased by the now member for Bradfield when he was busily doing his little bit to build up that trillion dollars of Liberal debt that's now left for the Albanese government to resolve and pay the interest on because those opposite lost control of their budget. But losing control and losing arguments are not something that are new to the member for Bradfield. I note that he was out there recently, advocating that those opposite should have backed the government's initiatives on the safeguard mechanism. In the Guardian of 8 February we read: … Paul Fletcher and Simon Birmingham pushed back against a decision to oppose the Albanese government's planned overhaul of the safeguard mechanism during shadow cabinet deliberations over the past fortnight. There are many interesting things about that. It was kind of someone else in the shadow cabinet to have shared that information with the public at large through the Guardian. But it's also interesting that there's obviously disagreement on that side about the decision that was made by those opposite not to engage with the government on the safeguard mechanism but instead to try to continue their role as climate warlords and to continue the climate wars. That's the approach that they've taken. And so we come to what the two competing approaches are in this place. One side of this chamber wants to get wages moving. We did that proudly by supporting an increase to the minimum wage. Those opposite wanted to have low wages as a deliberate design feature. They ran around, proudly, saying that it was a deliberate design feature to keep wages low. Those on this side want cheaper medicines, and delivered them from 1 January. Those opposite were too busy looking at GP taxes and charging people to walk into emergency departments. This side wants cheaper child care and, in less than 100 days from now, we're making sure that 1.2 million families get cheaper child care. Those on the other side were happy to sit back and do nothing as childcare fees went up and up and up—there was a 49 per cent childcare fee increase on the watch of those opposite. This side is proudly expanding paid parental leave to six months, and we all remember the promises they made—particularly those in the past, from 2013—about expanding paid parental leave. The minute they were elected they did absolutely nothing about it. On this side of the chamber we have an energy price plan that everyone on this side of the chamber proudly voted for. On that side, they said no to price caps and no to energy relief. The only thing those opposite said yes to was to hide a 20 per cent power increase until after the election. This side of the chamber backed a $10 billion investment to build 30,000 affordable homes. Those opposite are saying no—no to the housing that we know is so desperately needed. Mr Burns 278522 It's absolutely twisted! Mr GORMAN 74519 I agree with the member for Macnamara: it is absolutely twisted! I know that one of the speakers on the MPI this afternoon will be the member for Hasluck. I had the absolute fortune of being in her electorate earlier this week, with the laying of the first track for the Ellenbrook rail. This means that people in Ellenbrook and in the north-eastern suburbs can actually get home quicker and cheaper because of Labor governments building rail and investing in the practical infrastructure which reduces the cost of living. (Time expired) 15:48 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie With an assistant minister like that, it's no wonder the Prime Minister is so out of touch! He doesn't recognise the government's continuing failure to address the cost-of-living crisis facing Australian households and businesses. From power, to rent, fuel, insurance and groceries, the cost of living is now a national crisis, and every single one of these backbenchers is responsible. We would all remember the Prime Minister pledging to Australians that we'd all be better off under Labor—do we remember that? We warned the Australian people that life wouldn't be easy under Albanese! Yet this bizarrely out of touch Prime Minister claimed last week that it's been a pretty good 10 months. Well, let me tell you what my constituents think about the last 10 months. Sarah Jane from Griffin: 'Times are very tough at the moment. We have noticed a huge change in our grocery bill. Every single bill we have has increased. It's all becoming very overwhelming and hard to stay afloat. Wages haven't increased and I cannot see them increasing to cover the cost of all the other price increases either.' Shenelle Leighton: 'Family of five used to spend $400 a fortnight for a huge shop. Now we need to set aside an extra $200 per fortnight just to get us through. Our rent just went up $90 per week and we are spending almost double what we used to on petrol.' We remember that the Albanese government removed the fuel excise. She continues: 'Couldn't afford to drive an hour for a friend's shave for a cure because we needed to save for petrol to get the kids to school. It is a joke.' Rebecca Deverell from Griffin: 'Two adults and four kids spend around $400 a week which has increased to $100 per week, with my husband and I generally only eating one meal a day to be able to afford lunchbox snacks for the kids and cat food.' Kelli Barker from Bracken Ridge: 'Family of seven with one adult, two teens and four little kids. We have a budget of $500 a fortnight, and now rent is up that's down to $340. We live on noodles and pasta for most of the second fortnight just so we can afford fuel to get to and from school.' Jasmine Muir from Deception Bay: 'I used to be able to comfortably spend $350 a fortnight on groceries, meat and fruit and have some extra snacks for the kids. Now that hardly covers groceries and meat, and the kids are lucky if they get fruit to last two weeks or if we have food to the last fortnight.' Hayley Jellis from Mango Hill: 'It's actually cheaper for a parent to give their kids a McDonald's happy meal for $5 than a home-cooked meal.' Alexandra Tramacchi from Griffin: 'As a single parent of four kids under six, it is definitely cheaper to have takeaway every night. My shopping bill went from $150 per week 12 months ago to $220 for exactly the same stuff.' Twelve months ago it was way cheaper, Deputy Speaker, through you, to the assistant minister, and since the Albanese government has been elected cost of living is out of control. Kylie Holley from Griffin: 'We have two teenagers and what used to cost me about $200 a week is now regularly $300-plus a week. That's buying cheaper cuts of meat and getting things in bulk or when they are on special like laundry powder. I'd say that groceries have gone up by about a third to a half in the last six months. It's a massive change in, I'd say, the last six months. Linda Garner from Deception Bay: 'Between exorbitant rent prices and the cost of groceries increasing out of proportion, the current government has succeeded in making us a society struggling to survive.' I have got more pages, more pages, more pages. Bec Aitcheson: 'I used to spend around $200 but now it's reached $450.' This government is absolutely hopeless and completely out of touch. They come in here and make up porkies every day of the week. Let me tell you, Prime Minister, through you Deputy Speaker, it hasn't been a good 10 months. For people in my electorate it has actually been hard to make ends meet. For last 10 months they've been waiting nervously to see how they're going to pay the bills. Small businesses have borne the brunt of the government's empty words over the last 10 months. It has been 10 months of going hungry. It has been 10 months of people wondering where they'll sleep each night. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves, the lot of you. Stand up and fight for the people who are doing it tough. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Lalor on a point of order. Ms 249224 Several times the member made the point of going through you, but then in that last 10 seconds he failed to go through you, Deputy Speaker, and therefore reflected on the chair. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I will ask the member for Petrie to come back and withdraw for the sake of the House, please. Mr Howarth 247742 Sorry, what am I withdrawing? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Did you not listen to the point of order? Mr Howarth 247742 I'm asking you what I am withdrawing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 A reflection on me, when you directed your— Mr HOWARTH 247742 I didn't reflect on you at all, Deputy Speaker. I reject what the member for Lalor has to say. She can't listen to what important people are saying in my electorate. Once again— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Petrie will take his seat. I don't want you yelling— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Excuse me. I do not want you yelling. You just agreed not to withdraw, despite me asking you. Mr HOWARTH 247742 I didn't reflect on any of them. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 And you don't wish to assist the House in any way by withdrawing your comment? Mr HOWARTH 247742 I don't know what she's talking about. That's all I'm saying. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 This is a very undignified way to conduct a debate in this House. That's all I can say. You were on your feet, raising your voice. You made many comments through me, as you rightly should, so as not to reflect on other members. The member for Lalor has risen on a point of order, saying your last comments did not go through me, and you were reflecting on me. You are disagreeing with that and you do not wish to assist the House in any way. Mr HOWARTH 247742 Yes, I am. I respect the Deputy Speaker and I respect the chair. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Then you have defied assisting the House in any way, and that is great pity. It's very unhelpful, member for Petrie. 15:56 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara Getting lectured by the member for Petrie on being out of touch, after that member went around the country telling everybody to have a positive spin on homelessness, is about as much irony and hypocrisy as I can handle. Those opposite are getting up in arms about the cost of living for Australians, and Australians are doing it tough. We on this side of the House understand that Australians are doing it tough. That is why the very first thing that we did when coming into government was to try to lift the wages, especially for some of the lowest-paid workers in our country. After 10 years of sitting and watching those opposite govern this country, 10 years of listening to people like the member for Petrie coming into this place with all bluster and without any substance whatsoever, we have to ask ourselves: can we name one single policy—one single thing—that those opposite did to lift the wages of Australian workers? Not one. Not one measure. Not one legislative instrument. Not one bill. Not even one MPI came into this place, while they were on the Treasury benches, that was designed to lift the wages of working Australians. The exact opposite approach was taken. The minister for finance, after having a cigar in the courtyard out the front, came in and said, publicly, all of the quiet bits out loud. He said that low wages were a deliberate design feature of the economy under those opposite. So we will be not be taking lectures by those opposite, who have over 10 years built an economy on low wages and wage suppression. We have tried to dismantle that. There is a lot of work to be done, but we take our responsibilities to the working people of this country extremely seriously. With the high inflationary environment that current households face, we are trying to implement policies that will not extend the high inflationary environment but provide cost-of-living relief for families who are doing it tough. It takes a particularly twisted type of logic for those opposite to come in here and complain about the cost-of-living pressures—especially around energy prices—when they voted against a measure that would not only cap gas and coal prices but also offer a $1.5 billion package that would go directly into reducing energy bills for Australians. How much bluster do you have to be filled with to have the arrogance to come into this place and say, 'We think that energy prices should be lower, but any time we have an opportunity to contribute to that, we're just going to excuse ourselves and oppose everything that this government does, because we think that's in our political interest'? That's what they have been doing. It's not just that. Think about housing. The cost of housing is astronomical. It has never been harder to buy a home than it is right now. I was speaking about this last term under the previous government, yet those opposite, with the same arrogance, come into this place and try to lecture the parliament about the cost of living. Yet with the very opportunity they have to try and increase supply and do something meaningful for the first time in 10 years, especially for social housing properties—something the federal government completely didn't do while they were in government—they excuse themselves and just blame us because that is what they believe is in their political interests. It is nonsense. It is absolute nonsense. For those opposite and people like the member for Petrie to come into this place with all of that bluster and rudeness that he displayed, without doing one single thing—not one thing—to lift the living standards, the welfare and the wages of Australian workers shows exactly how empty and hypocritical those opposite are, because they are not willing to do things or to stand by the Australian people. They are willing to come into this place and throw around political slogans that they think are in their political interests. I have news for them. Australians saw through the emptiness. They saw through the nastiness. They saw through the incompetence and the attitudes of those opposite and they said, 'Do you know what? We can do better.' Politics can be better. We don't expect everything to be fixed all at once. But we at least want people to have a go. That is why we are trying to reduce the cost of child care and we are. That is why we are trying to lift the wages of Australian workers and we are. That is why we are trying to lower energy bills for Australians and that is what we're doing. We are serious about helping Australians. All those opposite have are bluster and political nonsense, and Australians can see through it. 16:01 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I thought today we might get through the MPI without me needing to go back to my favourite ABC fact check and, unfortunately, we didn't get there. The assistant minister was nice enough to mention the $1 trillion in debt that the government likes to talk about. Unfortunately, the data doesn't back up that claim. The number was $517 billion when this government took over in 2022. It is in the budget papers. Mr Gorman 74519 Keep talking about it. Mr VIOLI 300147 Feel free to have a look. Just because Jim gives you a talking point doesn't mean it is true. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Casey, you do need to refer members by their correct title. Mr VIOLI 300147 I apologise. It was $517 billion. It is in the budget papers, despite what the Treasurer and others like to say about it. I just put that on the record again. We need to continue to do that. There is another great saying. As a Collingwood man, I'm a big fan of Michael Malthouse, our last premiership coach. Hopefully Craig McRae will be the next. He said, 'If you spend your whole life looking in the rear vison mirror while driving you'll end up hitting the car in front of you,' and that is what we have at the moment. We have a government that continues to talk about the previous government, with the Prime Minister today going back to give us a history lesson from 2014. At some point you need to lead, you need to take responsibility and you need to stop making excuses. I mean, the Prime Minister himself said, 'Look, it is the job of the Prime Minister to deal with the challenges that Australia faces and not just constantly blame someone else.' He said that on MMM Perth, 16 May 2021. He may have said that in 2021. What did he say in 2022? 'I want to step up to the plate. I will accept responsibility. If I am given the great honour of holding high office as Prime Minister of this country, I won't seek to blame anyone else. I will accept the responsibility that goes with that job.' The reality is the Australian people know that what he said then is not what he is saying today. He sits at that dispatch box every day in question time offering excuses, talking about the Ukrainian war. Yes, it happened in March last year. He conveniently doesn't talk about his modelling for the $275 power price relief that was commissioned in December 2021. Anyone who knows anything about economic modelling knows that, when a significant input changes, you would change what you say. So 28 times after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia the then opposition leader continued to mislead the Australian public by referencing the $275 price. This is a prime minister who is out of touch. Last week he talked about it being a great 10 months. We hear many of those opposite talking about how tough it is for their constituents. It is tough in Casey as well. We almost have continued bipartisan support, except for the Prime Minister, who stands here and talks about it being a great 10 months. It hasn't been a great 10 months for Kieran at Hutch and Co. I was there on the weekend, having a chat to him. He is struggling with rising input costs, making tough decisions on whether that business will survive. It hasn't been a great 10 months for a lot of residents in Casey but clearly a great 10 months for this out-of-touch Prime Minister. It's not just the families of Australia that are being abandoned by this government; it's the small businesses of Australia—not one Dorothy Dixer question from the government backbench to the Minister for Small Business about what she's doing to help small businesses in Australia that are struggling right now. So I thought I'd go and have a little bit of a look at her media releases and see the policies she has released on small business—the heart of the economy, the engine room of Casey and the nation. We've got two releases this year from the Minister for Small Business: one on 1 January talking about mental health support for small business, which is a great initiative. It's very needed—helping them deal with the challenges. But there's another one about helping them transition to energy efficiency, which they definitely need because, as Kieran has shown, their energy prices are going up significantly. This is government that has abandoned Australian families and has abandoned small businesses. Small businesses are struggling. The minister does not stand at that dispatch box, ever, and talk about small business. I had a look through; I've not seen any visits to small businesses. She's happy to talk about round tables and media releases talking with the ministers for small business from other states, but she's not a voice for small business in this House when they need it. They have been abandoned. The Australian people have been abandoned in this cost-of-living crisis by this out-of-touch government. 16:06 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Every morning the Liberal and National parties must get together and ask one another whether they've thought of any new policies yet, and when the other says no, they agree to just keep on talking about the cost of living as if no-one in the community realises it was their poor stewardship of the economy that helped lead us into the situation we're in now. The cost of living isn't just a convenient place for the coalition to hide from real policy development. Let me start by first acknowledging just how tough it is for many people in this current climate. I'm regularly contacted by constituents in my electorate of Hasluck letting me know about the tough decisions they are having to make as they feel the pinch of the cost-of-living pressures. Labor understands and it is core to our values that we address inequality in our systems and address the needs of our nation's most vulnerable. It is the Labor government that will work and has been working since last May to make life better for every Australian, which is why the philosophy of obstruction at all costs from those on the other side is an affront. Honestly, it's galling. Having the coalition bleat endlessly about the government's response to cost-of-living pressures baffles the mind. It is like the 'who killed Hannibal' meme: the coalition drive a B-double truck right through the guts of the economy, jump out of the driver's seat and say, 'Why would Labor do this?' Once again, while those opposite continue to try and score cheap and nasty political points, the adults in this room have been busy getting on with the job of implementing policies to ease the cost of living. For relief in the short term the Albanese Labor government has introduced cheaper medicines. From 1 January this year prescriptions on the PBS have been capped at $30, the first reduction in prescription costs in the scheme's history. Already in my electorate of Hasluck, people have saved $278,264.49 in the very first 74 days of this policy being in place. It's extraordinary. From 1 July this year Labor's cheaper child care will assist with the cost of living for 1.2 million Australian families. That's more than 5½ thousand families in the seat of Hasluck alone. We're also supporting people to study, to get the qualifications they need to join a jobs market very keen to have new workers: 180,000 fee-free TAFE places are now available. I have been to my local North Metro TAFE campus in Midland alongside the Minister for Skills and Training, and we've seen together those fee-free TAFE places filled. Students studying early childhood education, for example, a massively important career, told us they were able to start studying for a meaningful career because there was no charge. And look at wages. What was the very first thing this government did under the Prime Minister Albanese's leadership? We backed up our word from the hustings and wrote a letter to the Fair Work Commission supporting the case for an increase to the minimum wage and a range of modern awards. 'Absolutely' is what the soon-to-be Prime Minister said when asked if he would back a pay rise for the nation's lowest paid workers. The commission took on board the government's submission and provided some relief via increased wages. Albeit modest, this was still a significant rise relative to the wage stagnation of the previous decade. If we need further examples of the practical help that this government is providing to ease the cost of living, we can look no further than housing. Some relief is immediate and some relief requires the vision of a government with principles and a team of high-quality ministers. Our housing policies are specifically designed to make housing more affordable, both through financial assistance and government guarantees and through the addition of more housing stock. We will facilitate the construction of thousands of new homes each year, putting downward pressure on mortgages and rents in the process. If I'm getting correspondence from my constituents who are finding cost-of-living pressures challenging, then I know that those opposite are also getting the same types of letters, emails and phone calls. So how do members from a party that doggedly chooses to vote against cost-of-living measures introduced into this parliament look their constituents in the eye and tell them that they have their best interests at heart? Until those opposite are willing to be constructive in the project of easing the burdens of cost-of-living pressures, they could do worse than ceasing the endless stone throwing from within their glass houses. These types of practical policy responses that we're introducing are designed and implemented by a government alert to the challenges that we are all facing. It is exactly the type of behaviour voters expect, the type of behaviour voters hoped for with a responsible government in charge. 16:11 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I thank the member for Hasluck for pointing out how important it is to look constituents in the eyes, because that's exactly what the Prime Minister did to the nation 97 times. We've heard the excuses that tried to walk back that promise, and we haven't heard that promise repeated in this place. But it's important to note that that promise was made 28 times after the invasion of Ukraine. He looked down the cameras into the eyes of millions of Australians and was so desperate to be sitting on those benches that he kept repeating that promise, and he now acts like it doesn't exist. The member for Hasluck will forgive us when we take those words and say that they are, indeed, well chosen and ones that the Prime Minister should have adopted. I've said on many occasions there were lessons to learn for our party, and we have heard from the crossbench, from the other side, and even from our own side that integrity was up at the top of the list. There is no more important example of integrity than when you give a promise, you keep a promise; that you will be judged by what you do, not what you say; and you will be particularly judged by what you do after you no longer have a reason to hold on to a falsehood. And that's what we are talking about here. Government members interjecting— Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Members opposite, you seem quite perplexed as to why these MPI discussions keep coming before you. You seem quite confused as to why we're repeating it. The clue is in the title. Government members interjecting— Mr WOLAHAN 235654 If there's a pause in interjections you might want to listen to this: 'the government's continuing failure'—'continuing'. Many treasurers from the Labor Party have sat opposite and quoted in their essays and papers John Maynard Keynes, but they're missing this quote that's attributed to him: 'When the facts change, I change my mind.' We never hear that from those opposite. That's why we have here a continuing failure. If that failure is addressed, these MPIs will stop. They will stop; I promise. Government members interjecting— Mr WOLAHAN 235654 I look you in the eye and say, 'These will stop.' They'll stop, because the failure to address the cost-of-living crisis a real thing. Don't trust me; trust the Edelman Trust Barometer about what Australians think of this place. In a survey of 28 countries, when Australians were asked about trust for government, it found that 45 per cent now distrust government. Ms Miller-Frost 296272 It was because of you. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 No, this was taken afterwards; this was taken on your watch. Government members interjecting— Mr 235654 No, this was taken on your watch. November 2022—I'm pretty sure the election had happened before that. So this is about your watch. Nothing is more important, with trust in government and trust in you, than the promises made prior to the election. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 There are a lot of interjections. I note that side doesn't like being asked questions lately. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Hasluck and the member for Boothby will tone down the interjections, please. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 We see that the number of Australians who think our country is more divided today than in the past is at 45 per cent. Again, it was in November 2022—on your watch. The number in Australia who say that the lack of civility and mutual respect is worse than they've ever seen—this is a good time for more interjections please—is at 61 per cent. It has never been worse. The number for those who say that the social fabric that once held this country together has grown too weak to serve as a foundation for unity and common purpose is at 54 per cent. Australians are sick of the ideology, of course, because—let's be honest—no-one in this place is earning a salary that means that when they open a bill for their electricity or other utilities they have to think twice, or that when they're standing in the queue at Coles, Woolworths or the IGA they have to put things back on the shelves. None of us earn a salary that makes us ask those questions, but most Australians do. They're not just making those sorts of sacrifices; they're lining up in Foodbanks across the country. In my electorate, there are six of them. I've visited them, and the queues are longer than they've ever been. They're mostly full of women who are in broken relationships and have children sitting in the back seat of their car. So you can jest, but this is a serious matter and we hope that there is some action from those opposite. 16:16 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Today's cost-of-living pressures are as a result of nine years of incompetence and negligence by the former coalition government. For the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Bradfield, to bring this motion before the House, when he was a senior member of the last coalition government, quite frankly is appalling, in the sense that he takes no responsibility for a government that he was a senior member of. Inflation, interest rates, energy costs, food costs, health costs and housing costs were all on the way up in May 2022 because of the Morrison government's failure to manage the economy. The only thing that didn't go up, as other speakers on this side of chamber have made absolutely clear, is wages. They remained stagnant for almost the whole nine years that those opposite were in office. Every day that the coalition raise the cost of living in this House they are reminding the Australian people of their own incompetence. The Australian people understand that economic conditions don't change overnight, that they actually change over long periods, and, for that reason, it will take the Albanese government time to repair the mess that we inherited. It seems to be part of history: every time Labor come into office it's time to repair the mess. We have found that again this time. I'll briefly talk about some of the issues that go to the heart of the cost of living, which is what we are talking about today. I'll talk about interest rates. The first interest rate rise occurred under their watch, and it was very clear at the time that interest rates were on their way up. Interest rates were on their way up because inflation was rising, and inflation was rising because of the mismanagement of the economy by those opposite. Inflation is caused by a number of factors. I'll touch on only some of them, because time won't allow me to go through them all. First is energy costs, possibly one of the most important drivers of inflation at the moment. The member for Hume, just prior to the election, hid the truth about energy costs because he knew they were rising and he knew that they were rising because of failures on the part of the coalition government at the time. What policies did they have in place to manage price rises? Absolutely none. Then, when the Albanese government brought into this parliament legislation which capped the price of gas, which has made a difference, what did those opposite do? They opposed it. Again: no thanks to those opposite for trying to help the Australian people, who generally are struggling with the cost of living. Let's turn to food prices for just a moment. Food prices come about because of supply and demand. Supply and demand are directly impacted by extreme weather events—in other words, weather events which are becoming more frequent and more severe because of climate change. And where were they on climate change? Doing absolutely nothing. So if you want to blame this government for the problems of today, look at your own history, where you didn't act when you could have. With respect to extreme weather events, one of the issues that is hitting families hard right now is insurance costs—again, as a result of those weather events. Insurance costs have skyrocketed to the point that some people simply cannot afford them, because insurance companies have to wear the costs every time there is major flooding or major fires, and those costs have to be shared throughout all of their policyholders. I'll turn to health costs for a moment. After nine years, we had a health system in absolute crisis. Bulk-billing rates were going down, there were doctor shortages across the country, the aged-care system was in crisis—all because the previous coalition government starved all of those areas of funding. They come in here and talk about the cost of living. It's because of their negligence over so many years, across so many portfolio areas, that we face cost-of-living pressures today. This government, to its credit, is gradually working through all of those issues, whether it's getting wages moving, cheaper medicines, cheaper child care, expending paid parental leave, controlling energy prices, or offering more affordable housing. All of those areas will make a difference, but they're not going to get through unless we get the support of this parliament, and they won't go through overnight. 16:21 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt They won't go through overnight. We never heard that in the election campaign when the now government wanted to talk about the cost of living. There were all sorts of famous, unbelievable things they were going to achieve on day one, first amongst them the $275 decrease in electricity prices. A couple of weeks ago, the people of South Australia heard the terrible news that the default market offer in my home state of South Australia is going up by more than 21 per cent on 1 July 2023. That $275 commitment by 2025 is going to be hundreds and hundreds of dollars more after you take into account how much increase is happening in the intervening period if those opposite want to claim that they are still going to achieve that. Government members interjecting— Mr STEVENS 176304 I appreciate them putting that—sort of—on the record by interjection. I'll repeat into Hansard that the interjections were that yes, that promise is going to be achieved by 2025. We on this side look forward to monitoring that and watching it very carefully and very closely. The most terrible cost-of-living pressure at moment for Australian families is the dramatic reduction in real wages under this government. If the Australian Bureau of Statistics are wrong, it's up to you to dispute your own government agency, but we certainly think that they are accurate, and we certainly don't dispute that inflation in the December quarter annualised ran at 7.8 per cent and wages growth ran at 3.3 per cent. That is a disgrace. Real wages are going backwards at the highest amount in decades. You've got a particularly unique record in the government, which is the highest reduction in real wages for decades. While people are doing it so tough, with their wages going backwards, in my home state of South Australia electricity bills are going up by more than 21 per cent. Again, that's the government regulator. That's the AER. They put that statement out a couple of weeks ago. They said that electricity prices in my home state under the default market offer are going up by more than 21 per cent. Nine interest rate rises since the election. Interest rates are going up at the most dramatic rate in decades, and you have to go back to the dark days of that Keating recession that we had to have to see any of these sorts of statistics replicated—mortgages going up so rapidly, electricity prices going up so rapidly, inflation running at 7.8 per cent and real wages going down. These are the things that the people of this country care about and are worried about, and I know previous speakers are mocking the fact that we're having a debate about the cost of living. What else should we be talking about if not the most significant challenge facing each and every Australian right now, which is their relative standard of living going backwards on every competent, clear metric of what people face in the household budget, whether that's utility prices, rents, mortgages, putting food on the table, family holidays, or whether or not the relativity of their pay packet against those increasing costs is going up or down? We know from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that it is going down. That is the fate of the average family in this country right now under Labor. Those are the statistics speaking. There is no spin on that. That is the reality of the government agency which we all believe and trust to produce credible statistics on our economy, the Australian Bureau Statistics. They see wages going backwards, electricity prices going up, rent going up on and mortgages going up. Regrettably, it is only going to get worse because the electricity determinations are for a future point in time. Electricity is going up in my home state on the default market offer by more than 20 per cent. So inflation is at 7.8 per cent and people have that fate to look forward to in the future. So, in three months time, however hard it is to pay your electricity bill now, it will be 21.3 per cent harder in the state of South Australia. That's in the future under this government. What are the government doing about it? They brag and say that people should be grateful about the fact that prices haven't gone up by more than 21.3 per cent. That's the retort from those opposite—that people in this country should be grateful that it's not worse that 21.3 per cent. What a disgraceful proposition and what a complete abrogation of responsibility for the most important issue facing families in South Australia, my home state, right now, which is the cost of living. There is no plan. They are just sitting back and letting these prices go up more than 20 per cent. All they want to do is talk about the previous government because they have nothing to talk about as a positive plan for the future. Next election, there will be a chance to change that dramatically. 16:26 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore In 2023 we should be optimistic about the future but realistic about the challenges coming at us from around the world. I think people in Gilmore know that we have a lot happening. Australians understand that we didn't create the inflation challenge in our economy, but they certainly elected us to take responsibility for addressing it—and we are. I'm pleased to say that, since being elected last year, the Albanese government hasn't wasted any time. Our sensible and equitable measures are already helping Australians deal with cost-of-living challenges, to put it simply. The Albanese Labor government are putting downward pressure on everyday costs for everyday Australians and we are getting wages moving. We had almost a decade without a coherent energy policy. One of the fastest growing costs for households and businesses is energy. Since elected, we have taken urgent action to shield Australian families and businesses from the worst of the energy price spikes. Our energy price relief plan has helped by limiting the price of coal and gas and providing energy bill price reductions for those who need it most, like pensioners, seniors card holders and small businesses, all while investing in cleaner, cheaper, more reliable energy. Since the announcement of the intervention, forward prices have dropped significantly from what they would have been. That is the real signifier that this energy price relief plan is working. While we're doing our best to address the rising energy prices, it's important to mention that those opposite voted against targeted energy bill relief for thousands of Australian households and businesses. Another big pressure on household budgets I hear about on the new South Wales South Coast is the cost of health care and, for that matter, the increasing difficulty accessing GPs and medical services. That is why I am delighted that Australians will now pay up to 30 per cent less for prescription medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, with the maximum co-payment dropping from $42.50 to $30. This is a huge win for my community on the South Coast. We are delivering Medicare urgent care clinics, including one at Batemans Bay, further helping with the cost of living. That's something to be proud of. We have also made it easier for GPs and nurse practitioners to move to the New South Wales South Coast by removing or reducing their study loans if they work in the regions. We want to attract and retain GPs in our regions. This has a direct impact on the cost of living in my region by attracting people who want to work in health. It also lowers the amount of time that people need to travel to receive medical treatment, saving time and money. Before being elected, I worked as a TAFE teacher. I know the difference vocational education can make in regional communities both for students and for local businesses. Unfortunately, education can be a prohibitive expense for some. That is why I am so happy that we are providing fee-free TAFE places in industry skills shortage areas. These places are in the areas that our communities need the most, like construction and early childhood education. Fee-free TAFE will encourage people to upskill and work in critical areas that we all benefit from, including local businesses. We're not just offering TAFE places in early childhood education, though. We're also making child care cheaper. In less than 100 days, 96 per cent of families will be better off, with cheaper child care, and no family will be worse off. That's over 1.2 million families who will be better off. In Gilmore, around 4,800 families will benefit from cheaper child care. Making child care cheaper doesn't just benefit thousands of families. It boosts workforce participation and helps local businesses. That is a great outcome. If those opposite want to really do something to help the cost of living for households and businesses, they should just back our Housing Australia Future Fund, because one of the biggest things I hear is the lack of affordable and social housing. We are getting on with our plan to help fix this, but they need to back in that plan. These are just some examples, and there are still more to come. Make no mistake, the Albanese Labor government is addressing the cost-of-living pressures in a sensible, equitable and compassionate way. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 49 BILLS Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 49

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

Second Reading 49 16:31 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane The member for Richmond supported a bill, introduced by the member for Bruce, that would have abolished the cashless debit card. Now an assistant minister, the member for Richmond is part of an administration that is giving more money to Indue and giving the minister powers to put people on compulsory income management. Across the country, Labor MPs met with their community members and represented themselves as progressives and people who would vote for progressive policies. Now we're seeing Labor's true colours. If the people of Hervey Bay and Bundaberg can exit the card, we think the people of Darwin and McArthur should be able to as well. If not, Labor should look these people in the eye and tell them why they're entrenching and perpetuating a failed policy that disproportionately impacts First Nations peoples. The Greens will not support this bill. I call on the government to remember that Australians voted for change, not more of the same cruel, punitive policies that prop up the profits of companies like Indue at the expense of people's quality of life. Compulsory income management does not work. It is demeaning and the government should be ashamed to be breaking their election promises by reintroducing it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Watson-Brown 300127 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin be disagreed to. 16:33 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass Around nine months ago, as debate was underway on the government's bill to repeal the cashless debit card, I expressed my concern over a lack of detail as to how exactly they intended to address the issues that the cashless debit card was designed to fix. As I said at the time, the issues won't magically go away with the elimination of the card. Today, as we debate the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023, I still hold those concerns about moving anyone under income management to the SmartCard. The only things I do find myself agreeing with, on my own side, are the remarks from the member for Deakin, essentially calling the SmartCard an expensive rebrand of the coalition's program. While I appreciate that this transition is an attempt to remove some of the stigma that comes with the government partially controlling the income of participants, this is still a long way off from the government's promise to address the issues of compulsory income management. If your intention is to dismantle this system, for all the reasons that you say you are, I do have concerns that so much money is being spent to go sideways with this policy. At this stage they've taken an extremely punitive measure and lightened some of the restrictions and are presenting it to the public and participants as something that we should be thankful for. I find income management abhorrent. As I said in 2020, the system of income management strips away autonomy and a sense of pride, no matter how well intentioned. Whenever you approach a human problem by inciting shame and guilt, you have already lost those that you are seeking to help. The rhetoric that surrounds social security and systems like income management plays into the very worst of human nature. We're essentially inviting people to look at their fellow Australians as something other or less than, and that's not the Australia I want to live in. When I gave this frank assessment as to why I wouldn't be supporting the efforts of the coalition to expand the card, Labor came out in full force and were very loud about wanting to dismantle the policy with the abolishment of the CDC, which quickly became a key campaign platform, particularly in my electorate of Bass. I'm sure it's clear that I'm willing to take on any side when it comes to dismantling this disgraceful policy. While I do note the minister has outlined that the future of income management will be based on genuine consultation with affected communities, state and territory governments and experts in the field, I would hope that there would be more clear information available as to when this consultation will wrap up and a time line for the next steps. I withheld my vote last August due to my concerns that removing the card without the appropriate supports will not fix the very problems that it's trying to address. This is particularly true in the instance where this will apply—for participants who currently use the BasicsCard, which was first introduced under the Howard government in 2007 and further expanded under Labor in 2010. It is these participants that I've held the greatest concern for. For some who may have been on the card for more than a decade, a phased transition is necessary to fully support these communities, but I don't buy into the rhetoric that income management is the answer to the complex challenges that need to be addressed. The fact that my colleagues are saying that, anecdotally, they believe that antisocial behaviour has returned is evidence that income management is not a sustainable long-term solution. It is simply sticking a bandaid over a gaping wound and hoping for the best. The systemic dismantling of the income management system is the right thing to do, but it needs to be done carefully and by building long-term supports going forward. Where is the solid plan to invest in long-term solutions that will provide individuals with the tools and skills to improve their life, address long-term trauma and empower them to make the right financial decisions? I know that the minister cares deeply about these issues, but there is still too much ambiguity about how this dismantling will happen and when. Of course, while I raise my concerns about the card overall, it's no surprise that my thoughts on this policy differ to those of my colleagues. However, as I have publicly stated previously, I do want to acknowledge my colleagues who represent the communities where current sites exist. I'm neither disputing nor seeking to be in any way dismissive of the significant challenges that persist in these communities, and I understand what the card is seeking to do, but it is clearly failing as a long-term solution. We do agree on some of the problems, but our approaches to the solutions clearly differ. I gave it a lot of thought before deciding to speak on this bill, as I can see what the government is seeking to do through the legislation and my opinions on that are clearly on the record. However, there's no doubt, from the speeches that I've heard throughout this debate from my own side, that the continuation of income management in some form is a policy that the coalition will continue to pursue and one that, I must state again, I will never support. As a Liberal, I have a fundamental issue with how the program aligns with the belief in personal and individual responsibility, which is the very foundation of our party's principles. One of the reasons I am a Liberal is because of my belief in one of our guiding principles—that we should seek to minimise the interference of the government in the lives of Australians. For the life of me, I cannot understand how we can continue to doggedly pursue a policy that is so antithetical to Liberal values and that also puts a massive strain on the public purse. In 2020-21 alone, the cost of this program was over $36 million. By any measure, this is the very definition of big government. As a Liberal, I'm against the idea of spending a lot of money to dictate how others can spend their money. As Liberals, are we again saying that we believe in individual aspiration and autonomy but not if you're poor or intergenerationally disadvantaged? Imagine if that funding was instead invested in ensuring long-term, sustainable outcomes for communities in need, by addressing high numbers of alcohol or illicit drug consumption and gambling. We know there is growing understanding of the need for trauma informed practice, and I think more research and funding into implementing evidence based, trauma informed, wraparound services would be a key starting point to supporting individuals in need, including more tailored individual case management. I also think that more work needs to be undertaken to determine whether the federal government is best placed to deliver these types of services. Instead, perhaps we should look at funding place based solutions that are driven by those who know their communities best. We know the evidence is mixed. The most recent report into the scheme was undertaken by the University of Adelaide and commissioned by the coalition. In relation to the reduction of three social harms, the second evaluation found the following: alcohol consumption was reduced after the introduction of the CDC, but the evaluators stated that it was not possible to attribute these changes to the CDC alone. With gambling, there was a 3.5 per cent short-term reduction in the prevalence of gambling in each of the CDC trial site areas. The evaluation could not provide a clear conclusion about whether the cashless debit card influenced the personal or social harm caused by the illicit drugs. Additionally, it was reported that the majority of cashless debit card program participants reported not participating in the target behaviours prior to the CDC implementation. Why would you use such a blunt instrument that affects so many who are just trying to get by? Income management in any form should be voluntary or, were absolutely necessary, implemented on a case-by-case basis, not as a one-size-fits-all approach across entire communities. We have heard the commentary over the past few days that violent behaviours have increased with the abolishment of the CDC. I abhor any violence, and I believe we should be doing what we can to keep our communities and our children safe, but any rise brings home my point that income management is a temporary solution to far, far deeper challenges that need to be addressed. For all the money spent so far, there is no demonstrable proof that income management works. Income management is presented as a solution to many issues. However, it casts a wide net that, in my view, punishes recipients as a collective rather than having regard for individual circumstances. It places the burden of demonstrating the ability to manage your finances on the individual, thereby making the default assumption that recipients are incapable of managing their own affairs. This only serves to stigmatise and marginalise recipients and doesn't fundamentally address the wider issues. In doing so, it also drives assumptions that addiction, gambling and domestic violence only occur in disadvantaged communities. We know that this is untrue. It is wrong to conflate these issues with cashless welfare. They absolutely need to be dealt with, but income management is only masking the symptoms, not treating the problem. As Elise Klein, Associate Professor at the Australian National University said last year, there is no evidence that compulsory income management, including the BasicsCard, has a positive effect in communities. I am not standing in the way of this bill; I am simply holding the government to account on their promises made. Abolishing the CDC was a positive first step, but this revamp of the BasicsCard to the SmartCard cannot be the final answer. The government had much to say about the dangers of income management in the lead up to the last election, and I want to see that turned into tangible action that will make a demonstrable difference to the communities where income management is in place. I am committed to working constructively with the government, and I commend the minister for her continuing proactive approach to communicating with me. I hope that this bill is a further step on the road towards phasing out compulsory income management for good, and I will continue to resist any efforts to reinstate it in the future. 16:43 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland It gives me pleasure to join the debate on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 immediately after my friend the member for Bass. I congratulate her on what I thought was a very thoughtful and considered presentation on what is a very complex issue. The level of complexity in this issue is reflected in the fact that, while I completely respect her point of view agree and everything the member for Bass had to say, I disagree with a large amount of it. I guess that probably indicates just how challenging this area of public policy has become. As a National Party member of parliament, I am very passionate about localism. I believe very strongly that local communities are best placed to solve local problems. Local communities can find local solutions and apply them broadly across their own townships, preferably with the support of state and federal governments where required. I was very interested to hear the presentation from a couple more of my friends and colleagues—the member for Parkes, the member for Grey and the member for Hinkler—who have been directly impacted by the cashless debit card and in fact advocated for those cards in their own communities because of the impact they'd seen on systemic and widespread social dysfunction emanating from a range of areas but primarily around alcohol addiction, drug addiction or gambling problems. What I do take from the member for Bass's speech and also the contributions from the member for Parkes and the member for Grey is the level of unity we have in this place and the desire we have for change in grappling with these complex and difficult issues. The member for Bass I think made a very important point that we do need tailored case management as much as we possibly can to help families faced with these challenging issues. I did find the now government's attacks on the cashless debit card when they were in opposition to be more based on ideology than based on the facts of the situation on the ground as the local members were dealing with those challenges. There is a great divide in Australian politics today, and it's a divide which is largely based on geography. What you will see when you look at the electoral map today is that the Labor Party, for all its success in the cities and the suburbs, is largely unrepresented in rural, regional and remote communities—with a couple of exceptions; I do note the member for Lingiari and, I'd suggest, the member for Eden-Monaro. But once you get a couple of hours out from the major capital cities, the Labor Party is largely unrepresented. I don't make that point as a particular criticism; just to point out that there are going to be times in this place where ministers and the Prime Minister would be well advised to talk to local members in those communities and get an understanding about localism and an understanding about what local solutions might look like in those communities. The member for Parkes and the member for Grey are two outstanding examples of that—people who know their communities well and know the challenges they're facing every day in dealing with social and economic dysfunction. I make my comments again today from a positive position and one trying to be of value to what the government's trying to achieve here, and I make a very simple point that Australians should be very proud of the welfare system we have in this country. We have a welfare safety net which has been added to, created and improved over generations. We have a safety net that provides a helping hand for Australians when they need it the most. That helping hand also requires obligations that the money is well spent by the government and well spent by the taxpayers who receive it. From the last figures I've seen it's about $230 billion per year in the overall welfare budget, taking into consideration the whole range of pensions and different payments the federal government makes. It's about 34 per cent of Australian government expenditure. I think Australians can be proud of that. They can be proud of the fact that we do provide a system of government that supports Australians when they need it most. Income management was intended to support some of the most vulnerable people in our society, including those who have drug and alcohol dependencies and children who are subject to abuse and neglect. This was not a step the previous government leapt to as a first option in those communities where it was introduced. I sincerely believe income management should always be a last resort and it should always be locally supported before it proceeds. The coalition introduced the cashless debit card in 2016 and implemented the card in regions across Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. One of the criteria for trialling the card at that time was it had to be accepted by the community. As I said at the outset, localism matters. The communities were at their wits end in trying to deal with the challenges they were facing with abuse of government payments and money being used for alcohol, drugs and gambling and not being used to support the families it was meant to support. These communities spoke to the ministers responsible about the need for a better income management system to protect the vulnerable people who lived and worked in and visited their region. The cashless debit card, as it was introduced, worked just like a regular bank card that, however, couldn't be used to purchase alcohol, drugs or gambling products. Cardholders received 80 per cent of their welfare benefits as a credit on the card, with the remaining 20 per cent deposited into their bank accounts. And the CDC allowed for product-level blocking and could be used in around 900,000 merchants. During the election campaign the incoming government chose to campaign against the cashless debit card. One of the first moves of new Prime Minister Albanese and the Labor Party was to abolish the cashless debit card, regardless of the fact that the locals in those communities were, by and large, still supportive and recording positive outcomes, particularly for women and children, the most vulnerable people of those communities. But, as a result of abolishing the CDC, from the information on the ground, the anecdotal evidence, the reports in the media—everything we have seen since then—the rivers of grog have again started to flow. They've started to flow, and we're seeing more violence in some of those communities. I don't pretend for a second that the cashless debit card is a panacea that's going to solve all our problems. The problems are far more complex than that. I respect, again, the contribution of the member for Bass, when she went into great detail about some of those complexities. Since the repeal of the CDC, vulnerable communities are again feeling the devastation, and we're seeing an increased influx of violent crime, gambling, alcohol fuelled violence and child neglect. These are challenges that the new government is going to have to deal with and I guess is attempting to deal with today by what amounts to a rebranding and a backflip on their own policy. We have had the mayors of towns like Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Leonora, Coolgardie and Laverton—areas affected by Labor's abolition of the cashless debit card—reporting a surge in violence, child neglect and dysfunction since the last election. These reports are echoed in another former CDC trial site, Ceduna, with locals witnessing an increased use of pokies, violence and public intoxication. An article in the Australian newspaper on 24 March states: Crime in Ceduna exploded after the abolition of the Cashless Debit Card, with new police numbers confirming the crime rate almost doubled in the South Australian town. 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. The minister responsible, Minister Rishworth, is quoted in this article as saying: The picture of chaos that some are trying to paint of Ceduna as a result of the Cashless Debit Card program ending is just not reflected in fact. She goes on to say: The most recent reports I have received from my department is that Ceduna has no issues to report as a result of the CDC program transition. This again goes back to the question of localism. The locals know better. That is not what the locals are telling the minister; that is not what the locals are telling the media that visited to report on this increase in violence. The article continues: Ceduna resident Richard Wilkinson said he believed the increase in crimes was a result of the abolition of the cashless card … Mr Wilkinson said he had lived in Ceduna for 15 years and never had a problem, but was burgled three times over 10 weeks this summer, losing food, alcohol, bedding, and on one occasion his car. …   …   … "It's definitely got worse since the card was abolished," Mr Wilkinson said. "The crimes up, the drinking's up. The police do a great job but they're sick of it." I don't want to get into an ideological war about income management, but, for goodness sake, Minister, listen to what the locals are saying. The locals understand the challenges they have in their communities, and they are now being exposed to more crime, more grog and more violence, and it's a less safe community for women and children. There's no shame as a minister in trying to make changes to make a difference in people's lives and then realising quickly you've made a mistake and cleaning up the mess. This government needs to clean up the mess it's creating in many communities by abolishing the cashless debit card. I fear that, while Labor today is showing some signs that it's listening to our local communities in regional Australia, it really is just an afterthought and just an attempt to try and smooth things over and pretend that somehow everything's going to be alright. I urge the minister to listen more to people who are on the ground in those communities, whether they be local members or residents, who have such an incredible wealth of experience from representing their communities in this place but also from being on the ground every day listening to the shopkeepers, listening to the police, listening to the schoolteachers, listening to the mums and the children who can't go home because dad's got a bellyful of grog and wants to beat them up. Listen to these people because they're hearing these stories every day, and income management was one of the tools which was available to us to try to reduce that cycle of violence in those communities. I have to say to the minister: stop listening to inner-city elites who may have some principled ideological view about how welfare works in a perfect world, and get out on the ground in regional communities and hear the screams from people in those communities. Hear what they're saying to you about income management and how it's keeping their communities safe and putting food back on the table. The last point I want to make is that this was never a race based card. It should never have been portrayed as a race based card. This card applied equally to Indigenous welfare recipients and the rest of the community in the communities where they were consulted and wanted access to this system. At its heart, this was not a punishment; this was never intended as a punishment for those communities but as an attempt to get food back on the table for some of the most vulnerable people in Australia. It was an attempt to stop taxpayers' money going to bottle shops and poker machines, and there is evidence that in the early stages it worked. Evidence on the ground from those communities—from the women and from the children—was that they felt safer, that there was food on the table, that less money was being spent on grog and that there was less violence in those communities. I say to those opposite: you're a party that likes to talk a lot about your support for women right across Australia, so go out and ask them in those communities whether the cashless debit card was working in their homes. Ask them if they felt safer when the income management system was in place. Ask them if their community was better off with the system that was put in place to try to keep them safe and their families safe. I thank the House. 16:56 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I don't know how many times I have stood in this place to talk about this issue of income management, but I thought I would talk about this issue—hopefully, for the last time in this place—and the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023. I want to share with the parliament my experiences, both prior to becoming a member of parliament and also as, I think, being one of the few members who actually travelled out to Ceduna and over to the Hinkler electorate, where I sat down and met with organisations and people who were participants in this card. First of all, obviously, what we have before us now is the second bill in this space since we had a change in government. The first bill was to abolish the cashless debit card; that impacted around 17½ thousand cashless debit card participants but it retained mandatory income management in the Northern Territory and on Cape York. It made some income management voluntary for some people—for people living in locations that were formerly subject to the cashless debit card. To my thinking, the primary bill that was before this place really put the cart before the horse. It ceased the cashless debit card program before transitional arrangements were put in place, and I think it's fair to say that what we saw in many locations really was chaos. Then of course we have this bill to address some of those challenges. I have to say that working with people who are from communities which experience intergenerational poverty and welfare dependence is really challenging work. I know this from before I was in parliament. In fact, I worked for the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, the South Australian department that was working with the federal government to implement this card and make sure that there were a whole heap of services wrapped around people in Ceduna. I also worked in the youth sector. I wasn't a social worker but I managed teams of people, youth workers and social workers, who worked with young people, many of whom were third- and fourth-generation welfare dependent people. No-one in their communities had been able to transition successfully from high school into employment. Unfortunately, they had lives of enormous dysfunction, hardship and heartbreak. The great problem with this card and with all of the debates that have happened in this place is that much of it has been based on ideology rather than what is good public policy. In the previous parliament—in fact, I think it was probably two parliaments ago—I went to Ceduna. This was when the card was going to be extended. We'd had various university trials, and they were flawed. Some of them didn't start with a baseline. Others were really subjective—going up to people on the corner and saying, 'Hey, how do you feel about being on income management?' and when people said, 'No, I don't like it,' they'd put a tick in the negative column. So I went out to Ceduna and thought, 'Let's see what this is really like.' I talked to people in the pubs. I went into the pokie room, and that was empty. I was told that it was so lovely that the pokie room was empty because before the card the pokie room was full. The front bar was full. I went and met with organisations—Red Cross and a whole suite of organisations in Ceduna. They were too afraid to be called out and say how well the card was working, so they'd sort of whisper to me: 'It's working really well. We're starting to see people change behaviours. People are no longer walking around carrying a four-litre container of alcohol under their arm. We're seeing more kids going to school. We're seeing fewer people seeking emergency supports.' The challenges in Ceduna were that while there were a lot of frontline services, they didn't have a back office to them; they were very superficial. We didn't have any long-term stays for drug and alcohol dependence; it was just a sobering-up unit. You'd go in there, sober up and be out in the morning. I also note that there were very few supports around training to get people off welfare—and that's the point. The point is that we need to support people to change their lives, to be able to get that training, to be able to get a job and to be able to have a life of fulfilment. Then I travelled to the Hinkler electorate. During the last election we heard the cashless debit card often labelled a racist card. But in Hinkler it was the whole electorate—if you were under 35 and you were on JobSeeker or Newstart, you were on the cashless debit card. As previous speakers have said, it's not your whole income; it was 80 per cent that was quarantined so that you could not spend it on alcohol and drugs. So I went to the Hinkler electorate and I went with an open mind. I met with police. I met with the council. I might also backtrack: I also met with the council when I was in Ceduna, and they said there'd been enormous change. The impact was right across the community. They were getting tourists back, people were not feeling afraid, there was not the level of alcohol and antisocial behaviour in the community. Fast forward to Hinkler. I went to Hinkler and I met with a whole range of organisations. What struck me was that there was a supermarket that you could go to that was a bit like a Foodbank, where you could go and get low-cost food items. When the cashless debit card was introduced in Hinkler, they had an uptick in people actually spending money on food. They had an uptick in kids attending school. I met with the police there, and they were initially quite concerned about what the impact would be of the cashless debit card in that area. They said to me: 'It's a really positive thing. Keep it going.' I even met with St Vinnies and had a cup of tea with their people. I took the time to meet with people who were on the cashless debit card. Many of them were angry, and I can appreciate that they did not want to have their money quarantined, and that they did not spend 80 per cent on alcohol and gambling and drugs. But they couldn't say to me what they would otherwise have spent that money on that they were precluded from spending their money on. The way that we have managed this in this place is really quite shameful. I think that we need to work with people to address their addictions. I haven't gone back to Ceduna. When I was there Ceduna was a really beautiful place, and I have heard that in Ceduna crime has increased. It has doubled. Leonora and Laverton Shire presidents are reported as saying that the surge in violence was directly attributed to the abolition of card and the community was a safer place because of the cashless debit card. There was so much talk about how Indue was managing the card. There was a whole campaign around the fact that Indue was managing the card. From my understanding, Indue's going to manage this SmartCard, so what is the difference? We need to work comprehensively with people who are from communities. It's an investment we need to make in people. I think that this card had enormous benefit to change lives. There were many people who were too afraid to say out loud that when they were on the card they we able to save money, they were able to put food in the cupboard for their children and they were able to address challenges in their lives, and, moreover, the society improved. Not too long ago I drove through western New South Wales and through much of the member for Grey's electorate and I've got to say it's a very, very sad sight. We need to do a lot more in this place. But a part of it is also helping people to spend the money that taxpayers provide to people who don't have a job. I think it is incumbent on people who are receiving those benefits to spend their money wisely. That means you're spending your money on food, you're looking for a job, you're making sure your kids are fed and clothed and you get them to school. And if we need to support people with respect to addiction management we absolutely must do that, because we must invest in them, but it is a two-way contract. I support this bill because we need to fix up what was, I think, a knee-jerk reaction after the election and very rushed legislation. From someone who did spend considerable time and met with as many community groups and individuals as I could in two locations where the cashless card happened, I think it's a great shame how this has come out in this place. 17:08 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I would like to start by thanking all of those who have contributed in this important debate on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023. Of course, what this bill does is provide updated technology to income management participants through the implementation of this bill. Through this debate we've heard a range of views, some of which do need to be corrected as it's important to be clear here to provide communities certainty about what these changes mean for them. We need to be clear that this does not change the current income management program or amend the underlying policy, which is based on applying restrictions to an individual's welfare payment when they meet specific eligibility criteria to ensure a portion of their payment cannot be spent on restricted goods. Income management was introduced by the Howard government, well before the cashless debit card, as part of the Northern Territory Emergency Response. Income management is not a Labor creation, but we are the government and we are making sure that it is working best for the communities and the people that use it. For a decade their voice was ignored by the former government. Of course, the debate has shown that there are polarised policy views. The government is focused on getting on with the job. This bill, importantly, allows for the 24,400 existing income management participants living in remote, regional and metropolitan Australia who only have access to the BasicsCard now to also have a choice of going onto the enhanced income management card. Of course, this will allow new participants in this program to also go on to the card. It is important we deal with the facts here and that we don't play politics with this. I have heard criticism from those opposite about the figure of $217 million, which they somehow claim is the cost of this new technology. I need to be clear to the House: that money is to go to services that were ending in the budget on 1 July, so these are existing services that had no certainty whatsoever which, therefore, need some certainty. When I spoke with communities, they said they wanted to keep the services that were in place that worked. Importantly, when I went out to communities, I spoke to them about additional services to really deal with intergenerational problems. So I have to correct the record there. That money really is about the support services on the ground. I am surprised those opposite are criticising or arguing against those services. I think communities would be surprised that those opposite are arguing against those services. This bill does not change the proportion of payment that cannot be spent on restricted goods, which will remain the same on enhanced income management, based on an individual's personal circumstances. It does not change the items to be restricted. Importantly, it does not change the current ability for states and territories to refer people to income management where there are concerns relating to child protection. This ability is already there for states and territories to make these referrals and would be available on enhanced income management. What this bill does is ensure that new income management participants, who would otherwise have been issued a basic card, be given access to the SmartCard. Importantly, I want to focus on the fact that enhanced income management and the new SmartCard interface are with Services Australia, which will not only ensure that people are able to get a holistic service from Services Australia, including access to things like Centrepay, but, importantly, it actually costs less to engage Services Australia to be the interface for those using income management. The Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry supported the approach that we are taking in this bill. Much has been said in the debate about the future of income management. Those opposite have made it clear they want to bring back the cashless debit card and make it compulsory again. We will be speaking to and consulting with communities and individuals about the future of income management. This is what we have committed to do. We want to hear from people directly about the solutions that work for them, the services that work for them. What I have heard directly is that they don't want, like the previous government did, us to make announcements without actually delivering that support. I am pleased we have been able to look at that economic development piece and we are now working with communities about what that economic development piece will look like. Applications have now closed for those grants, and we will be working through those carefully Equally, consultation on drug and alcohol services has begun in the cashless debit card sites. With money that had been sitting in the budget for years under the previous government, we are getting on with the job of codesigning the support for the specific needs of the community. The money for these services is in the budget, and we will continue to look at how we are improving income management not only by providing the right technology but also by ensuring the broader program provides the support that communities need. I commend the bill to the House. I will say that the government obviously will not be supporting the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister. Obviously, that is a call to bring back the cashless debit card, and we don't support that. Equally, we want to deal with income management. We're not proposing to roll it back; that is not what this bill is about. Therefore, we won't be supporting the second reading amendment by the Greens. I commend the original bill to the House and hope that the House does support it. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane be disagreed to.  

The House divided. [17:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 95 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Birrell, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Coleman, D. B. Collins, J. M. Conaghan, P. J. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hastie, A. W. 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. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, E. L. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Pearce, G. B. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Plibersek, T. J. Price, M. L. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. van Manen, A. J. Wallace, A. B. Wells, A. S. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, J. H. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 6 NOES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Haines, H. M. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 17:31 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [17:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 87 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Archer, B. K. 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. McBain, K. L. 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) 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. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 53 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. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. 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. Sharkie, R. C. C. 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. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 17:34 The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that this bill be now read a second time. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 53517 Lock the doors! No, lock the doors immediately. Those members will need to return to the chamber immediately. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.    

The House divided. [17:34]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 96 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Archer, B. K. Bowen, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Coleman, D. B. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hastie, A. W. 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. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Pearce, G. B. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Plibersek, T. J. Price, M. L. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Sukkar, M. S. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. van Manen, A. J. Wallace, A. B. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 5 NOES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

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

 17:41 The SPEAKER 53517 Before we go any further, I wish to call the Leader of the House, and I want absolute silence for this. 17:41 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I am not in a position to name individual members of parliament, but we as a House cannot be in a situation—out of respect for the staff who work in this building—where, when you ask people to lock the doors, they have members of parliament physically pushing past them to get out of the room. There are standing orders that are quite specific in terms of people's obligation. Once you say, 'Lock the doors,' at that moment people have to move to the seats and pick a side or do as some members did, quite appropriately, and take the advisers' boxes. Mr Speaker, regardless of Practice and standing orders, we cannot be in a position, as a House, where people are using their physical size to push past the members of staff after you have said, 'Lock the doors.' It would be appreciated if you could review the video. It would also be appreciated if the members involved reported directly to you so that you can work out what the appropriate action is. 17:42 The SPEAKER 53517 I shall be taking the issue very seriously. I will report back to the House. Consideration in Detail 59 17:43 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) on the sheet revised 27 March 2023, as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (before table item 1), insert: (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "The whole of this Act", substitute "Schedules 1 and 2". (3) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (4) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (5) Page 66 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 3 — Cessation of income management Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 1 After Part 3D Insert: Part 3E — Ceasing to be subject to income management 124PT Definitions In this Part: subject to the enhanced income management regime has the same meaning as in Part 3AA. subject to the income management regime has the same meaning as in Part 3B. 124PU Ceasing to be subject to the enhanced income management regime (1) A person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime may make a request to the Secretary to cease to be subject to the enhanced income management regime. The request cannot be withdrawn or revoked. (2) If the person does so, the Secretary must give the person a notice stating that the person ceases to be subject to the enhanced income management regime. The notice comes into force on a day specified in the notice (which must be no later than 7 days after the day on which the request was made). (3) A notice under subsection (2) has effect accordingly. (4) A notice under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument. 124PV Ceasing to be subject to the income management regime (1) A person who is subject to the income management regime may make a request to the Secretary to cease to be subject to the income management regime. The request cannot be withdrawn or revoked. (2) If the person does so, the Secretary must give the person a notice stating that the person ceases to be subject to the income management regime. The notice comes into force on a day specified in the notice (which must be no later than 7 days after the day on which the request was made). (3) A notice under subsection (2) has effect accordingly. (4) A notice under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument. 124PW This Part has effect despite other provisions etc. This Part has effect despite anything in: (a) any other provision of this Act; or (b) the 1991 Act; or (c) the Family Assistance Act; or (d) the Family Assistance Administration Act. 2 Transitional rules (1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments made by this Schedule. (2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following: (a) create an offence or civil penalty; (b) provide powers of: (i) arrest or detention; or (ii) entry, search or seizure; (c) impose a tax; (d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act; (e) directly amend the text of the Act. Amendments (1) through (5) on the sheet set out an approach to ensure that we do not have compulsory income management. Because of the limited time between the introduction of this bill and its debate we have had limited time and have drawn on the approach used in the government's bill to repeal the cashless debit card. I want to thank the House drafters for their work, particularly during this short time frame. As I set out in my second reading speech, we fundamentally oppose compulsory income management. We think it is a flawed and a failed approach. This amendment would enable people who are subject to compulsory income management to exit. That is why it is so important. It is important that we are respecting an individual's human rights and ensuring that there is free, prior and informed consent. This amendment reflects what we've heard from so many people—that compulsory income management is disempowering and harmful. It runs directly to the principle of free, prior and informed consent. This amendment would enable people who are subject to compulsory income management—either the BasicsCard or the Indue card—to request an exit. The secretary would need to respond, confirming their exit within a week. It's a simple, straightforward amendment; it will improve people's lives and it will live up to the principles that Labor espoused in opposition and before the election. I commend this amendment to the House. 17:45 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston Firstly, I would like to thank the member for Brisbane, and also Senator Rice for her engagement on the amendments. I understand that it's a long-held view of the Greens party to oppose income management. We made a very clear election commitment that we would consult on the future of income management; we do understand that there are mixed views about it within communities. We certainly believe that it's not only an individual option for income management; we also speak with communities about community decision-making. We've had preliminary discussions on that consultation; that consultation work is currently being undertaken, and we're discussing how we would consult. So, firstly, these amendments pre-empt that work and the outcome of those discussions, noting that there are many communities that would like to opt in and have income management for themselves. Secondly, this would have some very practical implications. These amendments would potentially have more than 24,400 income management participants able to exit without the right support services around them. Once again, as I said, that would pre-empt that community decision-making. There are also some concerns around the intent of the opt-out amendments, which could create some confusion. While it seemingly allows people to opt out of enhanced income management, in the reality of the full legislation these amendments mean that people would get placed right back in the program. So there is potentially some confusion there and it would provide a lot of uncertainty for vulnerable people. The amendments also undermine the Family Responsibilities Commission operating in Cape York. This was a pretty significant debate. In the most recent bill, the one to abolish the cashless debit card, we recognised that the role of the Family Responsibilities Commission in the Cape York region was a self-determined process and that careful consideration needed to be given to its operation. These amendments would affect the way that referrals are done, and the Family Responsibilities Commission has outlined some concerns about that. The amendments would also disregard and undermine the role of the states and territories, particularly around referrals to the child protection authorities—referring for the benefit of individuals and contributing to meet the priority needs of the children under their care. There is also the banned drinker register in the Northern Territory, the objectives of which are to reduce the harm to individuals, families and the wider community caused by alcohol misuse, and to reduce antisocial behaviour. These already exist in the income management legislation; the amendments would actually undermine that in the enhanced income management legislation as well as in the income management legislation. I would like to thank Senator Rice for her engagement on this, but we are not able to support these amendments. Not only do they pre-empt the government's consultation and discussion with communities but many communities have already discussed this and want to talk about ways that their communities can be part of income management. It would also, practically, be very disruptive and difficult for many—for those 24,000 people on income management. 17:49 Dr HA 282335 Indi INES () (): I just wish to put on the record that I am fundamentally against compulsory income management. I made that very clear in the previous parliament, and I've spoken about it many times. Indeed I voted against the previous government's cashless debit card. I do believe income management should be voluntary. I think there are cases where people wish to or choose to have income management, and that should be available to them. I'm sympathetic to these amendments, but I'm not able to support them today. The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee is considering these things. I have spoken to the minister, who has reassured me the intent for consultation is genuine and substantial. Again, I very much wish to see that First Nations Australians in particular have the opportunity to be consulted genuinely with integrity on this contentious work that is before us. While I thank the Greens for the work they've put into making good faith amendments on this and I thank the member for his words on this, many of which I agree with, on this occasion I cannot support these amendments. 17:50 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Just very briefly, the opposition won't be supporting this amendment. It's very clear that the removal of compulsory income management is a disaster for affected communities. You don't need to believe the opposition. You don't need to believe a number of the members who have made outstanding contributions in this parliament to this debate; all you have to do is look at the crime statistics. We warned the government very clearly that abolishing the cashless debit card would be a disaster for those communities. It would unleash alcohol and drugs into those communities and ultimately result in misery for the most vulnerable people in already vulnerable circumstances. We saw statistics out of Ceduna that since this cashless debit card was abolished violent crimes have doubled. For anyone who doubts them, these are not the opposition's statistics; these are South Australian police statistics. We therefore cannot support the amendments. We understand the Greens position is very clear. They don't support compulsory income management. The government doesn't support compulsory income management, irrespective of the consequences for vulnerable individuals in already vulnerable communities. Consistent with my earlier contributions to this debate, because at the heart of this bill we will see people on compulsory income management in the Northern Territory get access to the better technology, let's be frank, of the cashless debit card, which has been rebranded by this government at huge cost to taxpayers in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, we will not stand in the way of those on the BasicsCard getting access to the rebranded cashless debit card. For that reason, again, we won't be supporting this amendment. 17:53 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I also would like to put on the record that I do not support compulsory income management. I appreciate the amendments put forward by the Greens. I will not be voting for them, but I think they make several good points about the issues with what the government is putting forward here today. We've heard some powerful speeches for and against compulsory income management in this chamber this afternoon, and I would particularly point to the speeches from the member for Mayo and the member for Bass, who in effect have opposing positions on this but both gave very powerful arguments for and against compulsory income management. The member for Mayo investigated in a practical way its impact on communities, but the member for Bass also made the point that the very examples just used at the desk point to the fact that when you remove compulsory income management and you see a spike in those behaviours, it proves the point that you cannot have permanent compulsory income management, because as soon as you remove it, the problems will simply re-emerge. So it's the core of these issues that we need to be getting at rather than forcing it in a mandatory way. I would like to make the point that I think there are some risks in this bill. I have spoken with the minister, and I thank her for the engagement on this issue. I have some concerns that improving the technology will allow easier rollout of mandatory income management, and that that could become a temptation at a future time. I accept the government's undertakings that they plan to review and potentially dismantle the system overall, and I hope that is the case; I think many of us on the crossbench will take that on trust to some degree. But I would say that there is a risk in this legislation that income management could be expanded to large swathes of the country because of the ministerial powers that are given in this bill. I think that we have to pay regard to that risk as the government goes through a process of future review. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments, moved by the honourable member for Brisbane, be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [18:00]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 85 AYES Albanese, A. N. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bowen, C. E. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Coleman, D. B. Collins, J. M. Conaghan, P. J. 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. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. 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. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. 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. Sukkar, M. S. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 5 NOES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 18:03 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane I move amendment (6) on the sheet, revised on 27 March 2023, as circulated in my name: (6) Page 66 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 4 — Obligations of Minister Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 1 After section 123SV Insert: 123SVA Periodic estimate s of cost of enhanced income management regime (1) As soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Minister must prepare a written estimate of the full cost to the Commonwealth (as at the end of the period) of the operation of the enhanced income management regime established by this Part. (2) The Minister must cause the estimate for a reporting period to be: (a) published on the Department's website as soon as practicable after it is prepared; and (b) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the estimate is published under paragraph (a). (3) In this section: reporting period means the following: (a) the period of 6 months beginning on the day this section commences; (b) the period of 12 months beginning on the day after the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a); (c) each subsequent 12-month period. Item (6) on the sheet is a very straightforward amendment. In fact, it actually draws on a similar amendment set up by the member for Bruce in a bill that he introduced in opposition. It is simply requiring that the minister table a statement about the costs of their new compulsory income management program— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members will cease interjecting immediately or leave the chamber. Mr BATES 300246 Like I said, it draws on the bill that the member for Bruce introduced while he was in opposition. It simply requires that the minister table a statement about the cost of the new compulsory income management program, and, if the program is to be ongoing, that a statement be tabled every year. We don't think it's a controversial idea that Labor in government should uphold the same principles they did while in opposition. Across the country, progressive voters thought they were getting what was on the label, but, as it turns out, once Labor gets into the ministerial wing all the high principles and passionate advocacy turn into a set of policies that even the Liberal Party would be proud to support. 18:05 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston While I have a lot of respect for the member for Bruce, I don't support this amendment. Maybe he was misled—no, that's not true! We think that this amendment bill does require interrogation by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which will be looking at this legislation to ensure the administrative processes meet its objectives, so we won't be supporting this amendment. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment be disagreed to. Question agreed to. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 63 18:06 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 63

Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023

Second Reading 63 18:07 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Australian women are front and centre for the Albanese government. This was reflected in our first budget last October, a budget which began delivering on our election commitment to making Australia a world leader in gender equality. I'm so proud that, after a decade of neglect under the former Liberal government, our government is unlocking and valuing the talent, potential and contribution of women across our nation. We know that policies which are good for women are also good for our economy, good for productivity and good for families. The Women's Budget Statement set out the Albanese Labor government's plan to deliver long-term change to advance gender equality, focusing on women's economic equality, ending violence against women, and gender equality in health and wellbeing. These themes are invariably interconnected, and they matter. Financial insecurity can impact on a woman's ability to leave a violent relationship. Violence can have devastating health impacts and diminish a woman's capacity to participate in the workforce and progress her career. The gender pay gap and time out of the workforce can have a long-term impact on a woman's lifetime earnings, especially impacting retirement incomes for older women, including, importantly, superannuation. That's why the Albanese government is leading the national push to close the gender pay gap. Progress in closing the gender pay gap between Australian women and men stalled in 2022. According to the most recent annual data, released last December by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, the gender pay gap remains at 22.8 per cent. That means women earned, on average, $26,596 less than men in 2021-22. Voluntary reporting data released by the agency showed 50 per cent of employers had set some sort of target for gender equality in the workplace. Of those who had set targets, more than half—55 per cent—had done so to increase the number of women in leadership; however, far fewer employers had targets to reduce the gender pay gap, just 38 per cent. Over the past two decades the gender pay gap has persisted. It has decreased by only 1.2 percentage points since May 2002 and by only 5.1 per cent since 1983. We must do better. Women have an average of 23.4 per cent less super when they come to retirement age than men. The gender pay gap is a constraint on the Australian economy, representing a cost of around $52 billion a year. These outcomes are more than disappointing. That's why the Albanese government is providing $20.2 million in investment to the Fair Work Commission to establish two new expert panels—one on pay equity and the other on the care and community sector. This will strengthen the commission's capacity to determine applications from female dominated industries, where work is often undervalued and underpaid. Already under the Albanese government we have set a commitment to a 15 per cent increase in the wages of aged-care workers. This increase is absolutely needed to support a predominantly female workforce, a workforce which was overworked, underpaid and undervalued by the former Liberal government. At a community forum I held in Armstrong Creek in my electorate I heard from Donna, who is a personal care attendant in a local aged-care facility. She spoke about low wages, insecure work and the frustration of being unable to properly care for frail, elderly and vulnerable residents. These are her words: 'I love my job. I wanted to make lives better, but now we are facing a roadblock. We've got six minutes to put each resident to bed each night.' To Donna I say: we are listening and we are acting. That's why we have committed to this important wage increase. We're also reforming the workplace relations system to make gender equity an objective of the Fair Work Act and to legislate an equal remuneration principle. We have also taken the first step to remove barriers that limit women's opportunities when they have caring responsibilities. That includes delivering a $531 million investment to expand the Paid Parental Leave scheme, up to 26 weeks, by July 2026. It is the biggest boost to Australia's Paid Parental Leave scheme since it was created by the former Labor government in 2011. It is something I am very proud of and have fought for, together with many other women. It will support parents to spend more time with their children and to share caring responsibilities more equitably. The bill builds further on those important gender equity initiatives. This bill takes additional decisive action to accelerate closing the gender pay gap at work by amending the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. This follows a 2021 Workplace Gender Equality Agency review, which found improvements were needed to enhance the Workplace Gender Equality Agency's ability to improve the quality of available data and the level of support provided to employers. The reforms in this bill include allowing the agent to publish employer-level gender pay gaps for the first time and a requirement for employers to provide gender equality reports to the governing bodies. The reforms also set new requirements for policies and strategies across gender equality and refine what employers report to the agency. The bill adopts either in part or in full almost all recommendations in the Workplace Gender Equality Agency review. The bill's headline reform allows the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to publish gender pay gaps for individual employers. This is important. It will promote accountability and encourage accelerated action and change within organisations towards closing the gender pay gap. The first release of pay gap reporting will be in early 2024, based on the current reporting period of April 2022 to March 2023. It will appear on the agency's website, and it will be searchable. Employers may choose to publish an explanatory statement, providing context for the gender pay gap and planned actions. This bill allows the agency to require relevant employers to provide reports to all members of their governing body, such as a board of directors, as soon as practicable after they receive the report from the agency. This would include providing an executive summary report and an industry benchmark report, ensuring that the people governing the organisation are fully aware of their organisation's gender equity performance—good or bad. The bill amends the existing act to rename the current 'minimum standards' as 'gender equality standards'. This reinforces the increased ambition and importance of those measures in strengthening gender equality, thereby improving outcomes for both women and men in the workplace. The bill also changes aspects of the legislation to clarify terms and remove ambiguity in some areas. In addition, the bill makes amendments to the legislation to include sexual harassment, harassment on the grounds of sex, or discrimination as gender equality indicators in the act. These are commonsense changes which support the implementation of the government's Respect@Work initiatives. It has been more than 10 years since the Workplace Gender Equality Act was first passed. In that time, we've seen meaningful progress, but the rate of change is far too slow. We know these measures will work from the successful experience in the United Kingdom, which introduced similar legislation in 2007. The reforms in this bill result from close consultation with stakeholders across the nation, including: the business and not-for-profit sectors, employee groups, state and territory governments, higher education providers, the women's sector, and other users of the government's data. The government has committed to reviewing the new legislation after five years. It is a great thing to always look back and reconsider, and to robustly interrogate how effective these measures have been in accelerating progress towards gender equality. Improving workplace gender equality is critical. Australian women deserve fair and safe working conditions. They deserve equal opportunity and equal remuneration. Without the changes in this bill, it is estimated that, at the current rate of progress, it could take as long as 26 years to close the gender pay gap for women in Australia. We must accelerate the pace of change. Women have waited long enough. I commend this bill to the House. 18:17 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I rise to speak on the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023. No matter which way you cut it, the gender pay gap is unacceptable—whether you take the national gender pay gap of 13.3 per cent or the more accurate 22 per cent as calculated from data from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, it's wrong both morally and economically. The 13.3 per cent figure released by the Austrian Bureau of Statistics last month shows that women earn, on average, 87 cents for every $1 earned by a man. If you consider women's average weekly ordinary full-time earnings across all industries and occupations, they earn $253.50 less than men each week. Estimates indicate that at the current rate of progress it would take 26 years to close the full-time gender pay gap. The story is predictable, and it goes like this. The gender pay gap starts when women first enter the workforce and it increases as they progress in their careers, until they retire with less superannuation than men. The super gap currently sits at 26 per cent. On average women in Goldstein have $54,000 less in super than men when they retire. If the government is serious about women having true economic equality, it has to start resolving these gaps. This is about more than equality, fairness and respect—it's about money. The gender pay gap costs our economy $51.8 billion a year in lost income. Closing this gap is also vital to strengthening Australia's economic prosperity. But first we have to understand what causes it. The gender pay gap is evidence that gender inequality remains a persistent issue in Australian society, with complex drivers both social and cultural. Gender segregation in job type, sexism, and care and family responsibilities all contribute to the uneven playing field. And all these things don't float around in their own universe; they're interconnected, deeply embedded in society and stubborn to move. There's no escaping the fact that in Australia industries and occupations are highly gender segregated. An example of industrial segregation is the high proportion of women in health care, at around 76 per cent, and in education and training, at around 72 per cent, relative to the low proportion of women in construction, at around 13 per cent, and mining, at 19 per cent. Occupational segregation involves the underrepresentation of women in high-paying roles such as management and chief executives and overrepresentation in low-paying roles such as administration or care work. This segregation in occupation and the concurrent wage gap raises a series of questions about low-status and low-wage work and why feminised industries are innately low paid. Women want to work and they should be able to work in their chosen field, but in many cases they're not even at the starting line, shut out by conscious and unconscious bias. Those who shout that women are underpaid based on performance or that they somehow don't want better paid jobs due to genetics are way off the mark—and, yes, these people exist. This is not some wild feminist theory, as some would like you to think; job segregation is real and it holds women back in terms of job satisfaction and finances. Women also do a disproportionate share of unpaid work, which keeps the gender pay gap ticking along. According to the ABS, in 2020-21, women spent, on average, around 30 hours a week on unpaid care and housework, nine hours a week more than men. Care is chronically undervalued in both the home and the workplace. Put simply: it's just expected—'women's work'. I say to the women of Australia: I see you when you roll your eyes. All these factors occur against a backdrop of Australian women being among the most educated in the world. Australian women are more likely than men to have attained a bachelor degree or higher education qualification, but what happens next? Despite making up almost 50 per cent of the labour force, women comprise only 19 per cent of chief executives and 33 per cent of board members. At the current rate, it'll take 100 years to achieve gender balance in chief executive roles. Job segregation, gender discrimination and caring responsibilities affect women's economic security over a lifetime and make it more likely that she will earn less than a man, make it less likely that she will advance her career and make it so she accumulates less super and savings than a man and is more likely to live in poverty in retirement. Single women are especially overrepresented in the population below the poverty line. Until now, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency has been striving to close the gender pay gap without the necessary clout. Since 2014, WGEA has been facilitating the public reporting of private and Commonwealth companies or entities with 100 or more employees against six gender equality indicators. Under the Workplace Gender Equality Act, relevant employers report to the organisation in different ways. Fifty-five per cent are standalone organisations and 45 per cent are corporate groups. WGEA cannot currently publish an employer's gender pay gap at an organisational level. It's only been able to publish gender pay gaps by industry, not by individual employers. This means we're not getting the whole picture and it means employers are getting away with paying women less for the same job. This is why the closing the gender pay gap bill is important and needed. The current approach of publishing aggregate industry gender pay gaps is not creating the transparency, accountability or insights necessary to close it fast enough. Women should not have to wait more than a quarter of a century. At the Jobs and Skills Summit in September last year, I said that women were done with being secondary and I called for this mandated gender pay gap reporting. My words were heard by women in my electorate, across the country and, perhaps, even here in parliament. The purpose of this bill is to boost pay gap transparency and encourage actions to close gender pay gaps within organisations. It aims to do this by implementing key recommendations of the 2021 review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012—namely, publish organisation gender pay gaps to accelerate action to close them; bridge the action gap with new gender equality standards; support Respect@Work implementation to prevent and address workplace sex based harassment and discrimination; and set WGEA up for future success to support employers to drive gender equality in Australian workplaces. Bridging the action gap is critical. As it stands currently, employers have to meet the minimum standards, which means merely having a required policy or strategy in place to report the data—that is, the act does not directly impose a requirement for employers to continue to improve beyond having the relevant policies and strategies set out in the minimum standards. This bill bridges the action gap by: requiring relevant employers of 500 or more to commit to achieve and report to WGEA on measurable, genuine targets to improve gender equality in their workplaces; to have policies or strategies which cover all six gender quality indicators; and to provide the executive summary report and industry benchmark report from WGEA to all members of their governing body. These measures that shift the thinking from minimum standards to gender equality standards will make employers more accountable for the workplace standards and culture they set. This is the systems change that we need, and this bill is a good start. I would like to see WGEA explore future opportunities to expand the coverage of the act to include employers with fewer than 100 employees; perhaps a digital solution to streamline supporting smaller organisations to opt in. Employers can play a critical role in achieving gender equality in the workplace. The UK has reported employer-level gender pay gaps since 2017 and there is clear evidence from their experience that publishing employer gender pay gaps leads to companies prioritising gender equality and a lowering of the gender pay gap. Gender equality is good for everyone. It helps prevent violence against women and girls, and it makes our communities safer and healthier. It is a human right and it's good for the economy. Pay transparency will help achieve gender equality in the workplace. Women want to be equally represented, valued and rewarded at work. I will continue to work with the government on gender policy to elevate our women and girls, and I will on all my days in this place speak up for those who are not in the room. To our girls who are still at school, to the women juggling work and family—including single mums—to the sandwich generation, juggling care of children and older parents, to those who see their super and salaries stalled, to the older women struggling financially, this is another building block among many. I see you, and we are finally getting somewhere. I support this bill. 18:28 Mr HVP Moreton PERRETT () (): I am proud to join my work sisters in supporting this piece of legislation. I thank them for their earlier contributions. This bill is yet one more example of the Albanese Labor government methodically bringing into effect an election commitment that was signed off by the Australian people in May last year. This time our commitment was and is to take positive and affirmative action to close the gender pay gap. The bill before the chamber starts this process by publishing gender pay gaps, boosting transparency and encouraging actual action to close the gender gap in organisations across our nation. However, I point out that the measures we are talking about only apply to those businesses with 100 or more employees. Small businesses at the moment have enough challenges and so will be spared from this process. The legislation we are debating gives effect to the recommendations of the 2021 review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act, which included introducing gender pay gap reporting at the employer level instead of at the industry level. The review identified where further action was needed to strengthen the act and enhance the Workplace Gender Equality Act's ability to improve the quality of data and the level of support provided to employers. To set the scene, in 2022 Australia's national gender pay gap was 14.1 per cent. In practical terms, as of May last year the average weekly full-time earnings of a woman in Australia across all industries and occupations was lower than the equivalent for men by $263.90 per week. To compound matters, women have on average 23.4 per cent less super than men when they arrive at retirement age. This is both a strain and a constraint upon the whole of the Australian economy. The gender pay gap alone represents a cost of $51.8 billion a year to the economy. In 2021 a review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 made 10 recommendations that would help Australia accelerate towards workplace gender equality. There was broad consultation before and after the review and consultation and support for employers will continue. But something has to change, and change will start with this bill. Better information, reporting and transparency will play an important role in helping to reduce the gender pay gap. If you can't measure you can't manage it. Everybody in business knows this maxim—sadly, not everyone opposite. Providing better information and transparency has never really been on the agenda for those opposite, on pretty much everything and anything, whether it was a certain Prime Minister secretly giving himself a few extra ministries or a couple of MPs in the Nationals knowing about this secret but then saying nothing; or the member for Fadden who, as minister, was advised as early as July 2019, by the secretary of his department as well as acting chief counsel, about robodebt being unlawful. Armed with this knowledge he still allowed this cruel robbery to continue through August, September and October. It was not until November that he stopped the robodebt juggernaut. Speaking of hiding, how about the member for Hume hiding rises to electricity prices from the public until two days after the election, or more recently the member for Dickson trying to hide from the voters of New South Wales and the voters of Aston that he is actually the Leader of the Opposition. He was trying to hide that he was a proud senior member of that Morrison government, hide that he was on the Expenditure Review Committee—the small select group that made all of those cruel budget cut decisions. I am happy to remind all Australians who is leading the coalition. It is the bloke trying on the red budgies every day here in question time. For the LNP transparency is a dirty word, but transparency helps good government. It doesn't hinder it. It is something that can provide data and information for the public and workers about what the actual gender pay gap is in their organisation. The bill will allow the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to publish gender pay gaps of relevant employers for each reporting period. This simple act of transparency will help promote accountability and, importantly, encourage accelerated action and change within these organisations. What organisation will want its workers and wider public to know that they are one of the nation's worst when it comes to paying women the same as men? I can tell you that if you are that business you'll be making changes quickly to fix it because good quality workers are scarce at the moment, they're at a premium and business will do what they can to retain and attract. It is envisaged that if this legislation passes the first release of the gender pay gap will be reported early next year and will be based on the current reporting period of 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023. When the first report is made public employers will have the opportunity to include statements providing context for their data. They can also outline any planned actions that they are or will be taking to address their own gender pay gaps. The Workplace Gender Equality Act entails working with employers in the lead up to the first report to make sure they understand what's going to be made public and how they can make, if they wish, relevant statements that can inform that data. The public will be able to see these statements along with the organisation's data to give context and an insight into how they plan to improve the situation in that workplace to close those pay gaps. They will be able to do this as the data being reported on the Workplace Gender Equality Agency's website will be in an easily searchable and digestible format. So if you or a family member work for a particular organisation you can jump on the site and find out how your employer is doing when it comes to gender pay rates. This will make it clear to workers how their organisations are doing with regard to gender pay gaps, and allow women who are in organisations that are doing poorly to ask why and basically ask their employer: what are you going to do to fix it? The WGEA will also be able to improve accountability within organisations, as this bill will allow the WGEA to require relevant employers to provide certain reports, such as the executive summary report and industry benchmark report, to all members of their governing body. This will deliver the most current information as soon as practicable to the governing bodies to help make decisions and take action where their organisation may be failing in regard to gender pay equality or, conversely, help them celebrate their successes in reducing their gender pay gap through actions they've initiated—carrot as well as stick. The bill will also look at strengthening the focus on gender equality. It will see a change away from the current wording of 'minimum standards' to 'gender equality standards'. The change reflects the increased ambitions of these measures to strengthen gender equality, improving outcomes for both women and men in the workplace. We will also see an important administrative change, with the head of the WGEA to be known as the chief executive officer. This was recommendation 9.2 of the review and helps avoid confusion with company director roles and align the language of the act and the WGEA with the language of modern businesses. The legislation also amends the act to align it with the 2013 instrument by including sexual harassment or discrimination on the ground of sex as gender equality indicators in the act. This is an important alignment to include these indicators. Finally, these changes will also support the full implementation of the Respect@Work report. People may wonder how these reporting requirements affect the day-to-day operation of businesses large and small, and the short answer is they won't. That's because there won't be any increase in the reporting burden to business; these changes simply draw on data that is already provided. The remade instruments action changes to actually make reporting easier for employers. One of the outcomes of the Jobs and Skills Summit was to include these measures to businesses with 100 or more employees. This is consistent with the current coverage of the WGEA, so it maintains consistency through its dealings with businesses—so, no extra burden on employers, but also lets smaller businesses look at the larger landscape in their sector. This will mean that unlike in the past, where whole industries were reported, individual employers will now be reported on. This will deliver greater transparency within industries. Those employers doing the heavy lifting in a particular industry will be seen for doing that and, hopefully, will then be rewarded by workers voting with their feet and heading towards their doors, while others, who are not lifting a finger for better opportunities for women, will have the spotlight shone more brightly on them, possibly for the first time. In a perfect labour market, workers might then vote with their feet out the door towards better workplaces. It will mean industries will look within for solutions and opportunities to do their business better, making our workplaces smarter and more modern. They can look to similar businesses who are achieving equality when it comes to pay rates. They can look at what they're doing differently, see what works for them and set out a path to improve equality within their own business, whether it be in Moreton, Solomon or anywhere in between. You have to agree that that's a win for everyone. In regard to non-binary data collection, the government does not intend to legislate for this at the time. By not committing to recommendation 7.2, this allows the government time to explore and consult on the pathways for introducing mandatory data collection on non-binary people. It's important that, as we move forward, we protect their privacy and safety in their workplaces, making sure this is front of mind when future collection of data is introduced, whenever that might be. This will be actioned through research and consultation on the collection of additional diversity data, such as what already occurs with people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background, culturally and linguistically diverse communities or people with disability. In the meantime WGEA will continue to collect data on non-binary employees on a voluntary basis, as it has done since 2021. The Albanese government will also not legislate for the addition of a new gender equality standard requiring employees to commit to report against and achieve specific targets showing their progress on achieving gender equality. The development of these gender equality targets requires further close consultation with businesses and other stakeholders. The Minister for Women, Senator Katy Gallagher, is working to develop a further legislative package for introduction at a later date. It is envisaged that this new package would include measures to give effect to outstanding legislative recommendations. To sum up, these changes, with a few more still to come, will lead to a reduction in the gender pay gaps we now see. This isn't just good news for women; it's good news for the economy and the nation, and I recommend the legislation to the chamber. 18:39 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney In the words of the great Kofi Annan: 'Gender equality is more than a goal in itself. It is a precondition for meeting the challenge of reducing poverty, promoting sustainable development and building good governance.' The gender pay gap that remains prevalent in Australian workplaces holds our society and our national economy back, and it taints our human rights reputation worldwide. In this context, I stand to welcome the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 and its provisions towards closing the gender pay gap in Australia. But I do so with caution, as, by its very nature, this bill presupposes that simply shedding light on the facts will force a change across our society. Sadly, there are many examples where simple factual knowledge changes nothing. To this end, we must acknowledge that this is just one step towards achieving gender equality in the workplace and creating safer, fairer workplaces for all. We must acknowledge that there is still a long way to go and many deeply ingrained societal barriers to overcome. There is strong support for this bill from human rights and advocacy groups as well as businesses, with many stating that it is an overdue step forward for Australia, and I honestly could not agree more. The gender pay gap proves that gender inequality remains a persistent, deeply ingrained issue in our Australian society. It is widely recognised that, from the early stages of their career until they retire, women in Australia experience gender inequality in the workplace despite record women's workforce participation. This is also even though Australian women continue to outnumber men at every level of higher education, with women accounting for 57.3 per cent of undergraduate degrees and 56 per cent of postgraduate degrees in 2018 alone. For such a fortunate country, it sincerely baffles me that this remains true. How is it possible that, in this day and age of education and empowerment, simply being a woman creates disadvantage in Australian workplaces—let alone the additional disadvantage that comes with being a woman with an intersectional characteristic, such as being of a culturally or racially marginalised background or having a disability? I'm grateful the government are beginning the work that is required and I applaud the Minister for Women for leading the government in realising their commitment to implementing the recommendations from the 2021 Review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. However, again I must emphasise that this is just the first step, with the measures in this bill only implementing, in part or in full, four of the 10 recommendations from that review. It's a strong first step in the right direction, and closing the gender pay gap is crucial to Australia's economic future and our aspirations to be an equal and fair society for all. All of us in this place, then, must do all we can to accelerate the rate of real change on workplace gender inequality, whilst ensuring a manageable reporting load for businesses. Women's employment, believe it or not, is growing at a rate nine times faster than the rate for men, yet Australia's gender pay gap currently stands at over 20 per cent, with women, on average, earning nearly $27,000 less than men each year. This is not a discussion, then, about equal pay; rather, this is a discussion about the very real and already existing difference between the average earnings of women and the average earnings of men. It essentially reflects how differently we value the contribution of men and women in the workforce. Statistically speaking, being a woman increases job insecurity, vulnerability to discrimination in the workplace and difficulty in maintaining a successful career, especially if you want to have a family. Women often face bias in progression and promotion opportunities, as many employers simply do not offer promotions to employees who are in a part-time role—and, let's face it, part-time roles are staple fare for mothers who are primary carers. I recently undertook a survey on paid parental leave across my own community of North Sydney, and what was really interesting was that the vast majority of feedback made it evidently clear that mothers find it especially hard to manage a healthy work-life balance, because of the unique difficulties faced by women in the workforce. One woman actually told me that being a full-time carer for a young child is such an undervalued role in society. She referred to the enormous undertaking of raising a healthy, happy, kind child with both parents working, which, in her words, 'You have to do to live in Sydney.' Another woman reported that her contract of employment and the lack of job stability had impacted her ability to plan for a family. She was, quite literally, feeling like she was having to decide whether she should start a family and leave her job, or stay employed. The fact that anyone is put in this position, where they feel that they cannot financially afford to have a family in this country, is unacceptable. The cost-of-living crisis is becoming unbearable for all Australians, and we cannot afford for the gender pay gap to exacerbate that. The WGEA review report solidified these thoughts. It concluded the gender pay gap in Australia was not closing fast enough. There were 10 recommendations made in that report, all aiming to accelerate this action and increase transparency in the process. I am pleased that this bill implements, in part or in full, recommendations 2, 3, 5 and 9 of that review. I believe these amendments are a good start and a strong step in the right direction. I specifically acknowledge the improvements made to ensure greater transparency around the pay gap. With that said, we do still urgently need to improve standards of behaviour and integrity in our workplaces. And while this might start with greater transparency, transparency in and of itself will not be enough. Accurate and truthful reporting on the gender pay gap information will provide a good foundation but, as I said earlier, access to accurate information doesn't always drive behaviour change. It will take far more than this to fundamentally shift the dial. The fact that the bill will rename minimum standards as gender equality standards does mark a significant shift, however, as it changes the day-to-day language that we use in this area. Language is an incredibly powerful tool to drive real change. The Senate committee inquiry heard, from expert witnesses, that data shows that relevant employers easily meet the current minimum standards, with 99.2 per cent of relevant employers doing so in the last reporting period. Let's face it. If this is the case, then the current minimum standards are setting the bar way too low. The National Foundation for Australian Women commented that this is likely due to the fact that most employers already have standing policies on sexual harassment, to comply with other state and federal legislation, making the minimum standards functionally meaningless. In this context of such deficiencies, various submitters argued the minimum standards need to be outcome based and time bound. This would ensure, year-on-year, that employer performance against the gender equality indicators can be assessed on something greater than the simple presence of policy documents. Many in my community of North Sydney are still bemused that it is only recently that a code of conduct for parliamentarians, their staff and all that visit parliamentary workplaces has been developed and endorsed. On this basis, the fact that this bill also supports the implementation of the recommendations of the Respect@Work report more broadly, by including sexual harassment and harassment on the grounds of sex or discrimination as gender equality indicators in the act, is welcomed and long overdue. Last year it was estimated that the total financial cost of workplace sexual harassment in the Australian economy was $3.8 billion, and this is likely a conservative estimate with most of the costs associated with the lost productivity, which is approximately $1.8 billion, borne by Australian businesses. This furthers the truth that closing the gender pay gap requires a multifaceted approach, and it is in the best interests of our society and our economy to get this right. I support the suggestion of the Greens senators that it is essential that we assist businesses to meet and beat their responsibilities. While reform in this space has been slow to eventuate, change in now coming thick and fast, and we must ensure businesses, especially smaller businesses, have the support they need. This could include: ensuring the Workplace Gender Equality Agency has adequate resources to identify companies struggling to close their gender pay gap, and to be resourced to deliver targeted training and workplace consultation; assistance in the development of action plans; and support for managers of similar organisations that have successfully closed their gender pay gap to mentor others. I've repeatedly noted in this place, across portfolios, that the legislation being put forward by this government is a welcome first step, but it cannot be viewed as a final step. Rather, this bill builds our floor. We must reach for the ceiling to ensure we take real action to achieve gender equality. I note assurances from the Office for Women that further progress will be made by the government, and that the bill, yet again, is a first step forming only part of the architecture supporting gender equality, and it should be viewed in conjunction with the remade instruments and further consultative measures. In this context, this bill, like many other pieces of legislation that have passed through this House since the new government took power, is, again, a promise that more will follow in quick succession. On that basis, I would note that my community and I are looking forward to seeing further reform come through this place soon. As Mike Honda stated, 'Equal pay isn't just a women's issue; when women get equal pay their family income rises and the whole family benefits.' In this context I also want to take the opportunity to call for improved support for families and unpaid care as a relevant next step. I've been vocal about the need to improve our Paid Parental Leave scheme in Australia, and I welcome the progress that has been made in that space. International experience tells us in no uncertain terms that the fastest way to address the gender pay gap is to introduce shared paid parental leave. As the Grattan Institute has noted in a report, 'Greater sharing of child care is one of the best ways to improve women's economic security.' That is why I continue to call on the government to set 26 weeks as the minimum length of paid parental leave, increasing to 52 weeks based on the Scandinavian shared care model so that parents can decide how to use the available support that suits them and allows for women to work if they want to. We also need to ensure that families have access to quality and affordable care to allow those that either wish or need to return to work to do so. This means not only affordable but also accessible early childhood education. The interruption of superannuation for paid parental leave and those in unpaid care positions, the majority of whom are women, must also be addressed. Ideally, men and women should have equal opportunity to work and to care for their families. The gender pay gap should not be about a woman's choice to be in the workforce or to be a full-time carer. There are additional vulnerable communities living in plain sight who will not necessarily benefit from any of the developments that have been discussed previously tonight, and one of those communities is single-parent families. The fact is that punitive budget saving measures backed by both major parties in the last decade have left single-parent families, most of whom are headed by women, in an unsufferable situation. It is a wicked choice to ask someone to make when they are literally trying to weigh up whether they keep their family together by staying in a violent relationship or risk sinking into poverty when they choose to leave it. We cannot let these families and these women continue to go unseen and unsupported. If genuine equality is what we are sincerely pursuing, this cannot be allowed to continue. In conclusion, while this bill does represent long overdue progress in closing the gender pay gap, it is only a small part in achieving larger, broader reform of our human rights legislative framework in Australia. As this bill is considered we must look at it through our current human rights framework, which, while far from perfect, requires us to consider our obligations to protect individual social and economic rights, which includes the right to work. I look forward to a time when the gender pay gap is closed and Australian workplaces are full of thriving, safe, progressive and fair environments for all. But this will not happen without significant and concerted effort. I commend this legislation to the House but note that it is the beginning, nowhere near the middle or the end. 18:52 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby The gender pay gap is not a new phenomenon. It is something we've long reckoned with in this society. And it's certainly not something that's going to remedy itself of its own accord. I remember talking about the gender pay gap in local government almost a decade ago with fellow staff and a younger female staff member saying, 'It won't happen in our generation—it'll be fixed in our generation,' and an older staff member, a woman in her 60s, replying rather wearily, 'We said that in our generation. We said that in the seventies, we said that in the eighties, we said that in the nineties, and here we are. How long do we have to wait? And why should we wait?' Of course, what the younger staff member didn't know was that it was already happening in her generation. It was likely already happening to her. How would she know? Women earn less than their male counterparts right out of school or university, but with pay secrecy, how would you know? The gender pay gap is pernicious. It's structural. It has consequences and harms that go well beyond the headline figures. That's why I'm so pleased to be speaking on this bill, the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023. The bill amends the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 to implement our election commitment to close the gender pay gap, and it responds to a number of key recommendations of the 2021 review of the act. The review made 10 recommendations designed to help Australia accelerate progress towards gender equality. This bill is the government's response. It's designed to accelerate action and to close the gender pay gap, and it does so in a number of key ways. The bill requires the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to publish the gender pay gaps of relevant employers. Previously, this information was only available at the industry level. This measure is designed to promote transparency and accountability, to encourage employers to take steps to create change in their organisations to close their gender pay gap. It will encourage companies to prioritise gender equality. It will mean that women are more able to see clearly whether they are being valued equally, and the public will be able to see which organisations value their male and female staff equally. We are confident that this mechanism, one of accountability and transparency, will work because when the UK introduced similar legislation in 2017, companies did begin to prioritise gender equality in their pay. The first gender pay gap reporting window will be in early 2024 for the current reporting period, which is 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023. Crucially, this requirement will mean only very limited additional work for employers because the data on the gender pay gap is already provided to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. The change will simply see the agency publish the data at an employer level, allowing greater transparency and accountability as to where more work is required to close the gap. Further to this, in publishing their reporting employers are able to provide a statement giving context to their gender pay gap and detailing steps they plan to take to remedy it. This statement will be published alongside their gender pay gap data, and data will be reported on the Workplace Gender Equality Agency's website in a searchable format. The bill also moves to improve accountability within organisations. The bill will allow the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to require relevant employers to provide reports—the executive summary report and the industry benchmark report—to all members of their governance body as soon as practicable after receiving the report from the agency. This will mean that those tasked with running such organisations cannot reasonably claim not to be aware of the gender pay gap within their organisation. In tandem, we plan to simplify the existing reporting processes, which employers have identified as a key pain point. This will reduce the regulatory burden on businesses, freeing up valuable time for them to focus on what is actually needed—fixing the gender pay gap and delivering action to reach gender equality. In crafting this legislation, the government has consulted widely with stakeholders. We have consulted with stakeholders from business and the not-for-profit sector right across Australia, as well as employee organisations, higher education providers, the women's sector, users of Workplace Gender Equality Agency data and state and territory data, and—importantly—the Workplace Gender Equality Agency itself. It's fundamental to the mission of this bill, closing the gender pay gap, that women's voices are at the forefront of driving this change. Of course, we know that the gender pay gap will not be closed overnight. That's why the government has committed, as part of the bill, to review these amendments and the process of gender pay gap reporting five years after they're passed. This will ensure we have the flexibility to adapt reforms based on a comprehensive and critical interrogation of their effectiveness in achieving what they set out to do: driving progress towards gender equality in Australian workplaces. It's so important to keep the mission of this bill at the heart and centre of this debate when the gender pay gap affects so many Australians. In 2022, Australia's national gender pay gap was 14.1 per cent. Practically, this means that, as of May 2022, the average weekly full-time earnings of a woman in this country, across all industries and occupations, was lower than their male counterparts by a whole $263.90 per week. That's $13,722.80 a year, or $672,470 over a lifetime. If you add in casualisation, part time and time off for parent work then the dollar gap is even more. There are parts of my electorate where you could buy a pretty reasonable flat or even a very small house with that kind of money. When you realise that older women are retiring with significantly less superannuation than their male counterparts, meaning more older women living in poverty, that is the direct impact of the gender pay gap. This is truly unacceptable and a constraint on the Australian economy at large. The gender pay gap alone represents a cost of $51.8 billion each year. The previous government committed to working towards implementing all recommendations of the 2021 review, and now the advancement of this bill is a welcome step in actually getting those aspirations done. The gender pay gap reflects a deep structural inequality. It isn't an accident. It isn't an anomaly. It isn't just going to go away. It is not simply that many women take home less income than their male counterparts, although that is an obvious injustice. It's also about something bigger and deeper in our society. It's about how we recognise and reward different types of work. During the pandemic, we found our who our essential workers really are. They're the nurses. They're our aged-care workers. They're our early childhood educators. They're our retail workers. The one thing that all of these industries have in common is that, essentially, the work undertaken in them is predominantly done by women. There is a second thing they all have in common, and I've said this in this place before: by curious coincidence, these workers are not rewarded in a way that recognises just how essential they are to the functioning of our society. That's why I was proud when the Albanese government advocated for a minimum wage rise last year and delivered one. It's why we will continue to fight to improve the wages and conditions of workers in these highly feminised industries. When it comes to the gender pay gap, as I said earlier, the ramifications are sometimes hidden and ongoing, and we see this in the fact that older women are the fastest-growing group of people likely to experience homelessness. I've seen it countless times in my prior work. A woman approaching retirement age loses their employment or maybe has a family breakdown, and suddenly they find themselves with no way to pay the mortgage, no way to pay the rent, nowhere to live. This is often exacerbated by the fact that women often have far lower superannuation balances than men. Again, that reflects their lower wages across their lifetime. This is driven by a combination of the fact that women are statistically more likely to work in casual and part-time employment and the fact that much of the caring work done disproportionately by women is low-paid work or unpaid work. In practice, it means limited options for far too many women, too little economic security and a continued struggle to achieve gender equality. That's why I'm proud to stand here as a member of the Albanese Labor government, which is truly committed to closing the gender pay gap, establishing an independent women's economic security task force to help inform budget decisions in advancing economic equality, making gender pay equity an object of the Fair Work Act 2009, requiring large companies to publish their pay gaps through this bill and, of course, extending paid parental leave, introducing paid domestic violence leave and cheaper child care, a constraint on women's work and often a cost borne by women. We are backing a real pay rise for aged-care workers, who are overwhelmingly women, and looking to provide backing for similar industries. Labor is committed to eliminating the gender pay gap because Labor is committed to real gender equality. Labor is the party of gender equality in Australia. The achievements that have marked the progress towards gender equality, almost without exception, have been delivered by Labor governments, and we will use all means at our disposal to continue this legacy to deliver gender equality in Australia. I commend the bill to the House. 19:04 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I too rise to speak in support of the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 and absolutely welcome the opportunity to take important steps forward when it comes to closing the gender pay gap. To begin with, I commend the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who was, of course, the lead speaker for the coalition on this bill earlier today in the House. Many speakers have shared some important experiences that they have had as far as inequitable treatment in the workplace goes, and the deputy leader reflected on some of the experiences from early in her career. Those were important to listen to and reflect on, because it's always very helpful to have that kind of informed personal experience to contribute to discussions on bills such as this. Of course, this is a bill that has support from all sides of the chamber. It comes out of a review that commenced in 2021, and I think it is going to bring some important transparency to the issue of businesses of a certain size or greater that are now going to have this requirement to report on—and therefore have some scrutiny of—the situation of the gender pay gap in their businesses. We know the statistics about the gap as it is now, and it has been even worse in the past. We see this as an opportunity to improve upon the statistics and hope that for businesses—while many, I'm sure have been making good progress in this area—this will add an additional level of incentive to make sure that they are very seriously looking at what issues are contributing in their business to a gender pay gap, if one exists. We know, of course, based on the industry-wide statistics and the national statistics that clearly that is probably the case in the vast majority of businesses. We also look very closely at the Public Service and what we in the different levels of government do. In my personal experience with the Public Service, I think the Public Service has been a commendable employer when it comes to improving and eliminating the gender pay gap. I think we need to be really nimble in this debate, and once this legislation is enacted and we see it working. There were some stakeholders who didn't not support the bill but just had some hesitation around privacy issues to do with this sort of reporting. I think that those are addressed in the bill, but we might want to ensure that through regulation and the like that people's privacy is not inadvertently breached. I don't anticipate that, but I think we should look very closely at that and ensure that we monitor this as we see it implemented and make sure there aren't any unintended consequences. But, as I say, I don't foreshadow that. I expect that there will not be those issues. We hope that this will be the next step. We've come a long way, but there's still a long way to go. I was particularly pleased to speak on other legislation that has been through the parliament in previous months and that I think will provide important tools in addressing the gender pay gap. Those are areas that have further to go. Paid parental leave is obviously something that is very important, and so is child care. We on the side are particularly concerned about child care and the equity of access to child care. Whilst the government has undertaken reform in child care, there is nothing to address the childcare deserts that occur, particularly in regional areas and regional electorates. We would like the government to look very closely at that. I am also very interested in looking at issues around tax deductibility for child care, and giving more flexibility to parents, depending on their situations. We obviously want a really good universal system—and it is not universal for the reasons I just outlined—but we in the coalition also believe in flexibility and giving people as much flexibility as possible to make their own arrangements and not have their decision-making overly skewed by what the government does and doesn't let them do to provide for the child care of their children. Tax deductibility is something that I think is well worth looking at closely, as an option on top of the current scheme that exists for a tapered subsidy. Certain people in certain income brackets may want to make choices or can't get access to the subsidy because of means testing. Child care, I think, is worthy of being considered as a deductible expense in the course of earning your assessable income. I think that's very relevant to this debate because I think it's equally as important that high-income-earning women have no disadvantage, the same as the population at large, when it comes to managing how to balance the raising of a family and not having an unfair cost to your career. I certainly know in my own family's circumstances and those of friends and from what constituents raise with me that there is a gap there, where high-income-earning couples have enormous costs to meet around child care. It's not a deductible expense on your assessable income. That is something that I think we should consider looking at. I think that would be very relevant to what this bill is about, which is addressing the gender pay gap. I think that anything we can do to provide flexibility in the workplace and give more options in the workplace when undertaking the delicate balance that occurs around progressing a career and managing family responsibilities is a good thing. I think it is excellent that culturally we have changed so much, particularly in the last 10 or 15 years. In the period of my adult life, I have noticed that there is much more equitable burden sharing around family responsibilities. I have a lot of friends where that has been very clear in the way in which they share the responsibilities when it comes to starting a family, raising children and not having those old attitudes that expect the man to prioritise his career and the woman to prioritise responsibilities of the family and children in particular. We live in a much more equitable and shared era now, and that is a good thing. I think that culturally that is something that is well and truly engrained in this country now, and we want to see that continue into the future. I think it's always good to improve our awareness of challenges. This is a bill that is going to ensure we have more transparency around this challenge. I think the more information we as policymakers have access to the more we therefore have a greater ability to look for an opportunity to continue to drive reform. I will close on this. I think we have made progress that we should not dismiss, but we still have a long way to go. I think that this is a bill that can be used to help us continue to progress further in making sure that we close the gender pay gap, get rid of it entirely. Hopefully in a few years time we will be considering some of these measures and looking at their success and reflecting very proudly on days like today when we have come together in unity as a parliament to work together on addressing something that we all agree is a very important priority in this country. I strongly commend the bill to the House. 19:12 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It is a great delight to rise in this place this evening to speak on the Labor government's Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023. While Australia's gender pay gap is trending in the right direction, we know we have a long way to go. In fact, on current trends, it will take around 26 years for the gender pay gap between men and women to close. That will take us through to 2049. So where are we at? The national gender pay gap is currently at 13.3 per cent. Women earn on average 87c for every $1 earned by a man. If we look at men and women's average weekly full-time earnings across all industries and occupations, women earn $253.50 less each week than men. Women on average have 23.4 per cent less super when they come to retirement age than men. We are overrepresented in the industries with lower wages and underrepresented in positions of leadership. Although women make up half of Australia's workforce, we represent less than a quarter of all chief executive officers. About one-fifth of all boards and governing bodies have no female directors—that's zero. Women hold just 18 per cent of chair positions and 34 per cent of board member positions. We know that at the beginning of women's careers the gender pay gap is very modest, but by the time a woman retires it's the largest. This largely comes down to those middle earning years in your mid-30s, when women are having children, and they're coming in and out of the workforce. Of course, gender discrimination in the workplace doesn't impact just women; it's a constraint upon the whole Australian economy. The gender pay gap alone represents a cost of $51.8 billion each year. Australia now ranks 43rd in the world for gender equality. I think we can all agree in this House that, as an advanced nation, that is not good enough. I am proud to be part of a woman-majority Labor government that is committed to ending this disparity—a government where gender is not just some add-on but central to our thinking, a government that understands the critical importance of women's work to the economy, women's work in the care sector, women's work in the non-traditional industries and women's workforce participation everywhere. The Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023—the bill before the House right now—is part of the solution. It responds to a 2021 review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. That review made recommendations to help Australia accelerate progress towards workplace gender equality, as well as making reporting easier for employers. It also fulfils a key election commitment by our Labor government: to close the gender pay gap at work, to boost work pay transparency and to encourage action within organisations to close gender pay gaps. This bill will be a key driver for employer action, for transparency and for accountability. The current approach of publishing aggregate industry gender pay gaps is not creating the transparency, accountability or insights that we now need. For the first time, this bill requires employers with more than 100 staff to report their gender pay gap to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. Our changes will ensure that employers themselves are part of the solution, not the problem, by putting employers on notice that they need to take action. It is just one part of our commitment to make sure that women are respected and valued at work and that they have the security they need to thrive. Our efforts to drive a better deal for Australian women don't stop there. In the first 10 months of government, the Albanese Labor government has supported a pay increase for aged-care and low-paid workers, who are overwhelmingly women. We've legislated to make child care cheaper and have been at pains to point out the economic and productivity advantages that come with making child care cheaper in Australia. We've increased paid parental leave to 26 weeks. We've finalised the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, supported by a record investment in the budget of $1.7 billion to implement it. We've legislated 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave. We've funded and legislated to implement in full the 55 recommendations of the Respect@Work report. We've established a National Women's Health Advisory Council to tackle medical bias and improve health outcomes for all Australian women, and, most recently, on International Women's Day we launched a survey and discussion paper to inform the development of the National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality. The Albanese Labor government is embedding a gender lens in government in everything, from how we work with the NDIS and the social security system through to IR laws and the budget more generally. But we know that gender inequality is not experienced in the same way by everyone. For First Nations women, for women of colour, for women with disabilities, for LGBTIQA+ women, for migrant and refugee women and for women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds that gap is even wider. As my colleague, Senator Jana Stewart said in the other place, the gender pay gap: … for First Nations women when compared to non-Aboriginal men is a huge 32.7 per cent. That is mammoth, more than double the statistics for non-Indigenous women in Australia. The gap between First Nations women and non-Aboriginal women is roughly 19.7 per cent. This data is not easy to find, and the new reporting requirements under this bill will make a significant difference in presenting a fuller picture of workplace participation and the gender pay gap. What we do know is that employment outcomes tend to be worse for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, who have substantially lower rates of workforce participation, at 51.5 per cent, than for Indigenous men, who are at 65 per cent, and for non-Indigenous women, for whom it is 59.2 per cent. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are half as likely as Indigenous men to be owner-managers of businesses and they are overrepresented in most of the lower weekly income brackets and underrepresented in the highest income brackets. First Nations women are also less likely than Indigenous men to receive support from their workplaces if they encounter racism. We must do better as a nation to ensure that every woman feels safe in the workplace, regardless of income, cultural background, citizenship status or ability status. Data on women from culturally diverse groups in the workplace is also lacking and somewhat fragmented. We know that women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds face particular challenges relating to the formal recognition of overseas education, of their qualifications and skills and of the need for access to childcare support. We know that this is impacting culturally and linguistically diverse women more acutely. As a result, migrant and refugee women are more likely to work in low-income, low-skill and insecure jobs, despite the often very substantial tertiary education they've received or the significant jobs they've undertaken prior to arriving in Australia. ABS data also shows that culturally and linguistically diverse women have a significantly lower rate of workforce participation compared to culturally and linguistically diverse men. Those figures are 47.3 per cent compared with 69.5 per cent. Systemic discrimination and bias, both conscious and unconscious, can create inequalities at every stage of the employment cycle. Improving accountability and transparency through this legislation will go a long way to help shine a light on some of the discrepancies facing women in workplaces everywhere. Hiding the gender pay gap between men and women will no longer be possible, and that is a good thing. Nothing good is ever achieved by putting our heads in the sand and pretending that something isn't happening. Undervaluing women's work will no longer be acceptable. Not only will government be able to see exactly where inequalities occur but it will also be able to see where that's occurring for current and prospective employees. Employees will be able to monitor and see what's going on in their respective workplaces, and that is a good thing too. These are the additional transparency and accountability measures that this bill seeks to address. This bill is an important first step, but there is much more that we want to do, not just broadly on workplace gender equality but also, specifically, with regard to how WGEA can help us understand and close the gender pay gap. For example, recommendation 3 of the review calls for the addition of a new gender equality standard, requiring employers with 500 or more employees to commit to and achieve specific targets, and report their progress against these targets to WGEA. This government is absolutely committed to this reform and to getting it right. This has been a long time coming. This recommendation has been around since that initial review, and this bill seeks to ensure it is implemented in a timely manner now. The development of these gender equality targets requires close consultation with businesses and with other stakeholders, and meaningful metrics which are shown to help progress gender equality. One of the recommendations of the review was that the act should be amended to enable the mandatory collection of data that captures employees who identify as nonbinary. This has been collected on a voluntary basis since 2021. Again, this is a change the Labor government wants to make. It will bring this important piece of legislation in line with other Commonwealth standards such as those used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics when collecting data on gender. It will also enable a more fulsome picture of our workplace, one which will more acutely reflect Australian society. That's an important matter too. Our laws, like our parliament, must reflect the communities we represent and the communities we belong to. But this change needs to be done carefully, in close consultation with businesses and employees, and with representative and advocacy groups and members of the LGBTQIA+ community. During the 2022 election, women across Australia voted for change. After a decade of Liberal government inaction, defunding of services, and general disregard and disrespect for women's call for change, the need action is more pressing than ever. Together with our new national strategy to achieve gender equality, and working in concert with Respect@Work, secure jobs, better pay, and improvements for family and gender equality legislation passed by this government, this bill will bring us closer to achieving our goal of being one of the best countries in the world for equality between men and women. 19:27 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina On 8 March, International Women's Day, my recently married daughter, Georgina Bell, had this to say on Facebook: 'Here's to strong women. May we know them. May we be them. May we raise them.' Powerful words. I'm proud of her, as I am of my wife, Catherine, for what they have done in the workplace and what they have done in business. My wife worked for many years in a male-dominated housing and construction industry, and held her own for 17 years as a regional manager. This Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 is important. It has consensus across the parliament. It implements a number of recommendations from the review of the Workplace Equality Act, undertaken while we, the coalition, were in government. There is no further regulatory burden for business under these proposed amendments, and that's important. It's vital that we know that, because we want business to be its best self, particularly at the moment, with cost-of-living pressures which, you could argue, impact women more unfairly than many men. No technical changes are required by employers in terms of reporting processes or the type of data provided to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. (Time expired) Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 76 ADJOURNMENT Parenting Payment 76 19:30 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Imagine for a minute that you're a mum with three kids under the age of seven. Life is busy, and you're trying to raise a healthy and happy family. People only really notice you at day care or school pick up or when one of your kids is having a meltdown in the supermarket. Now imagine being that same mum doing all of that whilst also experiencing physical, mental and/or coercive abuse at home. You've stayed, hoping it would get better, but after months of coaxing you finally leave, only to find you have nowhere to go, no money to help keep you and your kids in a safe space for an extended period of time and nothing that you can afford to rent, as well as services that want to help but are simply overwhelmed or move too slowly to be of any real assistance in the immediate short term. What would you do? Would you move into your car? Would you go back to the violent situation? Would you contact social services and beg them to take your children? What I have just described is happening every day in Australia. The truth is that women and children in this country have never been more vulnerable, and we in this place are letting them down. Last week my team received a call from a woman in North Sydney who is living this experience right now. Through tears, she shared her desperate plea for support to find affordable housing in North Sydney. She said someone told her to call her federal member to see what could be done. She said to us: Surely I am not the only one going through this—what can be done at a higher level? I don't know what else to do, I'm afraid I will lose my children if I don't find somewhere soon. Services in North Sydney are doing everything in their power to help her, but the surge in demand for such services means that crisis centres are overflowing. Although eligible for the Start Safely NSW government payment, the payment itself is completely inadequate in our high-rent community, at just $450 a week. Besides that, it takes 12 weeks to be processed. The waiting list for social housing is five years, if you're deemed a priority case. The CEO for Women and Children First, a not-for-profit, community based service in my electorate, told me just today that last week alone they turned away 15 women—eight in one day. Meanwhile, at Mary's House Services, another crisis housing service in my electorate, they say the harm done through domestic abuse is increasing, and: Our caseworkers know firsthand how hard it is to find the "next step" for women leaving the refuge when there is limited government support, and a very real lack of access to affordable housing. As outlined in Anne Summers' highly regarded report The choice: violence or poverty, women experiencing domestic violence in Australia are forced to choose between two decisions: stay in a violent relationship or leave and live in poverty. The most recent data shows that, of the 311,000 single mothers in Australia currently accessing the single parent payment, nearly 186,000 of them, or three in five, experience violence. The government's National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Children encourages women to leave violent relationships, but the truth is that the government payment policy and other welfare measures have seen as many as half the women who do leave living in poverty. While domestic violence breaks up families and leaves women parenting alone, it is arguably government policy that leaves them in poverty. Prior to 2006, a single parent could be eligible for a parent payment up until their last child turned 16. The change, made under the Gillard government, to drop this age to eight has been widely regarded as a historical mistake. Currently, a single parent with two children loses over $100 a week when their youngest child turns eight, and they are then forced onto JobSeeker. Recently, the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, established under this current government, has been arguing to re-expand the single parent payment, noting the high number of single mothers falling into poverty. On behalf of the people of North Sydney, I add our voice to calls to restore access to the parenting payment single allowance to all single parents until their youngest child turns 16. There are far too many areas of urgent need across specialist sexual, domestic and family violence services, but we have to start somewhere. These are good mothers. They are doing everything they can to protect their children, and women and children should not continue to be punished simply for being brave enough to finally leave. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 77 19:34 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Ensuring Australians have access to affordable medicines is absolutely essential. I'd like to start off by thanking the minister for health, Mark Butler, for ensuring mechanisms such as the PBS are maintained and improved, and we have seen a lot of improvement in the last 10 months. The PBS is an essential element to Australia, providing a system for the government to subsidise the cost of medications for the treatment of Australian patients. It is a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that truly does benefit all Australians. Just in my electorate of Adelaide over $300,000 was saved on PBS medications by constituents in January and February this year alone by the new prices that came out. The PBS was put in place to not only enhance the quality of life but also provide access to important life-saving medication. Unfortunately, not all medication is listed on the PBS. The decision for example, by Novo Nordisk to withdraw Fiasp from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is deeply distressing for Australians living with type 1 diabetes and their families, and this is a prime example of how lack of access to medication can be so detrimental. Many people come to see me seeking assistance and help, as I'm sure all members of this place see people wanting assistance and help. These people need life-saving medication and cannot get access, due to significant cost. I've recently been assisting a constituent of mine who came to our office with no viable option to have access to necessary treatment. She's been fighting breast cancer for seven years. The medication Tukysa was recommended by an oncologist to my constituent as her last option. The medication is registered by the TGA. This medication has been proven and recognised to help, so we wrote to the ministers for health, both the state minister and the federal minister, and we're grateful for the advice they gave us and that we received. Through that advice we wrote to the pharmaceutical company to request the medication be provided to this constituent on compassionate grounds, and I must say they did provide it on compassionate grounds. We assisted the constituent with her personal letters to the company, as well as support letters from my office. After a lot of correspondence to and from and a lot of concern, this constituent has been offered six months access to the medication, with a potential cost-sharing scheme at the end—an offer that is still not ideal, due to the unknown financial liability. She has informed my office she'll be taking the offer up, and rightly so. We've made sure she knows we'll continue for fight for her. We'll continue to do whatever we can, and we are continuing to liaise with the ministers for health both state and federal. Another constituent had mantle cell lymphoma. He needed CAR T-cell therapy, which was available only in Melbourne, not in South Australia. My constituent was not medically able to travel, and his window of opportunity was very limited. Like many, the medication was registered by the TGA and received highly positive recommendations by the Medical Services Advisory Committee. He was an eligible candidate for the treatment, yet he was not able to access it. This was the last hope to fight for survival, and we spent weeks corresponding trying to get answers and results. Whilst we were eventually successful in assisting this constituent with access to the treatment, by the time this happened he sadly passed away. This was another long fight for a life-saving medication. These patients simply do not have time to waste. As we know, there is unfortunately much uncertainty in the life of a patient with cancer—or any life-threatening disease, for that matter. We know these patients already fight hard enough as it is. Having to also fight to access a life-saving medication is a huge additional and unknown burden to bear for these people. There needs to be a mechanism to ensure these people are protected and looked after. It is so sad for these patients when perhaps there are medicines that can help—and, in this case, in both circumstances there were medicines and are medicines that can help—or, for example, when a medication has been directly recommended to them but the patient cannot have access to the medication, as it is not seen to be cost effective. We're putting cost effectiveness in front of people's lives. These medications, all of the ones I've dealt with, are backed by scientific trials and registered by the TGA. (Time expired) Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 77 19:40 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I rise to speak tonight on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS. This scheme began in 1948 in a limited form, mainly for pensioners, with a list of 139 'life-saving and disease' medicines, which were provided at no charge. I am proud to be a member of the coalition, which, when last in government, listed almost 3,000 new or amended medicines on the PBS. This represents an average of around 30 listings per month, or one per day, which amounted to an investment of just shy of $15 billion. That sounds like a lot of money and is a lot of money. But, when I speak to taxpaying Australians, I know the vast majority are happy to see a portion of their tax dollars go to subsidising medicines to ensure that they are affordable for those in our communities who depend on these life-saving medicines and so that those people can continue to enjoy a more comfortable life, and sometimes just stay alive. After all, what can be more Australian than helping out a mate? I was pleased to see that, prior to the election, Labor matched the coalition's promise of committing to even cheaper medicines on the PBS. But, sadly, like so many Labor promises, that promise has been broken. The promise of cheaper medicines has been broken. Of course, there was the appearance of cheaper medicines with the announcement of the reduction from $42.50 to $30. What they didn't announce was that, at the same time, the decision was made to remove some medicines from the PBS, including a life-saving diabetes drug, Fiasp, which 15,000 Australians rely on. This life-saving medicine will now cost those who depend on it over $200 per script as opposed to $42.50 per script when it was listed on the PBS under the previous coalition government. It is concerning that this is happening so early in the term, as last time those opposite were in government it was towards the end of their last term that they ran out of ideas and ways of saving money, and that's when they stopped listing items on the PBS. For them to be doing it so early in the term shows how out of their depth they are economically. They have also made the decision to not list the drug Trikafta, which is used to treat children between six and 11 years old with cystic fibrosis. This is despite the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommending that Trikafta be placed on the PBS. This drug can cost families up to $250,000 per year. We'll just add this to the ever-growing list of broken promises made by this government and this Prime Minister. We've seen them break the promise of cheap electricity, namely that there would be a reduction of $275 in household power bills. There's the broken promise that mortgages would be lower under Labor. There is the 'no changes to super' promise—broken. We have the 'we're not touching franking credits' promise—broken. 'There will be no industry-wide bargaining' promise—broken. 'We'll get real wages moving' promise—broken. 'We won't raise taxes' promise—broken. 'We'll cut the costs of contractors and consultants' promise—broken. Mr Albanese also promised that every nursing home would have a 24-hour nurse by July this year, which we said wouldn't happen, as there simply was not the workforce there to meet that kind of obligation. Well, guess what? Mr Albanese has now conceded that they will break that promise as well. Why? Because there isn't a workforce to meet this commitment. Who'd have thought? The greatest summary of all these promises made and broken is by the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister Albanese himself: 'Australians will be better off under a Labor government'—broken, broken, broken. More shallow promises that sound good just to win a vote, regardless of the facts. This is typical of a party that continually misleads Australians, because they do everything on emotion. They hear of a problem and give some instant fix with no planning and no costing. But what would you expect from a prime minister and a party who, in the main, are career politicians, political and union staffers? What can you expect from a prime minister who has been in this place for over 25 years and who before that had jobs in political offices since he graduated from university? Most Australians expect their Prime Minister to have some experience in the real world so they can relate to the issues that they face. There's nothing more valuable than keeping your word, but on this front this government and this Prime Minister are simply dismal failures. They continuously blame outside factors and the previous government instead of just getting on with the job of governing, finding solutions of the day and leading. So the question really is: why do Australians always pay more under Labor? Climate Change: Safeguard Mechanism 78 19:45 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck This week we have seen yet another example of what can be achieved by a responsible, disciplined and mature government, a government willing to engage constructively with a broad crossbench and, yes, with those opposite to ensure legislation is passed in the best interests of our nation. It cannot be overstated just how important it is that we will be able to pass the safeguard mechanism through both places this week, move on to the implementation of the policy and start seeing the beneficial effects on the economy and the environment sooner rather than later. The coalition have once again failed to support good and useful legislation, something that they are now becoming known for. The clock is ticking. Perhaps it's not too late for a change of heart in the other place. Coalition failures in regard to the safeguard mechanism, however, are not a recent phenomenon, and continuing to lament their inability to do what is right for the nation's people, the environment and the economy is becoming a chore. As someone who has spent most of their life living in regional towns and in the bush, as I do now in my wonderful electorate of Hasluck, I am acutely aware of the risk of bushfires. My husband and I had our own home completely destroyed by the 2007 Toodyay bushfires. I am entirely cognisant of the rapid increase in that risk over the years due in part to a drying climate brought about by anthropological climate change. I ran on a platform of tangible action for the environment. The safeguard mechanism is just that. I ran on integrity and restoring trust in government, and the cooperative way in which this government engaged the crossbench goes some way to demonstrating that politicians motivated by the right reasons have the ability to get on with the job of responsible governing. I ran on the promise to build a better future, with a sustainable economy and secure, meaningful jobs. The safeguard mechanism bill neatly captures some of the many issues that informed the mood for change at the last election. Most importantly, the safeguard mechanism is good for our planet. It is the missing piece of the puzzle to successfully reach 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050. The reduction in carbon emissions as a result of the safeguard mechanism will be the equivalent of taking two-thirds of the nation's cars off the road by 2030. It's immense and it can't come soon enough. But, just as the sun will rise in the morning, the naysayers will be crowing about the economy-wrecking impacts of this policy when they couldn't be further from the truth. This will help businesses remain competitive in a decarbonising global economy. Australian heavy industry and our largest exporters know that global markets are moving to a low-carbon future, with more than 80 per cent of Australia's trade now covered by other countries' net zero commitments. From the moment my candidacy for the seat of Hasluck was announced, I have been lobbied, consulted, pushed, prodded, quizzed, questioned and grilled on what action Labor will be taking in relation to carbon emissions and environmental conservation. The Perth Hills Climate Change Interest Group are a vivacious bunch, with a persistence only outmatched by their passion for the environment. The Citizens Climate Lobby are another group I have met with on multiple occasions to hear their thoughtful, considered and impassioned pleas for action. I've met with the Climate Action Network Australia, Save Perth Hills, Solutions for Climate Australia—the list goes on. I feel confident that no-one will be accusing me of not listening and not taking their passion—my passion—to conserve and preserve what remains of our fragile environment to my caucus colleagues here in Canberra. Individuals like Philip from Glen Forrest want to see much more action to combat climate change. Nathan from Ellenbrook and Annie from Woodbridge both recently wrote to me excited about the prospect of more affordable EVs. Shane from Gidgegannup is an engineer in oil and gas who really wants to see companies be compelled to apply science today to reduce emissions. Just this morning I received an email of congratulations from the Climate Council to the government and the caucus on the safeguard mechanism deal. The Climate Council described the deal as a good compromise. Anyone in Australia with any skin in the game at all made a submission on the consultation for the mechanism and, in a near unanimous chorus, were accepting that, whatever its final form, this mechanism required teeth. Politics is the art of the possible, and I thank Minister Bowen for his efforts on behalf of my constituents, on behalf of the government, on behalf of the Climate Caucus and on behalf of the country. (Time expired) Live Animal Exports 79 19:50 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise tonight to talk about the impact that the impending phase-out of the live export trade will have on our trade relationship with our long-term friends in the Middle East. I spoke earlier in the week about the impact on our farming communities and sheep producers across my home state of Western Australia, but tonight I want to expand that conversation out to our trading relationships. Kuwait is our largest importer of live sheep. We have a 60-year history of trading with Kuwait. In the decade from 2012 to 2022, Kuwait imported 5.6 million sheep, worth in excess of $652 million. They were mostly out of my electorate of O'Connor in Western Australia, but certainly there have been sheep come out of the member for Durack's electorate as well. How do we treat these very good friends and long-term trading partners? Well, I have here a letter from the Minister of Commerce and Industry of Kuwait addressed to the Hon. Murray Watt, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in the Albanese government. One paragraph says: 'Last year, representatives from your government visited Kuwait to confirm Australia's intention to phase out live sheep exports by sea into the Middle East by 2025. This greatly concerned us, given the significance of live sheep imports from Australia to Kuwait. It came to our attention that the Australian delegation'—and that would be the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Metcalfe—'met with a representative from the Kuwait Public Authority for Food and Nutrition and the Kuwait public authority of agricultural affairs. However, the Minister of Commerce and Industry is the main authority for all matters of trade, especially live food exports, and all policies relating to food security for Kuwait.' So here we have a senior public servant, representing Australia, blundering around the Middle East telling customers of 60 years standing that they are no longer welcome to do business with us. I think the Kuwaitis, certainly from the tone of the letter to the minister, are quite offended by that. I don't blame them. Why is that important? Why is Kuwait important to Australia, and in particular Western Australia? Mr Speaker, when the Chinese government in 2021 banned imports of barley into China—five million tonnes of barley out of Western Australia—it was the Middle East trading partners who stepped up. Kuwait took $199 million worth of barley. That's just shy of a million tonnes of barley. They took $168 million worth of wheat. That's about 500,000 tonnes of wheat. Of course, they took their usual quota of $49 million to $50 million worth of live sheep. The other important aspect of our relationship with Kuwait is that they invest $12.7 billion here in Australia. Under this government, we've seen the Japanese government become very concerned about sovereign risk. We're now seeing countries in the Middle East who've invested heavily in Australia start to become very concerned with the sovereign risk of investing here in Australia, where their investments, made in good faith, effectively can be cancelled out overnight by pressure from various activist groups. The other key partner in the Middle East that I want to talk about this evening is the United Arab Emirates. In government, we were progressing the comprehensive partnership agreement with the UAE. They are a very significant trading partner of ours, with over $10 billion of trade pre-COVID. Once again, they are very large investors in Australia, at $14 billion. It is with great pleasure on Thursday—if given leave by our whip—I will be meeting with His Excellency Abdulla Alsaboosi in Perth and escorting him, amongst others, on a tour of a live feedlot down in Baldivas and I will certainly reassuring be him and his country that a coalition government will support live export going forward. Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 80 19:55 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Much like the member for Hasluck, I too wish to congratulate the Minister for Climate Change and Energy for the successful passage of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 through this House. This is such an important step towards reaching net zero by 2050 and also the legislated 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, ensuring our economy is ready to take advantage of the opportunities that the legislation will present and also to mitigate the impacts of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions on our environment. The safeguard mechanism will ensure the nation's highest emitters will deliver a higher proportional share of the national 2030 target, encouraging and forcing these facilities to reduce their emissions and invest in clean energy technologies. It will deliver 205 million tonnes of emissions reductions by 2030. That is equal to taking two-thirds of Australia's cars off the road ,and it will aggregate emissions reductions from 153 million tonnes this year down to just 100 million tonnes in 2030. The changes this bill will bring are essential if we are to meet our commitments under the Paris agreement and do our part as a global citizen to mitigate the impacts of climate change, because we cannot afford to idly sit by and ignore the growing threat of climate change here in Australia and across the world. After a decade of inaction and denial by those opposite, this bill represents a responsible and desperately needed response to the genuine threat of climate change, and it is what those in my electorate of Bennelong voted for. The Liberals and Nationals have repeatedly shown themselves to be completely out of touch on climate action and the environment. They are out of touch with all the businesses who are also taking action on climate change and they are out of touch with everyday Australians, who, in May last year, voted for strong climate action. And stunningly, those opposite continue to deny, delay and create chaos for the government here, which wishes to take climate action. Those opposite consistently oppose meaningful action on climate change, choosing instead to prioritise the interests of our biggest polluters and fringe climate deniers over the health and wellbeing of our planet, and we see again and again the Liberals and Nationals refusing to support climate action here in this House, voting against not only our 43 per cent legislated target brought to this place last year but also the safeguard mechanism a few days ago. But this government will not let their short-sightedness and lack of vision hold us back. We must continue to take bold action on climate change and this bill is an essential step in that direction. In contrast to those opposite, I commend the efforts of the crossbench to work collaboratively to secure the passage of this critical legislation through this place. It is testament to the strength of our democracy that we can work together in this place to achieve meaningful outcomes for Australia. The opposition could learn a lot from the crossbench, instead of consistently dealing themselves out of legislation and making themselves irrelevant. This government recognises the importance of working with everyone in parliament and engaging in constructive and respectful dialogue while considering the concerns and priorities of all parties involved. This approach allows the government to make improvements and adjustments to our proposed legislation. It is important. It is how this place is meant to work and it is how parliament will work as long as Labor continues to form government. I urge those in the Senate to work collaboratively to get this bill through the parliament. Failure to pass this critical legislation this week will not only cause us to miss our 2030 emissions target but could set back the target even further. The reforms are a vital component of the Powering Australia Plan announced 15 months ago, which was endorsed by the Australian people at the election. It is crucial that we act on the commitments we have made and implement these reforms so they can start from 1 July 2023. The parliament cannot afford to make the same mistakes of the past and lose another decade of reasonable and considered climate action. We must seize this opportunity and take decisive action on climate change. It is what Bennelong voted for, it is what Australia voted for and the time is now. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 81 NOTICES Presentation 81

Tuesday, 28 March 2023

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

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 82 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Infrastructure: Building Standards 82 16:00 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Like most, James Davies of Scarborough knows that being connected to community improves the quality of our lives. As someone who lives with a disability, requiring a wheelchair for mobility, James still faces physical barriers to fulfilling the basic human need for connection. We've come a long way in relation to disability access over the last 50 years, with a national disability strategy that commits to an accessible built and natural environment, but we're not delivering on that commitment. Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club has shown me it's lovely room and event space on the first floor, with views of our beautiful coastline, but, as it doesn't have a lift, James hasn't been able to get up there to see it or attend events there. The club president, Cathy McIntyre, has shown me the changes that would be needed to make it accessible, but the club doesn't have the money to make these changes. James has had similar challenges at other venues, including the Lake Monger Recreation Club and the Cottesloe Civic Centre in my electorate. There are two ways we must make good on our commitment to accessibility. The first is making our buildings and infrastructure accessible when we build them. For newly-built infrastructure we must adopt universal design principles so that everyone can use houses and other infrastructure without the need for specialised or adapted features. The National Construction Code has been amended, but WA and New South Wales are yet to sign on for the minimum accessibility building standards, citing the additional building cost as a concern. But there's a very good reason to get it right upfront—it's up to 22 times more expensive to retrofit accessibility standards. The federal government must put pressure on the remaining states, including Western Australia, to take up amendments to the National Construction Code. This will futureproof our houses for an ageing population, empowering people to live independently for longer. The second way is retrofitting existing buildings. Many community buildings and facilities in Curtin were built 50 years ago. The bowling, sailing and surf clubs don't have the funds to update them. At the Mounts Bay Sailing Club I met members who have been volunteering in various capacities for decades. Declining mobility will eventually exclude them from anything that happens upstairs at the club. While the government has committed to supporting infrastructure projects in the regions, there's no funding allocated to support community infrastructure in the cities. Our city communities are important too and cannot be allowed to fall behind community needs. I call on the government to allocate funding in the upcoming budget for community infrastructure in metropolitan areas. These one-off investments give our community groups the ability to keep providing the threads that hold our communities together, making people healthier, happier and more connected for longer. Zarb, Mrs Theresa 82 16:03 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I stand to pay tribute to a woman whose passing has been mourned across the north-western suburbs. Today her family in four states and seven countries, across three continents, will hear her story being told in Australia's parliament. Theresa Zarb was better known as Tess. She and her late husband, Tony, migrated to Australia from Malta in 1961 with two young sons. In 1969 they settled in the home they built in Fawkner Crescent, Keilor East. Back then Keilor East didn't have sewerage or sealed roads and very little by way of public transport, but it did have Tess Zarb. By 1970 Tess and Tony's family was complete with four boys—Avan, Alex, Martin and Adam. The sons Tess was so proud of delivered a beautiful tribute to their mother at her funeral at the end of last year. It was held at St Peter's, a parish that Tess and Tony played a crucial role in developing. The Zarb brothers spoke of a woman who, when she saw a need in the community, would leap into action. Tess founded the St Peter's social club. It was a place for locals, especially our local citizens. It was a place to meet and enjoy some company and play bingo. Tess was the president of the club from the day it began in 1985 until the day she died, a reign that prime ministers could only envy. Indeed, nobody dared challenge her in the role. As an early adopter of recycling practices, Tess washed and reused plastic bags, and leftover bits of soap were re-formed as new cakes. As the boys said in their eulogy, 'Mum had an innate ability to stretch the life and use of any item.' She adored and loved her children, their partners, her 11 grandchildren and her four great-grandchildren. She was a most prolific knitter. She sewed. She wrote letters. She knew the birthdays, wedding anniversaries and contact details of everybody in the extended family. She was a tireless charity worker, a St Bernard's College tuckshop lady who lunched, until the very end. Tess and Tony were both deeply committed to Labor values. Her only flaw appears to have been that she was—and I'm quoting Avan here—'a terrible cook'. Tess, up in heaven, he said it, not me! As her boys put it, Tess's phone was always engaged, her door was always open and the kettle never cold. Neighbours would come and go in Fawkner Crescent, but their ties to the resident of No. 10 were never broken. Once you made friends with Tess Zarb, she was your friend for life. She was one of those rare gems in our society who acts as a comforting, steady anchor, whose love of connection and community drives their passion for bringing people together, without expecting any accolades. The love expressed by Avan, Alex, Martin and Adam, and the people from all walks of life who came to St Peter's to celebrate Tess tells us all we need to know. Hers was a full life, well lived. Vale, Tess Zarb. Rodgers, Mr Calvin 83 16:06 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest Calvin Rodgers is a truly inspirational Australian raised in my home town of Harvey in WA. He had a typical happy young life at school, was a talented local sportsman, was in the fire brigade and was a fitter and turner. In 2001 he was involved in a car crash that left him with less than 10 per cent vision in one eye, nearly deaf in one ear and with lifelong diabetes insipidus. His life changed dramatically, but Calvin brought the same positive approach to this as he had to everything he has done in his life. He retrained to become a sought-after remedial masseur, running his own practice. In 2003 he started playing corporate lawn bowls in Harvey, then became a full bowling member. Since then he's won all of the club championship events at Harvey except the men's pairs, which is still on his agenda. But in 2020 he became involved in vision-impaired bowls—having less than 10 per cent vision, of course. His achievements are extraordinary—gold medals in all singles and pairs events since 2020, and gold and silver medals in the Australian Blind Bowlers Association's National Championships. He was the 2021 Western Australian Disabled Sport Association's WA Sports Star of the year. He has won silver and gold medals in WA's All Abilities State Championships. In 2021 he was invited to join the Bowls WA academy as the only vision-impaired bowler. He was part of the Para-Jackaroos as well. But the next challenge for Calvin came in 2021, when he was diagnosed with stage 4 bowel cancer, with no hope of a cure or recovery. In his own words, 'I've responded well to chemotherapy and radiation and will soon be scheduled for liver surgery to remove the remaining non-active cancer sites from my body.' This was the reason Calvin missed out on a chance of selection for the 2022 Commonwealth Games. He'd had pinpoint radiation two weeks before having to fly to Queensland for the trials for the Multi-Nations World Bowls Championships trials. Can you imagine how hard that was? He'd been struggling just to walk around home a day or two before he had to leave. Doctors said it normally takes eight weeks for recovery, but Calvin was determined and he persisted. He succeeded and went on to win gold and silver at the championships in that eight weeks. Currently he has just competed in the International Blind Bowls Association World Championships, coming away with gold and silver medals, helping Australia to secure the overall team championships. He has had a loving and caring family and friends to help him get through. I really want to mention his parents, Greg and Christine, his fabulous wife, Shelley, and his children. He mentors and helps so many around him. Every Australian should be proud of Calvin Rodgers. Blaxland Electorate: Ramadan 83 16:09 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland About 10 years ago, Yassr Elyatim set up a barbecue stand on Haldon Street, Lakemba, selling camel burgers. Someone had told him: 'Listen, there's a big problem in the Simpson Desert with camels, and they're starting to muster them and use them as meat,' and Yassr thought, 'Well, that could work.' And so began Ramadan Nights. If you haven't seen it, then I recommend that you check it out. You have to see this to believe it. When the sun goes down during Ramadan, the main street of Lakemba turns into a mega outdoor food festival. Lakemba isn't in my electorate; it's just outside it, in the electorate of my friend Tony Burke, the member for Watson. But it's not just locals who turn up to this event. Last year, 1.2 million people from right across Sydney and right across the country turned up to the food festival. We're talking about tens of thousands of people, every night, coming to have a feed of everything from camel burgers to knafeh. Ramadan has begun again this year, and so has this great festival. It's on every night from now until 20 April. And I really mean it, Deputy Speaker Chesters: do yourself a favour and check it out. Can I use this opportunity to wish all of my friends in the Muslim community a happy Ramadan. For Muslims here in Australia and all around the world, this is the most important month of the year. It's a month of fasting and of feasts. It's a month focused on faith. It's also a month where a lot of people catch up with family and friends. Think about Christmas dinner and Christmas parties every night of the month. A big part of Ramadan is the breaking of the fast when the sun sets. That breaking of the fast is called iftar. I know that so many of us here in this place have had a chance to go to an iftar in our local communities, so we know how great these events are. Racism and bigotry feed on ignorance. The more we know about each other, the stronger the bonds are that grow between us. So, this year, as I do every year, I encourage my Muslim friends to invite their Christian neighbours to come over for a feed, to invite their Buddhist workmates or their Jewish friends over to their place for iftar, to share a meal, have a feed, ask a question and learn more about each other, because that's how we build great communities and how we make the best country in the world even better. Cochrane, Mr Tyron, Orcher, Ms Jolie 84 16:12 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I'd like to bring to the attention of the parliament a couple of outstanding young residents of the Parkes electorate. Goodooga, in northern New South Wales, a very small community about an hour's drive north of Brewarrina, has been the home of some amazing families of shearers. Young Tyron Cochrane, who is 18 years of age, has just won the junior Golden Shears in New Zealand. He's only the 11th non-New Zealander, the first Australian since 1961 and the first ever Aboriginal Australian to win that prestigious award. And Tyron's 18. His partner, Jolie Orcher, from Bourke, is 17, and she came third in the wool handling at the same Golden Shears competition. Now, in this place we quite often hear lots of negative stories about young people, and we hear negative stories about, particularly, young Aboriginal people. These young ones are great examples and role models of what can be done. Not only that, but, if you do the maths, at $4 a sheep, they are making a lot of money. I also want to pay tribute to the Regional Enterprise Development Institute and the director, Peter Gibbs, and deputy director, Michael Cooper. It was their idea to take some young Australians to New Zealand. They had to go there for a little while because they're different sheep and the combs they use are different for the strong wool. By doing this, they're actually working now on training more young Aboriginal people in western New South Wales and introducing them to the shearing game. It's an honourable profession that is much needed. The wool industry is still a very large part of the economy of this country. I'm incredibly proud of Tyron and Jolie, and I'm looking forward to following their progress as they work their way through the shipping industry. I'm looking forward to visiting them in a shed before much longer, with Peter Gibbs, to see them at work in the shearing sheds. Peter Gibbs was himself a shearer out of Goodooga some years ago. I've been known to shear a few—quite slowly!—and I'm looking forward to catching up with them again. Westgrove Primary School, Lollypop Creek Primary School 84 16:15 Ms 249224 Lalor RYAN (—) (): It's a pleasure to be in the Federation Chamber and I want to thank the member for Parkes for giving a shout-out to those two young people. The Federation Chamber is a really pleasant place to walk into. It's pleasant to come in and find the Minister for Education promoting multiculturalism and sharing or to listen to the member for Parkes talk about shearing. The member for Parkes might be interested to know that my dad was a shearer for part of his life, so it's something I know a fair bit about. The reason I like to come in here and hear those positive stories, such as the one the member for Parkes referenced, is that I'm here to tell a really positive story. I had an opportunity in the last week at home to visit two primary schools in my electorate—Westgrove Primary School and the brand-new Lollypop Creek Primary School—to talk to students about our democracy. In Victoria they're studying civics and citizenship at this time of year, and it's always a pleasure to join our young people and their teachers as a guest in classrooms to talk about our parliament and our role. I want to point out to people that the new Minister for Education, my friend the member for Blaxland, is here to hear about these young people. When I spoke to the grade 4s at Westgrove, they asked me what my role is. I told them it's to tell their story in the parliament, so that the 150 other members around the country understand us and understand our challenges and our opportunities. I was able to tell them that the Minister for Education had been to our electorate and talked to teachers in my community about the young people. I want to share two of the things that they raised with me. When I asked these grade 4s what the issues were in their homes, to a child, they had a story about scams. The Minister for Communications is here. The grade 4s all had a story about their parents being hacked or their phones being hacked. They all had a story about a scam, and they wanted me to bring that to the parliament and ensure that everybody knows that that's the case. These young people also understand the challenges of inflation. I checked this when I was talking to the Lollypop Creek grade 5s and 6s. They too understood that prices are going up and they understood the pressures on families. I bring that back to this Chamber to share with those here that young people in my community understand the challenges that their families are facing. It was no surprise that, in my community, they also understood the challenges of wages growth. It was fascinating to have a conversation with grade 5s and 6s about the balance between inflation and wages growth and about the fact that wages had been kept low for such a long time. These young people could tell me stories about the last time their parents had a pay rise. One of the children from grade 6 was able to tell me that their parents got a pay rise since we came to government. Minister for Education, the children in my electorate are interested in politics, they're interested in what happens here and they're interested in how we go about our business. Clean Up Australia Day 85 16:18 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell Australia has some of the best natural landscapes in the world, and it's been a pleasure every year for the last 20 years, before I was in parliament, to organise Clean Up Australia Day in my community—a great initiative of that great Australian Ian Kiernan who passed away in recent years. Australia continues to produce 2.5 million tonnes of plastic waste every year, and the waste in our community and our local environment continues to be a major challenge for so many communities. That's why, on Sunday morning of 5 March, we combined in my electorate to tackle this problem. We do it every year. We had dozens of sites across my electorate. It's a strong volunteering community, and we were able to get together with about a hundred local people at Third Settlement Reserve in Toongabbie, with the great state member for Winston Hills, Mark Taylor. I congratulate Mark, who was elected on the weekend as the first member for Winston Hills. The member for Greenway was there with me on one of those booths in Toongabbie, seeing the value of a hardworking local member. I say to my community: thank you for the fantastic turnout that we had. We had the Winston Hills Girl Guides and Scouts join us there. I thank the Scout leader, Des Saunders, for his organisation every year. I deeply appreciate the work that that community puts in throughout Winston Hills and Northmead. We saw all the different groups: wanderers groups, bushwalking groups and Lions clubs. Everyone got together to get into our local environment and make a big difference. Third Settlement Reserve is a historic location from early colonial times, and it's something that we value having. Every year, for example, it has been the site of a citizenship ceremony, which, for a very, very long time, has been taking place outside of the normal citizenship ceremonies run by councils. It has got a special quality about it, and the natural environment is probably one of its most important features. The volunteerism that I saw there is something I want to speak to. Following the pandemic, it's good to see people coming back together as communities to take charge of their own local issues and affairs. We lean on government to do a lot, and government is doing more than ever in our society, but we—local communities, individual citizens and individual families—need to make sure that we take responsibility together for problems. That's why this vision of Ian Kiernan, Clean Up Australia Day, has been so successful, in my view. It motivates people to get out and take care of their own community, their own affairs, and their own problems and challenges, and it brings people together. This year we saw huge amounts of rubbish pulled out of the area, including all the kinds of things that people shouldn't be throwing into their local creeks and into this waterway that feeds into the Parramatta River. I want to thank the hundreds of volunteers at Third Settlement Reserve and the thousands of volunteers across the Mitchell electorate, who visited all the different sites, making a great difference to the local environment. I want to share, again, that the support of the state members Mark Taylor and Mark Hodges, who was recently elected, was greatly appreciated at this very, very important time to get the local community back into the local environment. New South Wales State Election 85 16:21 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway Today is a truly momentous day, with the swearing in of Chris Minns as the new Premier of New South Wales. As we know, over the weekend the good people of New South Wales voted for a fresh start, with Premier Chris Minns and with his excellent Deputy Premier, Prue Car. It's only the third time since the Second World War that Labor has obtained government from opposition in New South Wales. The two previous occasions were, of course, under the great Neville Wran and the great Bob Carr, who became premiers. In my electorate of Greenway, the north-west Sydney seat of Riverstone turned red, and I thank the good people of Riverstone who decided to overwhelmingly endorse Warren Kirby as the new member for Riverstone. They made their vote count and elected a local resident, small-business owner and strong community advocate in Warren Kirby. I know he will not let the good people of Riverstone down, and I look forward to working in a most collaborative way with the new member for Riverstone to deliver for the people of that area. However, I want to make clear that this victory wasn't just political. It was personal for the residents, small businesses and community groups in our area because for 12 long years the New South Wales Liberal government did not listen to north-west Sydney. The suburb of Riverstone alone is forecast to grow by over 300 per cent by 2040, which is not far away, and the north-west growth area is expected to grow to around 90,000 households, with a quarter of a million people when fully developed. When you have that scale of growth, you've got some basic expectations that are not unreasonable. When you move into an area, you expect to have working roads, you expect to have a certain adequate level of service when it comes to hospitals and health care, and you expect to have schools that can meet demand and that aren't relying on demountables to accommodate local students. The New South Wales Liberals did not deliver in this area. When the people of Riverstone asked for a fully equipped hospital in Rouse Hill, the New South Wales Liberals didn't deliver. They asked the government to give our essential workers on the front line more than thanks, and the New South Wales Liberals didn't deliver. But the people of Riverstone made their voices heard, and I want to assure Riverstone that a Chris Minns Labor government is committed to delivering on the services and infrastructure that people rightly expect, especially in the outer-metro growth areas of our cities. I look forward to seeing what positive changes a fresh start will bring in New South Wales and, in particular, for improvements in the quality of life in north-west Sydney with Warren Kirby MP. Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, Energy 86

Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022

Energy

16:24 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore The Moore electorate is home to many workers who rely on employment in the oil and gas and mining industries for their livelihoods, with many working as fly-in fly-out workers. The passage of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 potentially places these livelihoods and our economy at risk. I'm concerned to read in today's West Australian newspaper that many of the 116 coal, oil and gas projects in the investment and development pipeline across Australia are likely to be blocked under the compromise deal agreed between Labor and the Greens to secure support for the passage of the climate legislation. The Greens have demanded 13 oppressive concessions over the safeguard mechanism which will make it very difficult to get new energy projects off the ground. These include Woodside Energy's Scarborough gas field and Shell's Crux gas field, which are scheduled to start producing in coming years. These projects will be risked under the hard emissions caps. The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association warns that the caps will create barriers to future investment in natural gas projects, whilst Ampol has already outlined the need to charge more for fuel to pay for Labor's deal with the Greens. Labor and the Greens have effectively placed a hard cap on the Australian economy and Australian jobs. This is deindustrialisation, not decarbonisation. This policy does nothing to combat the global problem of emissions. It is a gross act of economic self-harm. If industries cannot operate in Australia, they will relocate overseas, taking thousands of jobs and investment with them. For more than 60,000 fly-in fly-out workers in Western Australia, including many in my electorate, it means their jobs are at risk at a time when they are already struggling with rising cost-of-living pressures. Developing good energy policy is the coalition's focus. Labor's current budget papers show that, over the next two years, household electricity prices are going to rise by 56 per cent. We must understand that renewable energy alone is not sufficient to meet our needs during times of peak demand. The ACCC and the Energy Market Operator have also warned that Australians face blackouts unless we can secure more supply into the energy market. The Australian economy requires transitional fuels, such as natural gas, to bridge the gap and facilitate our economy to meet its emissions reduction targets and Australia's climate action goals. Gender and Sexual Orientation: Transgender Community 86 16:28 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton As a politician, as a parent, as someone of faith, I stand here with my good friend the member for Leichhardt to assure all Australians that we have nothing to fear from our trans community. Sadly, there is much misinformation flying around asserting the contrary, but, not surprisingly, those propagating these lies are not doing it from a place of love; nor are they motivated by caring. Many do so from a place of hate or political exploitation, or even both. They are in public propagating lies to deliberately vilify people who have done nothing to them nor to anybody else. I join with the member for Leichhardt in declaring that this hateful bigotry—this dangerous bigotry—has to stop. Together, we formed the Parliamentary Friends of LGBTIQA+ Australians back in 2010 and we continue as members to this day. Transgender people have been with us for a long, long time. This isn't a new trend. They belong here now, always have and always will. Gender dysphoria is not an illness. Puberty blockers aren't experimental treatments. There aren't huge numbers of transgender people out there de-transitioning through regret; it's the exception, not the rule. And nobody—no body—transitions on a whim. A rise in the number of trans youth is not a nefarious plot to bring down the world, but a demonstration that they now feel an acceptance of who they are—that they belong. I grew up watching the Rocky Horror Picture Show and can confirm, alongside millions of Australians, that doing the 'time warp' won't make you trans. It might make you put your hands on your hips and bring your knees in tight, but that's not what we're talking about today. Warren, don't! I can assure all that someone watching RuPaul's Drag Race or attending a drag story time at a library isn't going to suddenly start questioning who they are. Do not believe the misinformation and lies. Sadly, some people have even stooped to the new low of making up stories about swimming pool change rooms down in Launceston. Media Watch showed recently that, sadly, some sections of the media decided to run with this stupid bunkum. We as a parliament and a community shouldn't be tricked or fooled by people with anger and hate in their hearts. We should not ever believe their weirdo, creepy tales and deliberate misinformation. Transgender people are a part of our community. They're a part of our families, our workplaces, our schools and even our religious institutions. They are full citizens of this wonderful, inclusive, freedom-loving country. Jesus Christ clearly said that we should all love everyone, so let's all follow that tenet and show some care and love in our heart towards the transgender community. As I said, I stand here as a founding co-chair—back in 2010, with the member for Leichhardt—of the Parliamentary Friends of LGBTIQA+ Australians, and that organisation is all about promoting understanding, information and harmony. I'm proud to be making this speech alongside the member for Leichhardt. I can assure you all that the members of this group will always speak up for those being targeted by hate, and we do so from a place filled with love. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 87 BILLS Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023 87

Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 87 16:31 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I rise to speak in support of the Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The purpose of this legislation is to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 to improve access to the Medicare Benefits Schedule for eligible people with cleft and craniofacial conditions by removing the age restrictions, as well as making changes to rules around the Register of Approved Placements and rules around the administration of the Bonded Medical Program for medical graduates. Schedule 1 of this bill is my main interest today. It amends the act to improve access to Medicare benefits for eligible persons requiring ongoing treatment for their cleft and craniofacial conditions. To be eligible for Medicare benefits under the current arrangements, people with cleft and craniofacial conditions have to be under 22 years of age. This limit was established on the basis that patients with cleft and craniofacial conditions would generally have completed most specialist dental work associated with their condition once their facial maturation was complete. However, those age limitations have created difficulties for some patients who have not reached facial maturity by the age of 22 or who have experienced a need for ongoing therapy. The removal of age limits does not change the policy intent of this scheme. Services provided for cleft and craniofacial conditions under the Medicare Benefits Schedule must still be associated with major dental or skeletal treatment to correct or improve primary growth and developmental irregularities, or to undertake repairs that are in connection with that course of treatment. The bill allows a small cohort of patients who, based on their age alone, are currently denied Medicare reimbursement for treatment to access Medicare benefits for the treatment they need. The bill also confers eligibility for Medicare benefits to disadvantaged patients who have been unable to access treatment before reaching the age of 22—sometimes because of the wishes of their parents—or who have had their treatment delayed beyond the age of 22 for reasons such as COVID-19. The bill will not significantly alter average patient numbers, and it will support improvements to patient treatment plans. I've been aware of this issue for some time. In fact, members of the CleftPALS Victoria support group approached me about this on the day that I declared my intention to run for the seat of Kooyong. As a nascent politician, they were the first lobby group I had ever met, and they've been back several times since the May election to make sure that I don't forget this important cause. CleftPALS has welcomed the changes in age and circumstance for the ongoing management of dental and orthopaedic treatment under the cleft lip and cleft palate Medicare scheme, as do I. It is important that we extend surgical support to all people affected by chronic and severe cleft and craniofacial conditions. They do deserve our support and our care, not just in childhood but throughout their lives. But I think also of patients with muscle diseases who I used to look after when I worked at the Royal Children's Hospital. Some of these patients had facial and jaw weakness so severe that they couldn't effectively blink. Their facial development was affected in such a way that it changed its bony structure because they didn't have strong muscles which pulled normally on the temporal, maxillary and mandibular bones. Some were unable to close their mouths to chew. Some were utterly unable to manage their own saliva. Their speech could be very difficult to understand due to the weakness of the tongue and the jaw muscles. These conditions are very severe and they are lifelong. They affect individuals every moment of every day of their lives. Arbitrary cut-offs for access to specific Medicare funded services are perverse, and we shouldn't have them in a generous and inclusive health system. Similar changes also apply to people with other craniofacial conditions. These people are also affected by lifelong disability, requiring not only surgical intervention but other forms of support as well—support like speech therapy, dental and orthopaedic services. They require that support throughout their lives, not just in childhood, and it would be best to receive it in the context of coordinated multidisciplinary care. That is the issue with this bill; this amendment does not go far enough. Persons requiring ongoing surgical support for facial clefts and for craniofacial conditions need more support than just surgery. All should have access to essential speech pathology services. Speech pathologists are vital to the care of patients with clefts. They provide advice regarding communication skills and how to stimulate normal development at home. They evaluate feeding and swallowing, general development, speech, language, resonance and velopharyngeal function, and they make recommendations for treatment when problems are identified. The speech therapist can then provide therapy for communication problems and for disorders of feeding and swallowing. It's an anomaly that speech pathology services are not routinely available to children with clefts in this country. The two peak bodies, CleftPALS and Speech Pathology Australia, have been campaigning for this since 2009. It's a false economy to deny critical speech treatment to children with cleft and craniofacial conditions at clinical stages of their development. That funding might be best provided as part of a package provided by the NDIS on the grounds that these individuals should qualify for the NDIS because they have a disability caused by a permanent physical impairment. There are two issues with these patients not qualifying for the NDIS. Firstly, it creates a two-tiered structure in which some patients with clefts in association with other medical conditions will be granted packages for multidisciplinary care, while most will not. Secondly, the existence of a specific scheduled fee for speech therapy under the NDIS has raised the price of those services to a point where they are now beyond the reach of most families who have to pay for them privately. Without NDIS funding, children will be put on never-ending waiting lists for speech therapy. Therapists will prioritise children with secure funding because they are secure clients. We know that access to publicly funded support for communication and swallowing problems is a long-term concern in this country. Our number of speech pathologists is inadequate to meet the needs of Australians with communication and swallowing problems. There are too few publicly funded speech pathology services in too few segments of the health, disability and aged-care sectors. Access to speech pathology services varies considerably across states and territories. It varies in relation to underlying diagnoses and conditions, and it varies in relation to whether patients live in metropolitan or rural locations. Speech pathology patients often have extremely limited access to publicly funded speech pathology services. There are, almost invariably, long waits for services which then have a limited number of funded sessions—limits which are based on the rationing of resources rather than evidence based protocols for treatment or because of the restrictive eligibility that limits access to a very limited number of people for very high need categories. I urge the government to reconsider treatment and support for children and adults with cleft and other craniofacial conditions, and to enable multidisciplinary care, including appropriate allied health support. This should include lifelong speech pathology services where these are warranted. This could be within or without the NDIS, but it should ensure that we provide optimal care for all Australians with these serious health conditions in order to enable them to have optimal medical, dental, orthopaedic and speech outcomes. I commend this legislation to the House. 16:39 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I'd like to thank the minister for introducing this bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill. I think it is actually a very important one. I note the comments by the member for Kooyong, who understands very well that people with quite significant disability find it difficult to navigate the support systems that have been put in place. The previous government was very good at setting limits, and this bill goes some of the way towards trying to make sure that people who have significant disability can get the care that they need. I should say at the very outset that I'm the son of a dentist and the brother of a dentist, and I know how important dental care is. I also have worked in my community for almost 40 years as a paediatrician. I now see mostly kids with complex disability, and many of those kids have some of the conditions that we're talking about in this legislation—things like Pierre Robin syndrome, where babies are born with an unslung jaw; cleft palate; and various other abnormalities that make it difficult for them to breathe and to swallow. They require ongoing treatment. It certainly doesn't stop when they turn 22. They often miss out on the ongoing treatment that can improve their speech, their swallowing, their nutrition and their ability to interact with society. In that regard, I think this is a very important bill for them. We also see children with a condition called velocardiofacial syndrome, where children are born with facial abnormalities; palatal abnormalities, including cleft palate; and sometimes other abnormalities such as cardiac disease. Their treatment is lifelong. Their management is lifelong. We know that dental treatment in particular is very important not just for appearance but also for things like nutrition, social interaction and proper respiratory function. These children often require surgery when they're very young, but they may well require revision as they grow older—well past puberty. Even as quite old adults, these kids—these people need ongoing treatment. I keep on calling them 'kids' because that's how I see them, but of course many of my patients are now adults, and they require ongoing treatment. Access to dental care in Australia, in many ways, quite shamefully, is very poor and very expensive. In the past, people have missed out on treatment because of the costs, and this bill will go part of the way to improving that. Data published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that Australians aged 15 or over have on average 11 teeth that are decaying, missing or filled, and well over a third of this group have untreated decay. We sometimes see them in hospital. They present with dental abscesses requiring intravenous antibiotics before they can actually access any dental care. Only half of the people aged 15 and over had visited a dental professional in the 12 months of the survey by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Only 10 per cent of people who saw a dental professional received public dental care. The vast majority of people in Australia have to pay for private dental care. I agree with the member for Kooyong that many people who have other associated abnormalities should be seen in multidisciplinary clinics and should have access to dental care as part of that . Unfortunately, very few of them do. So, many of them will leave the paediatric age group still requiring ongoing intervention, and, once they turn 22, they have to pay for it privately, and it can be prohibitively expensive. It can affect things like speech. Some people who I've seen as kids feel very embarrassed about their speech, so they withdraw socially. They don't work, they tend to withdraw and they don't interact socially. Getting them access to dental care makes a huge difference to their lives, and this bill is very important in getting them that access. There's only a very limited safety net for dental care for adults, and this bill will help those with some of the most severe abnormalities, such as cleft lip, cleft palate and velopharyngeal incompetence—that's where they have a hypernasal speech that can be very embarrassing for them, and, over time, they often need reviews for their palatal movement but also for their dental care. The current Deputy Leader of the Opposition, of course, was the Minister for Health and Aged Care in 2016, and she was the one who announced that the then Turnbull government would be abandoning the National Partnership on Adult Public Dental Services and the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, which was really devastating for many of those families—absolutely devastating and shameful, I would say. As a result, Australian children, particularly children with abnormalities, were forced onto longer and longer waiting lists, and that jeopardised their chances of improved dental health for the rest of their lives. By passing this bill, we'll be delivering on our longstanding contribution to the accessibility of universal health coverage, particularly dental care. This goes part of the way to doing that. This bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to remove age restrictions for patients with eligible cleft and craniofacial conditions. There are a number of conditions, some of which I have already mentioned. They include, for example, children with Down syndrome, who sometimes have palatal abnormalities and dental abnormalities that require ongoing treatment. I'm seeing a little boy with Down syndrome at the moment, who, at age eight, has had every one of his teeth removed because of severe dental caries. Children with Down syndrome often have enamel hypoplasia—that's what he's got—and they require ongoing dental treatment. For this boy, that is not going to stop when he's 22. He's going to need that for the rest of his life. I do have some connections with the dental community, and I've sometimes had to ring and beg people to see older kids and adults who require dental care in this community. I think my oldest patient with Down syndrome that I see is now 38. So it's a bit old for a paediatrician, but they still like to come and see me, and, indeed, she has ongoing dental problems. We do need to make sure that the most disadvantaged can access this sort of care. This is, again, another sign of the Albanese Labor government and Health Minister Mark Butler moving through the things that should have been done a long time ago. It's part of our commitment to better health care for everyone. This bill, thankfully, will remove the age restriction and enable access for those with severe abnormalities that are listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule but who do not currently qualify due to the age restrictions. We also need to remember that occasionally you'll see an adult who has had an untreated submucous cleft palate with dental abnormalities as well, and they will benefit from this scheme. Even though it may seem to be small numbers and quite procedural, I actually think it's a very important bill. I'm really grateful to the health minister for making this commitment. This bill will confer eligibility for Medicare benefits to those who have reached the age of 22 or those who have had their treatment delayed beyond the age of 22, because of the pandemic, for example, or because they couldn't afford to see someone privately. The intent is that, for those who are born with severe craniofacial abnormalities, their family should know that their treatment will be for life. I think that's a really important thing. That will reduce the huge costs and the delay in treatment for many of these kids. Again, as the member for Kooyong mentioned, it is very important that people with cleft lip and palate and palatal abnormalities get access to the NDIS, because they have ongoing needs for management—not just the surgical needs of repairing the cleft lip and palate, which is often ongoing; they require ongoing speech therapy, and they need ongoing management if they are to stay healthy. This bill is a big win overall for all these children, their families and the believers in accessible, equitable health care in Australia. Other measures in this bill deal with some unrelated issues, such as developing a system to manage the Register of Approved Placements and to place and remove doctors from it. Currently doctors, to be eligible to access a Medicare benefit, must either hold a fellowship of an Australian medical college or participate in approved workforce or training programs. This is managed by the specific bodies responsible for determining eligibility. This makes it easier for the minister to allow or deny Medicare item numbers for this. It must be noted that, while Services Australia administers the Register of Approved Placements, this is based on notices provided by a specified body and that Services Australia does not have independent assessment capabilities or decision-making abilities. This bill helps in that regard. I think that this bill is supported by all the professional colleges, including the general practice colleges and the regional training organisations, and they're coming to Canberra this week to tell us about this, as they welcome the opportunity provided by this legislation to streamline the very complicated administrative processes associated with some of these schemes. It's imperative that constructive engagement is made between the government and the industries that our work and policies affect, and this is part of that. This legislation also corrects the inconsistencies between the bill and the Health Insurance (Bonded Medical Program) Rule 2020. I don't know about the member for Kooyong, but I'm frequently being asked by people in the Bonded Medical Program to try and modify their placements. They often signed up to the Bonded Medical Program as very young medical students. Their lifestyles change, they get married, they have children. Sometimes they may have to deal with a major family illness—a parent who is very unwell et cetera. So they find their bonded placements in rural and regional areas difficult to manage. This bill simplifies the conditions around that. I think that is really important. Certainly for some of the people that have seen me about this, it will make it much easier for them to manage their weeks required in training in country and regional areas by splitting them up into weekly segments. They will be able to manage their time between their practice times and their time dealing with their family or other issues in Sydney. All in all, this is a very important bill. It's not a minor bill. It does make some important differences to workforce training. We certainly know we need to improve our ability to get GPs, in particular, working in rural and regional areas. It also makes a big difference to those who've already signed up to the Bonded Medical Program being able to plan their lifestyle around much easier conditions. When I say 'easier conditions', I mean conditions that are simpler to understand. All in all, I commend this bill to the House. I know that, in the cleft palate community, this is going to make a big difference to many families. 16:53 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which seeks to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 with three administrative changes, which are supported by the coalition. Among other measures, the bill will improve access to the Medicare Benefits Schedule for eligible persons requiring treatment for cleft and craniofacial conditions by removing the age restriction, which is currently 22 years of age. Cleft lip or palate conditions affect one in every 800 babies born in Australia. This bill will not significantly alter average patient numbers, but it will nevertheless support improvements to patient treatment plans to ensure support is available for those affected by these conditions. The coalition supports the intent of this bill to improve access to affordable and life-changing procedures for those Australians impacted by these conditions and to ensure increased access to critical health care through Medicare. However, more can be done for these children, such as timely and affordable speech therapy. I had the pleasure to meet Philippa and Jessica from CleftPAlS Victoria to discuss children born with a cleft palate condition and the significant challenges they and their families have to deal with. Throughout their childhood, there are significant surgeries and ongoing speech therapy. These issues often do not end when they become adults, and I thank Philippa and Jessica for sharing their stories with me and representing their community. They do amazing work. It is heart-wrenching as a parent, when you hear the stories of children born with these challenges. Their parents are doing amazing work to support them, and we need to continue to do all we can to support these families and these children. I commend Philippa and Jessica not only for the amazing work they do supporting their own families but for being the strong advocates they are for the cleft palate families of Australia. The passion they have is clear to see. Philippa's daughter was born with a complete cleft of the hard and soft palate. Even though Philippa is a speech pathologist by profession, she still needed assistance with her daughter's feeding, hearing difficulties and speech development. I can't imagine what it would be like for a family with no background in speech pathology or health care to navigate this experience. Philippa definitely shared her experience and how tough it was, even with the advantage that she had. This legislation arose following the findings of the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review Taskforce Final report on the cleft dental services MBS items2020, which suggested that the current age limit of 22 years for eligible persons requiring treatment for cleft and craniofacial conditions be lifted. Age limits for access to the scheme were initially established on the basis that patients with cleft and craniofacial conditions would generally have completed most specialist dental work associated with their condition once their facial growth was complete, on average at 22 years of age. However, there continue to be a small number of patients who are denied treatment on the basis of the age limit in circumstances where the treatment would be clinically beneficial to the patient's condition and general health. For patients who have had their surgeries deferred beyond the age of 22 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this bill will serve an important purpose in enabling them to access Medicare benefits for the treatment they require. Research has shown that strong speech skills are essential for a child's social and educational development. Being able to speak clearly is essential for literacy and language development, and underpins a child's ability to make friends at school, deal with bullies and develop self-esteem. This investment is not just helping these young children today but is going to pay dividends for them and their family through their whole life. It's wonderful to see that the bipartisan support for this bill is going to allow it to go through the House. Parents currently have two options to access speech therapy, and this is why we need to look at speech therapy and supporting parents. They can wait up to two years for a public service or pay thousands of dollars in the private sector. Although there is some assistance available through chronic disease management arrangements, there are only five services per year across all allied health, and up to 90 per cent of children with clefts require treatment for over five years. If the government is serious about strengthening Medicare and improving access to affordable and potentially life-changing or life-saving health care, then it must pursue further urgent action to do so. The Strengthening Medicare taskforce report released by the government, while clear on the problems facing primary care in Australia, contains no specific actions, no funding and no time lines. Disappointingly, the report has no urgency. There is nothing in this report to address the immediate challenge facing our health system, which is workforce shortages. For months and months we've seen the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Aged Care talking about the crisis in health care and the workforce shortages that are putting significant pressure on the system, but we have not seen any tangible plan from this government to address this critical issue. Even today in question time, 10 months into government and six weeks from their second budget, the minister for health was talking about the past, talking about 2014 and looking to blame others. There is a great saying that I like to live by: if you spend your life looking in the rear vision mirror when you're driving you'll end up crashing, and that's what this government is doing. They are focused on the past and have no plans for the health of Australians. The opposition has called on the government to immediately provide the time lines and to detail the funding required to ease the pressure on Australia's hardworking doctors and nurses, following the release of this report. Now, aspirations are commendable. But without urgent action to follow, they are not going to assist Australians with their significant cost-of-living pressures, which are continuing to rise: $55 for a script; $60 out of pocket for a GP—all while energy bills are increasing and inflation is skyrocketing. At a time when Australians are struggling with skyrocketing electricity bills, mortgage repayments and grocery bills, we are now seeing the cost of going to the doctor and to specialists skyrocketing too. On cleft palate and the speech therapy scheme: I urge the minister to review the extension of the speech therapy scheme. This is an investment that will make real impacts on the lives of Australians. We have an amazing opportunity in this House to be the voice of our constituents, and I know that Philippa is very passionate about this issue. In fact, she emailed me today to urge me to speak on this bill and to continue to call on the government to look at speech therapy for those with cleft palates. So I want to finish my remarks with the words of Philippa. I can't think of better words than hers to describe why this government needs to invest in speech therapy. Philippa said: While extending the speech therapy scheme would not be particularly costly for the Government given the small number of people with clefts in Australia, it would make an enormous difference to the parents who are working so hard to give their children the best chance to reach their potential. 17:01 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I thank all of the members for their contributions to this debate. The Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023 amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to improve healthcare for all Australians. The amendments will remove age restrictions for accessing cleft and craniofacial services on the Medicare Benefits Schedule, enable Services Australia to automate management of the Register of Approved Placements, and rectify inconsistencies between the act and the Health Insurance (Bonded Medical Program) Rule 2020, and make amendments to enhance the administration of the Bonded Medical Program. Patients with eligible cleft and craniofacial conditions will benefit from the removal of age restrictions, allowing time for their conditions to be appropriately planned and treated. Under the current legislative arrangements, Medicare eligibility for treatment under the Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Scheme requires a patient to meet complex and problematic access restrictions, with some patients being denied Medicare reimbursement for treatment based on age alone. Age limits for some patients were previously amended under the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review and Other Matters) Bill 2002. However, there continues to be a small number of patients who are denied treatment based on age. These changes will provide equity of access to treatment for those patients who suffer from certain cleft and craniofacial conditions relying upon a clinical requirement rather than age. In addition, the bill provides the facility for Services Australia to develop a system to place a doctor on or remove a doctor from the Register of Approved Placements under section 3GA of the act. Specified bodies, such as the Department of Health and Aged Care and general practice colleges, are responsible for determining if a doctor is eligible to be placed on the Register of Approved Placements. Services Australia places doctors on the Register of Approved Placements based on notifications from a specified body. The specified bodies will notify Services Australia of their decision, and Services Australia will manually place doctors on and remove doctors from the Register of Approved Placements accordingly. The act does not currently allow this to occur via a computer system. This change will reduce the time frames for doctors to start providing Medicare rebated services to their patients at a time of critical workforce shortages in primary care. The bill also corrects inconsistencies between references to 'three years' and 'one year' in part VD of the act, and the definition of how a participant accrues a week of their return-of-service obligation under the Health Insurance (Bonded Medical Program) Rule 2020. With this bill, the Australian government will make it fair and equitable for young people needing cleft palate and craniofacial procedures, ensuring access to essential health care. It will also make significant administrative improvements to support our health workforce to deliver the care regional and rural communities need. In doing so, the Australian government is strengthening Medicare and putting the health of Australians first. I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023 92

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023

Second Reading 92 17:06 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite The Albanese government is listening to you. We recognise your concerns about the rising cost of living that comes with global conflict. We've heard your calls to support the quick transition to electric and hybrid cars and on the need to ensure better access to medical products. We also know Australians want their government, the Albanese government, to stand alongside Ukraine. It is for these reasons I rise to support the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023 to retrospectively validate five tariff measures, including: raising the duty on goods from Russia and Belarus; a reduction in tariffs for goods from Ukraine; a reduction in tariffs for prescribed medicine and hygiene products, to be used in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19; a reduction in tariffs to electric hydrogen and plug-in hybrid vehicles; and minor amendments to correct tariff references. These measures show our commitment to being a government that listens, that acts and that upholds international obligations to our friends abroad. Our friends in Ukraine are suffering the devastation of an illegal war. The imposition of tariffs on goods from Russia and Belarus honours our continued commitment to Ukraine's freedom and democracy. This bill also helps Ukraine by providing a temporary free rate of customs duty for goods that are produced or manufactured in Ukraine. The free rate applies to goods imported into Australia from 4 July last year to 3 July this year. These measures seek to assist the economic recovery of Europe and strengthen our opposition to Russia's bullying of Ukraine. We know how important it is to show the world our nation won't stand for bullies. To this end, the bill will insert a new provision into the Customs Tariff Act for the temporary application of a 35 per cent additional duty to goods that are either produced or manufactured in Russia or Belarus. This duty will apply to goods imported between 25 April last year and 24 October this year. This new provision will apply in addition to the generative customs duty applied to imported goods. It should be noted importers will still be able to access concessional treatment under certain items of schedule 4 in the act. This will protect Australian business, which is so important, and still ensure we're meeting our commitments under international agreements. All in all, this measure is necessary to safeguard our nation's security interests as Russia continues to violate the rules based international order. This bill also enables Australia to be on the front foot with pandemic preparedness, after the former government's careless handling of COVID. It provides for a free rate of customs duty for imported hygiene and medical goods. The measure was first introduced in 2020 as a temporary response to the pandemic and extended on several occasions before it became permanent on 1 July last year. The Albanese government extended the free rate to cover ingredients used in the production of certain medications, medication containers as well as face masks and gloves. These permanent concessions show that the Albanese government is proactive in protecting citizens and their health. We know it is vital that Australians continue to have access to critical hygiene and medical related goods when needed. This amendment also comes at a critical time for our environment. We must hit our emissions targets of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050. To achieve this, we must get more fossil fuel guzzling cars off the road. This tariff reduction will do just that. It will make electric, hydrogen and hybrid plug-in vehicles more affordable and the market more competitive. The bill will incorporate a measure to provide for a free rate of customs duty for new passenger motor vehicles with a customs value less than the luxury car tax threshold. The free rate will apply to electric vehicles, hydrogen cell vehicles and hybrid vehicles with an engine capable of being plugged in to an external source of power. This measure commenced on 1 July last year and complements other measures aimed at accelerating the adoption of these vehicles. I know that people in my electorate are passionate about this. They've approached me in the street and at market stalls, and they've called my office. They all say that it is currently too expensive to buy an eco-friendly car. They've told me they want to support a sustainable future, but, with a costly car market, they can't afford to. This will change under this bill. By reducing tariffs on electric, hybrid and plug-in vehicles, we're sending an unmistakable signal to the parliament, to the Australian people and to industry: this is a government that is getting to work to secure cleaner, cheaper and more environmentally friendly cars. It shows that we recognise why immediate action on climate change is so important. It's why the people of Australia chose to support the Albanese government at the last election. They rejected the fear campaigns put forward by the former government, they rejected state Liberals all around the mainland and they are embracing action. Further to these measures, the bill will amend a reference to the tariff heading for blood-grouping reagents. The amendment will insert the correct tariff subheading for goods including herbicides, anti-sprouting products and plant growth regulators. This will ensure these goods are appropriately tied to the correct preferential rate of customs duty, as agreed to under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. All in all, in this place, we deal with legislation on many important issues. However, there are no issues more important than addressing climate change and supporting the rules based international order. This bill shows our commitment to reduce emissions, to tackle climate change, to safeguard our nation's health and to stand alongside the people of Ukraine in their struggle for a democratic, peaceful country that retains its sovereignty. That's what the people of Australia voted for at the last election, and it's what we must do in this place. 17:13 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023 has the coalition's support, but that doesn't mean that we don't have concerns about particular aspects of it. I'd like to talk about those particular parts of the bill, but it will nonetheless go through with coalition support. The bill amends the Customs Tariff Act to incorporate the measures in a number of customs tariff proposals. There are four elements to the bill: a 35 per cent tariff on top of the existing tariff payable on goods from Russia and Belarus; a free rate of tariff on goods that are the product of manufacture of Ukraine; an extension of free tariff designation on essential hygiene and medical related goods in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and a free tariff for certain electric and low-emissions vehicles. We support all four, but we have a few concerns with item No. 4. Before I get to that I want to speak to the first two—those being, the restrictions on goods from Russia and Belarus and the removal of restrictions on goods from Ukraine. It's easy to get desensitised by conflict, especially when it's on your TV and your computer. Life moves on and other issues move on. Sadly, there are many in other parliaments around the world, including in the United States and the United Kingdom, but more so particularly in the United States, who are questioning the level of support that has been given to Ukraine. That is quite concerning and disturbing because the footage from Ukraine looks exactly like the pictures that you would see if you walked up the road to the War Memorial—all the trees are wiped away; just mud, frost and trenches; and young men and women are crawling through mud and digging scrapes to survive the artillery barrage. The Russian military has had its setbacks, but one of the things it has is a huge supply of people and equipment. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:16 to 17:45 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 I just wanted to speak on two parts. One was to say how much we support particularly the first two elements of this bill, being a tariff on goods from Russia and Belarus and 'free' tariffs on those from Ukraine. Before we were rudely interrupted by the bells, I was asking this chamber to reflect upon some images. If you haven't seen them, just close your eyes and imagine now if you were to walk up the road to the War Memorial and look at those black-and-white pictures of Ypres or the Somme, when so much artillery was dropped on a square kilometre of earth that there was no life, no trees, no bushes, nothing, just mud and soil. If you were to take a bird's-eye view of that area, you would see zigzagging trenches designed somehow to give some comfort to people who are crawling into a hole, hoping they might survive absolute hell. We must never forget that, just over a year before, those people who were fighting for their very existence were teachers or people who ran cafes, and many, many thousands lost their lives fighting for their homeland. It's easy to be desensitised, and it's easy to say we must never forget the sacrifice they made for this country, but the importance of that conflict and the importance of that they succeeded cannot be underestimated. This provision is a small step towards acknowledging that there must be consequences for the aggressive act of the state of Russia. Likewise, when this eventually ends, whether it's by negotiated settlement or otherwise, Ukraine will need help to build back up again. Those people who are fighting for their lives and trying to survive night after night in hell will want to provide a better life and a better future for their children and grandchildren. There's no more important role for us than helping them with trade, so we commend this. Briefly, in terms of the electrical vehicle part, I often get emails and calls from members of my electorate who want me to come for a spin in their new Teslas; I think I went for the first one and then realised I should stop doing this! It's not because I don't appreciate what they're showing me. I do acknowledge that there's a transition underway in automobiles that people are naturally excited about, and some want it to happen quicker than might otherwise occur. One of the issues they raise is infrastructure for charging. It will happen. It will come. It probably won't be because of the government; it will be because of the market. When we transitioned from horse and cart to combustion engine, the service stations didn't pop up because the government said, 'We'll do it.' They popped up because there were enough people with cars that there was a profit to be made. I think the same will happen and we will see that infrastructure around Australia. There is an element to this that we are concerned about but not so concerned that we won't let it go through. We're really talking about a specific type of car, because any car from Japan, Thailand, Korea, China or the United States is covered by a free trade agreement. So let's be honest about what we're talking about: we're talking about fancy German electric cars. We're talking about cars that come from Germany and maybe those from Hungary. Again, it's not to say that they're not important or they don't matter; it is but one element in making that transition. I'll conclude by saying that this is an important bill, and it's a reminder of what's happening on the other side of the world and what people are fighting for. We should support them. 17:50 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham Thanks for the opportunity to sum up on this really important bill that is before the parliament. I want to acknowledge the contribution of all MPs who have spoken on this bill and, in particular, the member for Menzies who just spoke then. Everyone in the chamber will be aware that the member for Menzies has a very proud record of serving his country in uniform. I acknowledge his service and the important impact that that has on his contribution to these debates. We're very lucky in the parliament that we have a number of members of parliament who have a very proud history of serving their country. It's a very important thing which members on all sides of the parliament greatly respect. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023 incorporates the customs tariff proposals tabled in August and November last year, as well as making a number of minor amendments. The bill amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to align references to tariff headings and subheadings in the 2022 harmonized commodity description and coding systems nomenclature. It inserts provisions for the following: a 35 per cent temporary additional duty on goods that are the produce or manufacture of Russia and Belarus; a free rate of customs duty for goods other than excise equivalent goods that are the produce or manufacture of Ukraine; the extension and expansion in the scope of concessional treatment for prescribed medical and hygiene goods, including certain ingredients and containers for medicaments; and a free rate of customs duty for certain electric hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid passenger motor vehicles. The diverse measures in the bill implement Australia's international obligations, maintain the supply of medical and hygiene goods into the future, increase the accessibility of low-emissions transport options and protect Australia's essential security interests in response to the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia, with support provided by Belarus. A lot of the public debate and discussion about what goes on in our parliament is focused on the conflict and the areas of disagreement. There are many of those, and they are legitimately fought out in our parliament using words, not weapons, and every Australian should be proud of that fact. But I want to draw the House's attention to the fact that a bill like this—which, fundamentally, is about Australia expressing its view in the strongest terms possible of the brutal, evil, illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine by Russia—is supported by all sides of the chamber. What has happened in Ukraine demonstrates an approach to the global world order that Australia wants no part in. I'm proud of our country's unified efforts to make sure that we use every tool at our disposal to make our position abundantly clear: that the invasion should never have happened and that every effort must made to ensure that we bring peace to Ukraine and that Ukraine's borders are properly restored. It's really important that our parliament stands strong and in agreement on this. I note that we've got a real unanimity of view in Australia that is not reflected across all countries in the world, so I'm very proud of what we're doing in this bill and proud of the view of the parliament on this. Again I would like to thank all speakers who participated in this debate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023 95

Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 95 17:54 Mr VAN MA 188315 Forde NEN (—) (): As I rise to speak on the Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023, I'm pleased to see that this government has continued the important work undertaken by the coalition in this space in previous years. I remember speaking on the previous iterations of this legislation, when we first introduced it in 2019 and then when it was subsequently extended in 2021. As was the case when we introduced it in its earlier forms, the coalition support its passage through the parliament. The purpose of this bill is to extend the application of the coalition's Special Recreational Vessels Act 2019 by a further two years to 30 June 2025. The former coalition government's act allowed foreign flagged superyachts to opt in to the regulatory regime under the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 and apply for temporary licences enabling them to offer charter services in Australia. Prior to that act, there was no mechanism by which foreign superyachts could be offered for hire or charter services in Australian waters. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:56 to 18:08 Mr VAN M 188315 Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was saying that, prior to this act, there was no mechanism by which foreign superyachts' services could be offered for hire or charter in Australian waters as recreational vehicles, as they were not covered by the coastal trading act. Through this coalition legislation, the owner, charterer, master or agent of the vessel is able to apply for and obtain a special recreational vessel temporary licence for 12 months, enabling the vessel to be offered for hire or charter. Previous iterations of this legislation have allowed us to catch up with the booming business of superyachts in our neighbourhood, whether it's in Singapore, the Pacific or even down into New Zealand. It's allowing us to compete for our fair share of the charter market, and, I suspect, the areas that benefit most from this are starting at the Gold Coast, north up the Queensland coast and right around to Broome, and probably down to Perth as well. As I said, we previously extended the sunset date for this to 30 June 2023, and now the government is extending it out to 2025. Why are superyachts so important to the Australian economy? They're vessels that provide enormous opportunities and spend enormous amounts of money. In Australia, a superyacht is defined as a vessel of 24 metres or longer; however, internationally, they are defined as luxury vessels over 30 metres long, with a master and crew, carrying 12 guests, not including staff. The operating costs of these vessels can run into the millions of dollars. They represent an important economic opportunity for Australia, especially but not solely in my home state of Queensland. It was estimated by the Queensland government that superyacht activity has the potential to contribute more than $2 billion to the economy and support more than 5,360 full-time jobs between 2021 and 2025. Regional communities, especially in coastal areas, have experienced exceptional growth in superyacht visitation and activity. The more vessels that visit Australia, and the longer they stay, the greater and broader the economic benefits. These economic benefits are not just felt in the regions that these vessels travel to. Important support services that benefit from the superyacht sector include maintenance, food and catering, onshore accommodation, and hospitality and tourism services. This filters into my electorate of Forde, where we're seeing an increase in apprenticeships and training required to service these new vessels and new opportunities. Through the new $11.8 million TAFE Queensland Marine Centre of Excellence located just outside my electorate of Forde, at Coomera in the electorate of Fadden, local residents have the opportunity to take advantage of significant marine industry expansion by gaining world-class skills and training. The centre includes workshops for electrical and mechanical work, fibreglass and lamination, and marine textiles and upholstery, and an outdoor boat workshop, along with welding facilities. Jointly funded by the previous coalition government and the Queensland state government, this centre provides a whole suite of new career opportunities for those living in the southern part of my electorate and on the Gold Coast, further enhancing our local manufacturing base. I know from speaking to business owners at the Gold Coast marine precinct what a boon this TAFE training centre is for them. This facility will assist in filling the skills gap that is currently required to meet 2,000 jobs over the next five years. I've also spoken with Rivergate marina on the Brisbane River, and they were looking at a major expansion, somewhere in the order of $200 million, to upgrade their facilities with superlifts to be able to accommodate the servicing of superyachts, and they gained council approval last year. Sadly, they have advised me that that expansion will now be put on hold because of the increasing interest rates and other business costs. In addition, the Olympics and the Paralympic Games coming down the track for Brisbane in 2032 are another tremendous opportunity to attract superyachts to Australia. I know the New Zealanders were particularly looking for superyachts to come to New Zealand for the America's Cup, but, due to COVID-19 and the restrictions applied, that didn't work out the way they wanted. But any way you look at it—from the previous discussions I've had with Rivergate marina, one of the reasons they wanted to do what they wanted to do was that they recognise that, when these yachts come in for a refit, there are the services for the refit and the skilled tradesmen that are required to do those refits, but also the crew stay onshore, so they need accommodation and they go and take advantage of our tourism facilities across the south-east of Queensland. Also, when these superyachts come in for resupply, our fruit and vegetable growers and all of those sorts of businesses benefit. So I'm pleased to see the government introducing this legislation. It again shows the opportunities we have in this country from new areas of business that we may not have always recognised. Seeing the government build on the good work of the coalition, I'm very pleased to support this bill. It's a tremendous economic windfall that will continue to benefit communities right up and down our coast and over to the west. As I said, I support this bill. 18:15 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan Why does this government seem to want to keep rolling out the red carpet for billionaires? Seriously. Today we're being presented by the Labor government with the Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023, which will extend, for two whole years, coalition legislation to allow superyachts owned by international billionaires to charter in Australian waters and circumvent having to pay customs taxes. I'm sorry, but, frankly, I find it absolutely bizarre that it's even being considered. Let me just quickly explain what a superyacht actually is, which might make it a little bit clearer just how bizarre the bill is. A superyacht is a luxury vessel greater than 24 metres in length and with a capacity of fewer than 12 overnight passengers. These things get as big as 180 metres long for a mere 12 overnight passengers. To say that these are floating five-star hotels doesn't even begin to describe it. What's the price of these things? A standard 100-metre superyacht will set you back a cool A$400 million. An honourable member: It's not a tinnie! Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 It's not a tinnie! To own one of these things you've got to be a billionaire. Let's take a look at some of the superyacht owners that this tax exemption would benefit: Jeff Bezos, net worth $121 billion and a superyacht owner; Larry Page, Google founder, tech tycoon and superyacht owner, with a net worth of $93 billion; Carlos Slim Helu, Mexican telecommunications tycoon and proud superyacht owner, with a net worth of $88 billion; Mukesh Ambani, Indian fossil fuel mogul and superyacht owner, with a net worth of $80 billion; and Roman Abramovich, a Russian billionaire tycoon, who has a superyacht that's 163 metres long, with not two or three but nine decks—the top deck hosts two helipads and a garage, naturally—and a 16-metre swimming pool that can be converted into a dance floor. Needless to say, these are floating environmental disasters, every single one of them. A superyacht consumes an enormous amount of petrol, producing 7,020 tonnes of CO2 per year per yacht. They've been found to be the primary source of pollution by the billionaire class the world over. They're also absolute nightmares for workers' rights. Superyacht crew in Australia aren't covered by unions, and allegations of exploitation and harassment are rife. The private superyachts often force their staff to sign non-disclosure agreements. What happens on the superyacht stays on the superyacht, evidently. So, when a billionaire brings their tax-exempt, climate-destroying, workers'-rights-wrecking luxury superyacht into Australian waters, who can afford to charter it? That's an interesting question, and I did a bit of googling. It turns out that the cost of chartering the Mischief, a humble 54-metre superyacht, is $82,500 a night—for 12 people, mind you—or $495,000 a week. That's half a million bucks for a week on this thing. That's an Australian owned superyacht. For the international ones that are coming, you can't even google and book with your credit card; you've got to know the right people, and the price tag would be in the millions. Who can afford to rent a superyacht in Australia? Billionaires. This Labor and Liberal bill gives tax exemptions for international billionaires to bring their superyachts into Australian waters to rent to our own homegrown billionaires. And, wouldn't you know, these local billionaires are the very same people who are receiving $9,000 a year in stage 3 tax cuts from this Labor government. The Australian recently published Australia's rich list: Harry Triguboff, property mogul, who's worth $23.6 billion, up $3 billion from last year; Ivan Glasenberg, mining magnate, who's worth $12.4 billion, also up $3 billion from last year; Lang Walker, of Walker group infamy, who's worth $6 billion, up $1 billion from last year. Then, of course, there's Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart, who are worth $20.4 billion and $30 billion, respectively, and who famously already own their own superyachts and are being rewarded by the Queensland Labor government's Superyacht Strategy, which, by the way, is all about facilitating billionaires bringing their superyachts to Brisbane for the 2032 Olympic Games. It's these sorts of people who are receiving that $9,000 tax cut from the government in their stage 3 tax cuts and it's these sorts of people who you'll find on the luxury superyachts that Labor are giving a tax break to in this bill. Everyday people across this country would be absolutely furious to hear that, while their rents and mortgages have skyrocketed, while the cost of groceries has jumped 10 per cent and while they're struggling to pay for petrol to get their kids to school, the Labor government, with the support of the Liberals, is giving a tax break for billionaires to cruise around on 160-metre nine-deck superyachts. It also strikes me as a very dark irony that the two major parties, Labor and the Liberals, who are in lockstep on turning back boats of refugees fleeing war and persecution, are rolling out the red carpet with tax breaks for billionaires to bring their superyachts into Australian waters. You're stopping the wrong boats. The Labor government should simply allow this Morrison-era policy to die a natural death in June this year, as it was meant to, rather than keep it going for another two years. They'll claim it's about tourism, but that's not tourism. Tourism is a working family heading up to Cairns for a holiday, to be alive in the sunshine for a week or two, and supporting the local establishments in the area. This bill is facilitating billionaire excess. 16:21 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Captain Stubing would be so unimpressed by that last speech. Of course, he was the skipper on TheLove Boat. 'The love boat soon will be …'—yes, you know the theme song. Of course, it sailed around the Pacific and other wonderful places. But they didn't worry too much about what the member for Ryan was going to say. They didn't worry too much about that. I suggest that there's a little rift between Labor and the Greens. Normally they would have been on the Love Boat. They would have been catching up and romancing on TheLove Boat. Even though they've done a dodgy deal to get the safeguard mechanisms through, on this account TheLove Boat has very much abruptly stopped somewhere in the deep ocean. This is good legislation. I'll tell you why it's good legislation—because I was the one who introduced it in the first place. The Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023 extends that. It ensures that the sunset is not somewhere on the deep blue Pacific but is ongoing—this time by a further two years to 30 June 2025. Despite the member for Ryan's protestations, this isn't just about billionaires. It's not. It's actually about— An honourable member interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I hear the interjection. That's all well and good. But this is about making sure that Australia gets its share of the work involved when those big ships—and, yes, I agree they are huge vessels—dock. The Greens would have us send it all offshore—'Let's send all our manufacturing offshore because of the too-high energy costs,' which are brought about by their dodgy deals with the government. This legislation makes sure that, when boats need to dock, they can do so in Australia. They can do so and spend much of that money on replenishing food—food that is grown organically, food that is grown by workers who are paid the right rates and food that is grown sustainably. The member wants to see all those things go to some overseas nation. That is going to happen right here in Australia. When the sides of the ship need the barnacles removed, that's going to happen in Australia. The people who are going to remove those shellfish and other things that have attached themselves to the side of the boat will be paid the right wages right here in Australia. When they need other things that only Australia can supply, that will happen right here on our shores. The Greens's way is to send everything offshore. They don't care if it's going to go to Singapore, New Zealand or elsewhere in the Pacific, but we do, and I'm glad that Labor also does. This is why the Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023 needs to be supported. This is why the legislation is so important. It's not about billionaires; it's about making sure that Australia's tourist economy and Australia's worker economy get a part of the action. The act allows foreign special recreational vessels, otherwise known as superyachts, to be able to operate in Australia and to be made available for hire or charter. Again, that improves our tourism. If people want to have that experience, they can. It's not just, as the member for Ryan would have you believe, only billionaires, only people who are well connected, who may seek entry onto one of these vessels. She mentioned one party in the coalition. Well, there's more than just one party in the coalition. There is more than just the Liberals. There is also the Nationals. Whilst I appreciate my landlocked electorate is a long way from the Great Barrier Reef, this is going to help Australia, and the Nationals always support legislation that helps our nation, that is in the national interest. The former coalition government introduced the Special Recreational Vessels Act 2019 to allow foreign-flagged superyachts to opt into the regulatory regime under the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 and to apply for temporary licences enabling them to offer charter services in Australia. I am a little bit disappointed that it is left up to the Greens to speak on this. I am disappointed that the Labor members are not listed. But it doesn't really surprise me. When I introduced this legislation back in 2019, the now Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government spoke on it, as the shadow infrastructure minister. But, as I rose to give the second reading speech, what do you think the member for Ballarat did? She called a quorum. I know those opposite think we're the only ones who do that sort of caper, who try to disrupt the parliamentary procedure and protocols, but you were very good at it for the nine years that we were in government. If it meant that much to those opposite, why haven't they got speakers on this bill? If workers' rights are so important, as the member for Ryan points out, if environmental concerns are so important, as the Greens member points out, if all of those issues are so important with your little love boat, your little love nest, why aren't you speaking on the bill? Why aren't you going off onto a little sunset romantic cruise with the member for Ryan? The question deserves to be answered, but we hear crickets. Anyway, I digress. Interestingly enough, when the member for Ballarat did rise to speak back in 2019, she said: Labor will always back improving job opportunities, particularly in our regions— Would you believe, Member for Eden-Monaro?— nevertheless, Labor's scrutiny of the bill is very important. Apparently it was important then. It's not now. They're just putting it through and leaving the Nationals and the Greens to speak on it, although I must admit the member for Forde gave an excellent speech earlier on this piece of legislation. The member for Ballarat pointed out in 2019: There is concern amongst some existing operators of Australian owned tourism vessels that temporary licences could be a backdoor mechanism to allow foreign-flagged superyachts to spend considerable time in Australia … Heaven forbid! That's what we want them to do, because we want them to come here and spend money—money that would otherwise go to Singapore, New Zealand or elsewhere across the world. We want them to come here to Australia. We want them to come to shipyards in Australia and to spend their money here. The Olympics are coming up. The Paralympics are coming up. This is what makes it so important. Not only do we need to extend this to 2025; it needs to be then extended again after this extension that we're going to get through the House. I note that the Greens will probably oppose it. They oppose everything. We saw a while ago in the House of Representatives that they were getting beaten 90-something to two or three—and that's what should happen. The Greens just want to hold up this legislation because it's good legislation. That's what the Greens do. I appreciate that, in a democracy, we need people with differing and divergent views, and good luck to the member for Ryan for expressing one. But I don't like to see work that should be done in Australia pushed offshore. She points out that workers should be paid a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I agree with her absolutely. That's why people who will be working on the superyachts, when they arrive on Australia shores, will be paid a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Prior to the act I introduced in 2019 there was no mechanism by which foreign superyachts could be offered for hire or charter services in Australian waters as recreational vehicles, which were not covered by the coastal trading act. We were missing out on all of that business; we were missing out on all of that money. This was not a good thing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 98 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Housing 98 18:30 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I rise to give voice to the millions of Australians confronting and often struggling through the current housing crisis and also to call on the government to establish a royal commission to scrutinise the matter and recommend a blueprint to address it. There really is a crisis right now. It is undeniable. For a start, there is a chronic shortage of emergency accommodation—obviously for women and their children fleeing domestic violence but more broadly for men, women and children right across the country who are in need of emergency accommodation for countless reasons. Likewise, there's a chronic shortage of public housing. By some estimates, the country is short some 640,000 public dwellings. I give credit to the government as it has pledged to create 30,000 additional homes over five years, but I think it's self-evident that that will do little to avert the crisis. In fact, it will be lucky to keep up with the annual growth in the shortfall of public houses around Australia. Of course renting is now out of reach for many people. Those managing to hold a rental do so at the expense of other life necessities. It's interesting to note that rents are increasing seven times faster than wage growth on average around Australia. Purchasing a home is hardly a better an option. By some calculations, house prices in Australia are still some 15 per cent higher than pre-COVID when an average is taken across the combined capital cities. No wonder there are so many people homeless around Australia. In fact, in fiscal year 2021-22 something like 100,000 Australians sought specialist homeless support, which was up some nine per cent on the previous year. It makes you wonder just how many people are homeless right now. There are somewhere north of 100,000 people homeless in one of the richest and most fortunate countries in the world. Importantly, about a quarter of those homeless people are aged between 12 and 24. Again this is in one of the richest and most fortunate countries in the world. Of course, Tasmania is not immune. In some cases it's worse off than the mainland states. When it comes to crisis accommodation, I take the example of the Hobart Women's Shelter, who last financial year took 1,182 calls for help, but turned away 943 of them. So, in a rough order of magnitude, Hobart Women's Shelter was able to provide accommodation for only about one-fifth of the women, often with children, who were crying out for urgent help. When it comes to public housing, in Tasmania currently about 4½ thousand people are on the public housing waiting list. This is in a state with a population of only about half a million. On average it's taking almost 80 weeks to house a priority applicant—not all applicants or any applicant. It's almost 78 weeks to house a priority applicant. When it comes to rental affordability things are no better. In fact, as per the rental affordability index, Greater Hobart continues to be the country's least affordable metropolitan area, with the median rent having increased by 60 per cent since 2016. According to Shelter Tas's CEO Pattie Chugg, rents in Hobart are now 11 per cent higher than the median rent in Melbourne. This is a remarkable piece of information: rents in Hobart are 11 per cent higher than the median rent in Melbourne. Then there's the homelessness situation in Tasmania, and it is certainly no better than the figures I've quoted for elsewhere around Australia. In fact, Tasmania's homelessness rate is increasing faster than anywhere else in the nation. On census night in 2021, 2,350 people in Tasmania said they were experiencing homelessness compared with 1,622 on census night five years earlier. So, in five years, that's an extra 728 Tasmanians becoming homeless in a state of only half a million people. Perhaps the next statistic is the most chilling of the lot. On census night in 2021, there were 569 children under the age of 18 who were homeless, including 325 children under the age of 12. This is a humanitarian tragedy as much as it is a housing crisis, but there's no shortage of solutions. There is no shortage of solutions whatsoever. It's just a case of having some ambition and being prepared to take some risks—be bold, spend some political capital and make sometimes controversial decisions. That's what's needed. For example, why doesn't the government increase Commonwealth rent assistance by 50 per cent? It could do it in the budget coming up in a couple of months time. What about investing in more crisis accommodation, investing in more public and social housing and more supported accommodation for people with specific needs, extending the National Rental Affordability Scheme instead of letting it slowly wind up over the next handful of years, reining in short-stay accommodation and returning it to its original model of making spare rooms available? I remind the House that it's called Airbnb because the origin was an air bed and breakfast—an air bed on a bit of spare floor in the lounge room or the spare room or the granny flat. That's what it was all about. But now we see in Tasmania hundreds of long-term rentals being converted, basically, to holiday accommodations. The losers are the long-term residents of the city. There I go: rein in negative gearing and get rid of the capital gains tax concession on investment properties. That's what all the experts are suggesting we do: just get rid of the capital gains tax concession and rein in negative gearing. Sure, people have made investment decisions in good faith over the years, and it would be good it we were to, perhaps, grandfather current arrangements or cap future arrangements. There are ways through this which are politically achievable, if the government is prepared to go there and to educate the community and explain the need, explain the unfairness and still protect people who have made historic investment decisions. A vacant property tax is something that state governments could also consider. I know in Tasmania there are thousands of empty homes. This is crazy when we've got a homelessness crisis. Around Australia there must be tens of thousands of empty homes—as many as 100,000, at a guess. Perhaps we could impose a tax disincentive on the owners to make sure they put someone in those homes and accommodation. That brings me back to the start of this short speech. I want to give voice to the people who are suffering through this. Many of them don't have a voice. They just quietly go about their business and do the best they can: mum and the kids in a car, in a car park late at night, trying their best to stay warm and stay out of the rain, and the thousands of people couch surfing or living in a garden shed or garage of a friend's place. They don't have a voice. I'm giving them a voice. I feel I speak for a lot of my colleagues in this House when I do this. I make the point again: this is something that warrants a royal commission. I'm the first to say to people, 'We've got to stop calling for a royal commission at the drop of a hat.' As soon as there's a problem, someone says 'Let's have a royal commission.' Obviously royal commissions should be reserved for the most pressing matters and the most important matters, like Aboriginal deaths in custody, banking and financial services, veterans suicide, aged care and institutional child sexual abuse. I would add homelessness to that, because homelessness in this country has now reached an absolute crisis point. Maybe a royal commission would provide a non-political way to explore it. Maybe a royal commission could come up with recommendations that would unlock this and give the government a licence to go places where it is currently too timid to go, like getting rid of the concession on the capital gains tax, like reigning in, in some way, or even doing away with negative gearing. Maybe it would give the government the out to say: 'Okay, this isn't our political decision. This isn't something we've dreaded since 2019. This is something an independent inquisitor has looked at and found to have merit.' That's what we need. Women in Parliament, Child Care 100 18:40 Ms 298800 Swan MASCARENHAS () (): Labor governments have the ability to transform lives for people for the better. I remember standing in the House of Representatives when we passed the new paid family and domestic violence leave bill. I had goosepimples. Women fleeing domestic violence will now be able to access 10 days leave. This is good policy. I reflected on why Labor is able to transform women's lives. It's because we have women in significant numbers in the caucus. We also have women in leadership roles. In the nineties the Labor Party recognised we needed more diversity in our ranks, and to address this issue we introduced quotas. Over time we increased the target, and now the Albanese Labor government has 50 per cent women in the caucus. What happens when you have more women in parliament? We make more holistic policies. What happens when a party ignores or alienates women? We just have to look at the crossbench. The Liberal Party likes to think that affirmative action targets don't work, but I have to point out that the women on the Labor frontbench and backbench are very impressive. Our targets indicate to women they are welcome in our party and in the House. Imagine if the Liberal Party had got the memo that gender diversity is important. Imagine if they had implemented action back in the nineties. On the argument of merit versus tokenism, I point out the impressive qualifications on the crossbench—ex- CEOs, leaders in the not-for-profit sector and not one but two medical doctors. I don't think that women on the crossbench are tokenistic. Imagine what a government does when we know that women matter. We act on how we can empower and support women. This week we'll be debating a gender equality amendment bill in this place. This bill will look at paid transparency through the Workplace Gender Equality Agency and at organisations with more than 100 employees. It will be a powerful tool in combating the gender pay gap and other measures. However, another large driver for the gender pay gap is the disparity in hours worked between men and women, and the cost of child care is one of the huge factors that drives people away from doing more work—and, typically, it's mothers. For me, deciding on where my children would go to child care was one of the most emotional decisions I had to make. For me, it was more emotional than my IVF journey. I wanted to make sure my children were in a place of love, a place that had fun and play and care. On top of that, I wanted a childcare centre that I could afford while returning to a very demanding job. I also highlight that I'm very grateful for the women who came before me and the people who decided to make the old parliament bar into a childcare centre. Today there still might still be people passing out and throwing up at the same place, but it's actually toddlers who need their afternoon naps and babies who might have spit up too much milk. Nationally, 73,000 people who wanted to work did not look for work because of the rising cost of early childhood education. Typically, it's women who make the decision to leave their jobs or reduce their working hours, forgoing income, which also results in lower superannuation and less career experience. This is an opportunity cost that deprives our nation of its full talent. It means women, on average, are retiring with less superannuation and, on average, are earning less than their male counterparts in the same careers. It also often means that unpaid work at home is disproportionally resulting in more women needing to contribute to that. Like many Australian families, my husband and I both work. We do our best to share the parenting duties, to ensure that we spend quality time with our children while balancing our careers. At the moment, 60 per cent of mothers with young children work part time. I worked part time when I went back to work, and I'd say that my previous workplace was a very supportive one that supported part-time workers. Often I hear women talk about the utopia of having a role where you can be in a leadership role and also work part time, and too many workplaces don't actually support that. In my previous workplace, they had restructured the company and one of my colleagues was on maternity leave and so people were applying for roles in executive positions. There were multiple people going for a role. Mary Stewart was on maternity leave; she went for the role and the board made a decision that she was the best person for the job and they didn't care that she wasn't going to start for another two or three months and they did not care that she was coming back part time. This is unusual for corporate workplaces. Unfortunately, this was the exception to the rule. We need to make sure that women can step back into their careers and be in leadership roles and also have the ability to work full time or part time and not have it affect their career. When it comes to women deciding on whether to return to work part time or to work full time, the cost of child care is a huge factor. The Labor government has a multipronged approach to dealing with the gender pay gap. Making child care more affordable is one of the key measures in our toolbox to bridge that pay gap. In Swan, 6,900 families will benefit from this policy. Under Labor's policy, a family with a combined income of $120,000 will save $1,780 in the first year of our policy. Our policy means that around 96 per cent of families with children in early childhood education will be better off. No family will be worse off. Treasury estimates that the government's childcare reforms will add the equivalent of up to 37,000 extra full-time-equivalent workers in the economy by financial year 2024. We also know that this will boost the economy through increased productivity and also will give families the ability to bring more income home for households. Over the past eight years, childcare costs have soared by 41 per cent. The Liberals were elected in 2013 and took five long years to implement some reforms, which, frankly, did not go far enough. This goes to the beginning of my speech: the coalition simply did not have enough women in their caucus for the blokes at the helm to actually understand what women need. Simply, the coalition didn't have a plan for helping working mums who wanted to enter the workforce. Labor's cheaper childcare policy is a cost-of-living measure with a significant productivity dividend. Labor is getting this policy done, with a three-point plan: first, by increasing the childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent for families with their first child in child care; second, by increasing the childcare subsidy rate for families with one child, with household income of less than $530,000; and third, by also keeping the higher childcare subsidy rate for the second child in care. It's also important to note that this policy doesn't just include children in child care; it also covers after-school care, which is so helpful when children begin school. Often I hear parents talk about the difference between child care and when their children start school and that after-school care makes the difference as to whether people make the decision to work part time or full time. It's only 95 days until this policy comes into effect on 1 July. I'm glad that we're giving cost-of-living relief to families whilst also bringing about a mechanism that has the potential to reduce the gender pay gap. This is also on top of our 12 month inquiry into the rising cost of child care in this country—and I know, as a mother with children in child care, that, year on year, prices have been increasing. Childcare costs have increased by 41 per cent over the last eight years. The ACCC will lead an inquiry which will examine the driving factors behind the rise in childcare costs and out-of-pocket expenses and will make recommendations to the government on the ways that we can ease pressures on families. Let's contrast this with the Liberal Party. There was no plan and little action on this issue. I'm so proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is making child care more affordable and helping women to have more financial freedom. Lindsay Electorate: Infrastructure 101 18:49 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay I rise this evening to talk about the election commitments made by the Albanese Labor government to my electorate of Lindsay at last May's federal election. I wrote to the Prime Minister and Treasurer six months ago about their election commitments, as I promised my Lindsay constituents that I would keep the pressure on the Albanese Labor government to deliver for us and for Western Sydney. It is a pity that neither the Prime Minister nor the Treasurer has taken the time to write back to me on their commitments for my community. At least the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister did respond, but he did not mention a single project that I outlined or that the Labor candidate mentioned throughout the campaign trail. Rather, it was a standard one-pager on infrastructure investment programs and the government's now-broken promise to complete the 50 Medicare urgent care clinics across the country by May. The assistant minister did take the time to forward my correspondence in November last year for responses on particulars to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Minister for the NDIS and the Minister for the Environment and Water. However, I am yet to receive responses from any of these ministers on the Labor Party's commitments to my community at the 2022 election. Very shortly after the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister responded to me, Labor senator Tony Sheldon wrote to households right across my community. He noted sporting equipment upgrades to 10 sites across the electorate and listed one that's actually in the McMahon electorate. The senator also listed Dunheved Road upgrades to begin early this year, which is now not happening. He spoke about an urgent care clinic to relieve pressure at Nepean Hospital; we found out in Senate estimates that the May commitment has now been delayed until the end of this year. Senator Sheldon listed planning and preparatory works for the Castlereagh Connection between Bells Line of Road and the M7, a synthetic playing surface for Cook Park, and toys and play equipment for Penrith City Council's Mobile Playvan. None of these local commitments stated in the senator's letter had the funding allocation that was committed at the election. Where is the full $8.5 million for an upgrade of Cook Park at St Marys? When the now Minister for Education visited Lindsay during the election as shadow minister for regional services, he said: … the money will also expand the club house and grandstand, provide disabled access, upgrade the car park, add walking tracks and really good outdoor exercise equipment. The senator is now saying that Cook Park will only get synthetic fields. Seems like a broken promise to me. The Castlereagh Connection has funding attached by the government, but its page on the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts website says a start and finish time are still to be decided. The No. 1 local priority I have on infrastructure is the upgrade of Dunheved Road, right in the heart of my electorate of Lindsay. My favourite part of Senator Sheldon's letter is him boasting that the Albanese government will upgrade Dunheved Road early this year. In April 2022, council wrote to me to let me know construction would begin in early 2023, but, when I inquired with council in the last few weeks, its website noted construction would now start in mid 2023. When I checked the website today it had changed to late 2023. This is despite the Labor candidate committing millions of dollars to fast-track delivery of Dunheved Road. It seems like a matter of three months since the senator's letter was sent. The project has been delayed by almost a year. So where is the money? This is a vital upgrade for my community, and I fought hard for $60 million of funding at the 2019 election. When the state government didn't partner with the Commonwealth, the then prime minister, Scott Morrison, and then treasurer Frydenberg agreed to fully fund the project and for it to be completed by council, because it is a council road. Dunheved Road starts at Richmond Road at Cambridge Park, passes into Cambridge Gardens and through Werrington Downs and Werrington, and ends at Werrington Road and Christie Street. The Labor candidate said on Facebook on 13 May last year that Labor would bring forward the funding to get this project underway as soon as possible. It's a shame that the Labor Party misled my community about fast-tracking the project, which has now been delayed. This is a key corridor for thousands of local people, and I will keep fighting for the project to get started. Early on in the campaign I took the then Prime Minister, the honourable member for Cook, to the Assistance Dogs Australia National Training School at Orchard Hills in my community to announce a re-elected coalition government would provide $2 million in funding for the Training School. The Labor Party, after some local pressure, decided to match this commitment. I recently met with executives from Assistance Dogs. They hadn't heard from the government about the funding. After I posted this online, the government reached out to Assistance Dogs to let them know the funding would be processed. Before then, Assistance Dogs had been forgotten about by the Albanese government. I have a meeting soon with council where I'll be following up on Labor's commitments to sporting upgrades and play equipment. Further, I will continue to advocate for my election commitments and for responses from ministers to the letter I wrote to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer six months ago. I made election commitments, if a coalition government was returned, to upgrade Brothers Junior Rugby League Club clubhouse, upgrade play spaces across the Penrith local government area, upgrade the Museum of Fire and upgrade Bennett Park's recreation area in St Marys; to facility upgrades for Nepean Community & Neighbourhood Services; and to the Nepean Area Disabilities Organisation for new flooring. Although I've written to the Prime Minister—because these are such worthy causes and organisations—I have little confidence that the government will deliver on my commitments, so I'll continue to fight for these important projects across my community. I'm using this speech as another platform for my constituents to be heard by this Labor government that is refusing to deliver for them or listen to what they need. I want to see Dunheved Road fast-tracked, like the Albanese government last year promised my community. I want to see Cook Park get a decent upgrade, like the Albanese government promised the St Marys and Nepean football clubs. I also want the community to have access to a Medicare urgent-care clinic, which the government committed to have in place in two months time. Unfortunately, at this stage it seems the Albanese government are not keeping their promises to the people of Lindsay. I thank my community for re-electing me. I did commit to not breaking my promise to hold the Albanese government to account. I'll keep fighting for you. We deserve what we've been promised. We deserve so much more. Thank you to everyone across our community. We'll keep up the fight. Chisholm Electorate: Multiculturalism 103 18:57 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm Last week was Harmony Week. Also last week we marked the 75th anniversary of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. In Australia, Harmony Week is the celebration that recognises our diversity and brings together Australians from all different backgrounds. It's a week about inclusiveness, respect and a sense of belonging for everyone. My electorate of Chisholm is one of the most diverse in the country. In Chisholm, residents claim ancestry from 231 different places and speak 152 different languages. We are a thriving example of multicultural Australia. Of course we're very privileged to share this country with the world's oldest continuous culture. First Nations people have cared for country and built communities for over 60,000 years, and the story of this country begins with them. There are many stories and cultures that are part of the evolving Australia, and I feel enormously privileged to represent such a vibrant electorate full of community minded people who share their cultures with their neighbours and are indeed part of the evolving Australian story. Earlier this year and much to my delight I attended many lunar new year events, including the very large celebration in Box Hill organised by the Asian Business Association of Whitehorse. It was amazing and so thrilling to be able to welcome the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese; and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Andrew Giles, to the event. This was one of many spectacular celebrations I attended. It is a really important fixture on the local calendar in our community of Chisholm. It is a significant sign of how multicultural we are as a nation that events like lunar new year are so embraced in suburbs like the ones I represent in Melbourne. I've previously acknowledged and congratulated all of the various groups in my electorate who organised and invited me to lunar new year events, who made such beautiful food and who engaged in such excellent cultural performances. I would like to extend that acknowledgement and those congratulations once again now: thank you and well done for such incredible celebratory events. I look forward to celebrating the year of the dragon with everybody in 2024. In my electorate we recently celebrated Holi, the Hindu festival of colour, love and spring. I had the great pleasure of attending the Notting Hill Neighbourhood House for their celebration. I received a beautiful henna tattoo and enjoyed such delicious food that had been prepared by volunteers. I also attended the Rang Barse Festival of Colours at Monash University, organised by Bhakti Tarang. Again, it was a wonderful, colourful event, full of music, performances, joy and celebration. I congratulate everyone involved in those events for their exceptional organising efforts and for attracting such a wonderful crowd from our community. My electorate is home to the Victorian Sikh Association. It's a group I really enjoy working with and look forward to doing more work with in the future. I am also really looking forward to the upcoming celebrations for Greek Easter, a really important time for our Greek Orthodox community. We have a significant Greek community in the Greek Orthodox churches and community groups in both Oakleigh and Box Hill as well as right across the electorate, and I am looking forward to spending time with that community in a few weeks as they mark such a special and sombre time of year. I'm very privileged to be able to attend many different cultural groups in my electorate, including seniors groups. From the Italian seniors group to the Tamil and Greek seniors groups, I am always made to feel welcome. I know how important language and culture is to the people who have come to Australia post war and who have built lives for themselves and their families here. It is a real privilege to be able to share in this with so many people across my electorate. Like so many people in this place, I have my own connection to recent migration, with my Italian grandparents being just some of the 7.5 million people who have migrated to Australia since 1945. Again, for so many people in this place and in our communities right across the country, the dual cultural identities we hold are really important to us. I know my Italian and Australian cultural identities inform who I am, and I'm very lucky to be in a country like Australia where multiculturalism is so embraced. It is impossible, though, to talk about multiculturalism without talking about the great man Gough Whitlam. The Whitlam government was responsible for the introduction of the official policy of multiculturalism, which was the policy that encouraged the notion that cultural differences within society should be accepted and celebrated. The first expressions of this policy were in the introduction of new translation services for migrants and the incorporation of multiculturalism into a range of government services, including education and health. It was the Whitlam government that enacted the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975. That's a really significant piece of legislation, and it is something that Labor will always protect—unlike those opposite, who have, in recent memory, tried to undermine key provisions and protections contained in that act. It was under the Whitlam government that the final pieces of the White Australia policy were at last dismantled. It was a discriminatory policy that we should all be proud was recognised to have no place in a country like Australia. It's really significant that last week, on 21 March, we marked the 75th anniversary of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The reason that this day is held on 21 March is that, on that day in 1960, police opened fire and killed 69 people at a peaceful demonstration against apartheid laws in Sharpeville, South Africa. The United Nations proclaimed that day in 1966. It really was a call to the international community to commit their efforts to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, and we must continue those efforts. Of course, it's excellent that during Harmony Week we do mark the very positive contributions of migrant communities and reflect on the fact that diversity is our greatest strength as a nation. But it is also crucial that we commit ourselves to doing more to be a truly inclusive nation that ensures everyone is respected and has a meaningful place, regardless of where they come from. Our government is very mindful of the fact that we need to take real action to meet our goals of ensuring real equality. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Tony Burke, has just today announced changes we will be making to ensure migrant workers are treated fairly in Australia by introducing the Protecting Worker Entitlements Bill, which clarifies that migrant workers are entitled, at all times, to the same workplace protections as everyone else under the Fair Work Act. This is an area of reform very dear to my heart. In my career before entering this place, I spent time helping to establish and oversee the Migrant Workers Centre in Melbourne. I continue to be dedicated to working with vibrant, diverse communities to ensure that they are able to be safe, be respected, be treated fairly and have real access to justice. I'm proud to be part of a government that is so committed to these aims too. I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Migrant Information Centre in my electorate of Chisholm with Minister Giles. The work that the Migrant Information Centre does in supporting community, connecting people with services and being just such wonderful advocates in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne is so commendable. I'll always be a strong champion for their local work and I very much look forward to visiting again soon. People come to Australia for all sorts of reasons, and I am always so thrilled to attend citizenship ceremonies at both Monash Council and Whitehorse City Council in my electorate. The only thing that ever keeps me away is a sitting week and the obligation to be here in Canberra where I can support the community in other ways, without physically being there. Harmony Week offers us an opportunity to celebrate our communities, reflect on how far we've come in building a multicultural, inclusive country and to recommit ourselves to always strive to do better, to work hard and to ensure we protect and advance equality and respect for everyone in Australia. Fairfax Electorate: Infrastructure 104 19:07 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax With all the argy-bargy that goes on in the parliament, there's one thing that I think unites all members, and that is that the single most important electorate in the country is that of Fairfax on the Sunshine Coast! Opposition members interjecting— Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 And I am glad I'm uniting those opposites tonight with that fact. The seat of Fairfax, together with the seat of Fisher, constitutes the Sunshine Coast by way of LGA—local government area. Not only is it one of those unique places where you have all the values of the past married up with the opportunities of the future; it's a growing region. In fact, it's one of Australia's fastest growing regions. Of course, being the lifestyle capital it is, as growth continues we are seeing more congestion and more strain on people getting from A to B. It's becoming increasingly difficult for people to travel from the Sunshine Coast to Brisbane. And we know that this sort of problem comes about when you have that strain of population growth, which is why the objective always has to be—as difficult as it can be—to try to build infrastructure ahead of population growth. When we were elected to parliament, we went hard on just that objective from 2016 onwards, and we are enormously proud of the fact that under the coalition government the Sunshine Coast received more federal funding than it ever had before. Never before had the Sunshine Coast seen so much funding for infrastructure. We're really proud of that. We got about $3.2 billion allocated for upgrades to the Bruce Highway. Never before has so much been allocated to improve that important road spine. We then were able to secure nearly $400 million for upgrades in rail. This is a rail line wholly owned and operated by the Queensland state government, yet we were able to put in an enormous amount of money to ensure we could see an upgrade—in fact, a duplicated rail line which goes north of Beerburrum, with the duplication going up near Landsborough, with some improvements up to Nambour. It is an extraordinary amount of money. We were also able to put record funding into the Sunshine Motorway, for the Mooloolah River interchange—again, completely a state responsibility. When you have well over $100 million on that project alone because it's a pain point for road users and for families, that's exactly what we need as a region. Amidst all these good infrastructure projects, there's been a prize that the community on the Sunshine Coast has been looking for, for years, and that prize has been improved rail. Yes, we've got some duplication happening but we need to see that rail duplication go all the way up to Nambour—that is, two lines all the way up to Nambour so that we can separate passenger from freight, so that we can improve the speed, frequency and reliability of rail connectivity for everyone south of Nambour. To that end, we were able to secure $5 million to have a business case mapped out. Despite the years gone by, that $5 million which was meant to be matched by the state government, who is, again, wholly responsible—the state member in the seat of Nicklin confirmed he would go in to bat and we'd do it together. On that basis, I locked in the $5 million. But still, to this day, the state Labor government—nothing, not a thing. No confirmation. There is $5 million sitting there, and they will not act on it. The other part of this prize of improved rail connectivity is, for the very first time, to bring rail along the coastal strip of the Sunshine Coast. As we look at population growth, we have seen through the years a movement towards the coast. As more and more people come to the Sunshine Coast, it is that coastal strip that is going to be congested. We have land already resumed for transportation, sitting there, waiting to be used. Some years ago, we went in to bat—I think it was under the Turnbull government—to secure funding to do a business case on connecting regions to capital cities. We received $6 million to do a business case. I went and saw the minister in the Queensland state government at the time, and he had agreed he would work with us. They wouldn't put in cash but would at least work in kind. A steering group was established for a syndicate who would work with the Department of Transport and Main Roads. The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads was on a working committee doing a business case for this rail line that would go to the Maroochydore CBD—through the coastal strip, Beerwah, Caloundra and Kawana up to Maroochydore. DTMR worked with a syndicate on that. They were on a steering committee looking at that business case. The business case came in. The price tag for that rail connection—Beerwah to Maroochydore—came in at $2.9 billion. The state government were very happy; the Premier was on record saying so. The minister himself was very public when we put this deal of this rail line to him; he thought it was 'absolutely viable'. They were his words. So we continued working hard. Along came the opportunity for us to secure the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games—an opportunity we could not let pass. I was delighted to play a role on behalf of the Prime Minister at the time, Prime Minister Morrison, as his special envoy on that negotiation. We secured the deal. We secured the 2032 games. The Sunshine Coast, together with the Gold Coast and other areas of South-East Queensland, will host the games with Brisbane. It will be labelled Brisbane 2032. In order for visitors to Australia in 2032 to travel from Brisbane to the Sunshine Coast for events, including the marathon, fast walking and kite racing—there are a range of other sports, like basketball preliminaries and football preliminaries—they've got to go up the Bruce Highway, and, no matter the money we have allocated for the Bruce Highway, it can't be done; you can't handle that many people. So we went back to the idea of rail to the Maroochydore CBD. We were able, in last year's budget, the coalition budget, to secure $1.6 billion to pay for 50 per cent of that rail line, and we were delighted. We were absolutely delighted. The community united around this. It wasn't a political thing, because we had people of all political colours cheering for this. The Labor state government had said that they thought this was viable, and we all wanted it for the games, but something happened mid-last year. Sadly, the coalition lost government. We accept that; it's the will of the people. But, despite Labor going to the election at the federal level with candidates saying locally that they were going to deliver on the same project, we've had nothing since then. Unfortunately, the state government, who were apparently very enthusiastic about this, are now saying that they're doing a new business case. Instead of looking at the business case they had done themselves and been party to, they've thrown that out. They're doing a new business case, and now the new federal government has postponed the release of any funding. The Labor federal government is now holding back money, saying, 'We're going to postpone the release of any funding.' As a result, and in a highly inflationary environment, we know what's going to happen. The $3.2 billion price tag is going to blow out. The $1.6 billion that we had to pay for 50 per cent—that's not going to be enough. Are we going to be able to build rail to the Maroochydore CBD in time for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2032? Well, that is up to Anthony Albanese and Annastacia Palaszczuk. If they do as they promised, they'll make decisions this year and get it going. If not, it is on them. It'll be another broken promise. Macarthur Electorate: Environmental Conservation 105 19:17 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur It's a pleasure to follow the shadow minister for confected outrage! He really is an expert at it. We are a nation of diverse, exciting and sometimes terrifying flora and fauna, with many varying ecosystems across our lands, oceans and skies providing a range of wildlife and a place for them to call home. Our wildlife, including kangaroos, wombats, kookaburras, various reptiles and a whole range of beautiful insects, birds and flora, is part of what makes Australia the way it is. That's why it's imperative that we do all we can to protect our native flora and fauna, particularly those whose existence is threatened with extinction because of mass habitat loss. My electorate of Macarthur actually has the most genetically pure koalas in the country. We have the only peri-urban population of koalas who are chlamydia free, and they are at huge risk. Before I was first elected in 2016, I tried to get the New South Wales Liberal-National government to do something to protect that environment. They did nothing. Matt Kean, who was previously the environment minister, became the New South Wales Treasurer under the Perrottet Liberal regime. I actually invited him out to the electorate, and he came out, had a look and agreed that we needed to protect our koala habitat and koala population, but he did nothing. He talked a lot, but he did nothing, and that's one of the reasons that the Liberal Party lost the New South Wales state election. I invited other environment ministers, including the federal environment minister— at that stage, when I was first elected in 2016, it was Josh Frydenberg—to come out and have a look at our koala population to see what was happening to the habitat and to try and do something about it. He agreed with me it was a problem, but he never came and visited. Subsequent environment ministers have really done nothing in the federal sphere to protect our koalas until the recent election of the Albanese Labor government. I understand this issue really well. My electorate of Macarthur is the fastest-growing electorate in the country. We now have a constituent population of well over 150,000 people. It is by far the biggest electorate, yet we still have rapid growth and habitat destruction, and our koalas are on the brink of extinction. I'm very, very thankful that Tanya Plibersek, the Minister for the Environment and Water, has today committed to the Saving Koalas Fund Community Grants, and I will be encouraging our local councils and our local environment groups to apply for some of the grants. There is over $70 million committed. The grants will be between $50,000 and $200,000 and will go some way to improving koala habitat and providing protection for our local koalas. However, the one thing that will make a difference is for us to provide a koala national park, and I have in mind a twin rivers national park between the Georges River on one side and the Nepean River on the other. Unfortunately, this is very seductive land for developers, and developers now have control over large swathes of land which is koala habitat and which, unfortunately, unless something is done urgently, will end up being turned into housing. I recognise that people have to live somewhere. If we are going to rapidly increase our immigration rate—which we are—and if we are going to provide adequate housing for our population, we need public housing, we need social housing and we need private housing, but that should not be at the expense of our local wildlife and our koalas in particular. We have other wildlife as well as the koala. We have rock wallabies, wallaroos, wombats, lace monitors, large lizards, lots of snakes, ranging from carpet snakes through to red-bellied black snakes, brown snakes, tiger snakes and death adders. We have lots of local wildlife, but the koalas are the ones that are really at risk of extinction. Unless we do something about continued habitat loss due to pressure for housing—and there's a huge development happening at Appin on the outskirts of my electorate, which is right in the middle of koala territory—we will lose our koalas. I'm calling on the new New South Wales Labor government and the federal Labor government to now press forward, aiming for a national twin rivers koala park to protect that koala habitat. If we don't do that, our koalas will be gone. Our wonderful colony of over 300 koalas have been studied over decades. They live predominantly in the bush that stretches right along the Nepean and Georges rivers through Appin, St Helens Park, Winterbourne, Kentlyn and into Holsworthy. They also communicate, I believe, into the Sutherland Shire, which is represented by Jenny Ware, the member for Hughes. Our commitment must be to protect that habitat, and that is urgent. Interestingly, not only are our koalas genetically pure and chlamydia free, they are the first koala colony recorded by the new European settlers in Australia in the late 1700s. The first koalas that were seen and documented by the first European settlers in Australia still exist, but not for much longer if we continue to allow habitat loss. This is not a party political idea. This is something that should have bipartisan support. I believe that both major parties have been allowing development without considering the impact of habitat loss on our endangered species, going back many decades. It's very important that the urban sprawl stops. We need to have a twin rivers national park, and I will push for this no matter who is in government. Previous Liberal and National governments in the last 10 years—state and federal—have done nothing. I've begged them to come out and do something about this. I'm on record as saying I don't want to make this a political issue. This should be a completely bipartisan issue, but now it is time to act, and I encourage our federal government, under Anthony Albanese, and the incoming New South Wales Labor government, under Chris Minns, to do this urgently. I'm proud to be part of a Labor government that understands the importance of the environment, of air quality and of water quality and understands the importance of dealing with climate change. The reforms that we've already put in place in a short space of time are remarkable, but this issue for my community of Macarthur transcends political parties. It really transcends any thought of personal or political gain. It's what good government does, and it focuses on our environment, our flora and fauna, and protection so that our children can do the same things that I can. I can go to the outskirts of my electorate and see koalas in the trees. Children in St Helens Park Public School have a koala viewing platform in their playground. They can go into their school ground, look into the trees and see koalas. I don't want them to be the last generation to be able to do that. Several other species, of course, are under threat around Australia, and it is very important that we protect them as well. Tanya Plibersek, the Minister for the Environment and Water, is well aware of that. It's of great concern that we continue to see fairly rapid species loss. There are many under threat, including insects like the tube web spider, the mountain frog in the Snowy Mountains, various orchids and the white-footed dunnart, which is a little marsupial that is on the edge of extinction, and we continue to have issues with many other species that are under threat. This should be a bipartisan issue. I would like to see both major parties commit to a twin rivers national park in the Macarthur electorate before it's far too late. I don't want to still be a member of parliament and see our local koalas become extinct. Many, many people have worked hard on koala protection, but, if we continue to have urban sprawl and massive development on the outskirts of our major cities, we are going to see habitat loss and species loss. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the member for Macarthur for that significant contribution. Debate adjourned. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:28