2023-03-29 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 29 March 2023

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 1 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Standards 1 09:01 The SPEAKER 53517 Before we proceed with business today, I want to address a very serious and grave incident that occurred during a division yesterday afternoon. I thank the Leader of the House for raising this incident with me at the time. After the bells had been rung, I ordered that the doors be locked. After I gave this order, I am aware that a number of members exited the chamber while one of the attendants was attempting to close and lock the door to the opposition lobby, as directed. As all members are aware, under standing order 129 after the Speaker orders the doors to be locked no member may enter or leave the chamber until after the division. It does not matter whether the doors have been able to be fully closed, the point at which the order is given from the chair is the point at which no member is allowed to enter or leave the chamber. The most serious aspect of this incident is that members physically pushed their way past the attendant to get out of the chamber, resulting in the attendant getting hit in the doorframe and hurting their arm. I am particularly disgusted by this behaviour, and I will not tolerate it. For a staff member of this place to be treated in this way when they are simply doing their job is disrespectful and a very serious matter. I have spoken to the parliamentary staff who were involved or who observed the incident and have reviewed a written report from them. I want to make it clear that I am committed to ensuring that this building and this chamber are safe and respectful places of work for all. No staff member should be hurt in the course of doing their work in service of this House. We all know that members are busy. However, I am sure we would all agree that no member's time is worth more than a staff member's safety. In light of this issue and other recent issues raised with me, I will be writing to all members with a review to reinforce this and to ensure that members are in no doubt as to their obligations to treat this chamber and parliamentary staff with respect. The Australian people expect members to maintain the highest of standards in terms of conduct and behaviour. We have been reminded of this in Set the standard: Report on the independent review into commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. For all members and staff, I remind them that the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, PWSS, supports people affected by serious incidents or misconduct in the parliamentary workplace. This service is available at all hours. I am now going to give indulgence to members who left the chamber following my order to lock the doors to apologise to the House for their actions. 09:04 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Speaker, I left the House as you were saying close the doors, and I apologise for my conduct. 09:04 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I apologise to the House, Speaker, for leaving the house after your directions were given. 09:04 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Mr Speaker, I unreservedly apologise to the House and yourself for leaving after your direction yesterday. I also apologise to the staff, if they were involved in this. Our staff here in the chamber do an incredible job, and one of them is not crowd control. I apologise again for that. 09:04 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Mr Speaker, I too unreservedly apologise to the House. 09:05 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I apologise to the House, Mr Speaker, for seeking to leave after the Speaker had ordered that the doors be closed. I deeply regret and apologise for any impact caused to the staff member involved. 09:05 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls Mr Speaker, I sought to leave the House after your order and I unreservedly apologise to you and to the House for that. I have offered an apology to the attendant who was on the door at the time. 09:05 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Mr Speaker, I also apologise unreservedly to you and to the House for attempting to leave after the doors were to be locked. I particularly regret any issues with the staff member involved and I apologise to her unreservedly. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 2 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Commonwealth Year of Youth 2 Reference to Federation Chamber 5 09:28 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan by leave—I move: That further statements in relation to the significance of Australia's youth and the Commonwealth Year of Youth 2023 be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. BILLS 5 BILLS Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 5

Family Law Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 5 Second Reading 5 09:29 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The family law system has a fundamental impact on the lives of many Australians. The government has committed to ensuring it is safer, more accessible, simpler to use, and delivers justice and fairness for all Australian families. For too long the Family Law Act 1975 (Family Law Act) has been a source of confusion. It has inhibited separated families' ability to put into practice postseparation parenting arrangements that align with this most important principle: the best interests of children must come first. There is ample evidence demonstrating that key provisions in the Family Law Act have themselves become a barrier to achieving safe and fair outcomes. This bill takes some critically important steps to address this by: creating a more child-focused framework for making parenting orders, and addressing complex and confusing drafting resulting from decades of incremental change to the Family Law Act. The bill addresses other issues important to the safety and wellbeing of children, including: ensuring children's voices are better heard in matters affecting them responding more appropriately to systems abuse, and laying the groundwork for a scheme to regulate family report writers. The bill also amends the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (FCFCOA Act) to support a timely review of the structural changes made to the court in the last term of government to ensure the courts are operating in a manner which protects the safety of families and provides an efficient resolution of family law matters. The proposed reforms have not been developed in isolation. Of the many reviews of the family law system conducted in the last decade, we have the benefit of insightful and informed recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission's (ALRC's) 2019 report Family law for the future: an inquiry into the family law system (report 135). We have also considered the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System which delivered its final report in November 2021. C hanging the framework for making parenting orders The bill makes significant changes to part VII of the Family Law Act, which relates to children. Parenting arrangements after a separation are often negotiated as parents struggle with loss, grief and financial stress at the end of a relationship. Despite these challenges, most separated Australian couples are able to settle their own arrangements outside of the family law system, and co-parent successfully. Research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies has found that only three per cent of separating families have their parenting arrangements determined by a court. The parenting provisions in the Family Law Act must therefore serve as a guide to those negotiating their own arrangements, as well as judicial decision-makers. The complex interaction between part VII's multiple objects, principles and factors is confusing. Convoluted and complex decision-making pathways, that must be navigated through an understanding of legislation and case law, add significantly to the time and cost of any parenting matter. The bill makes a number of amendments to make it easier to understand the issues to be considered when determining parenting arrangements in the best interests of the child. The existing objects and principles of part VII, in section 60B, are often misunderstood to be legally binding, and contain significant overlap with the best-interests factors. The bill replaces these with a much shorter objects clause to make clear that children's best interests are the most important consideration in making decisions about parenting arrangements, including their safety. Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are also reflected in the new objects clause. The bill streamlines the complex list of factors to be considered when determining the best interests of a child. The changes mean the court will now simply consider six 'best interests' factors to decide what the best parenting arrangements for each child are. The factors include the child's safety, the benefit of having relationships with both parents, any views expressed by the child and their developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs. These six factors are complemented by additional specific consideration of opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to maintain a connection with family, community, culture, country and language. The bill removes the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and the associated provision that requires a court to consider certain time arrangements for children to spend with each parent. It also codifies existing case law about the reconsideration of parenting orders, making it clear that it must be in the best interests of the child, and a significant change in circumstances must have occurred, for an existing parenting order to be reconsidered. These changes are essential if the very complicated existing framework is to be made more workable. Repealing the presu mption of equal shared parental responsibility The government recognises that, for most children, it is strongly in their best interests to have a loving and nurturing relationship with both parents after separation. The simplified list of best interest factors includes consideration of the benefits to children of having a relationship with each of their parents, where it is safe to do so. However, it is necessary to amend the law so it is clear that there is not, nor has there ever been, an entitlement for parents to spend equal time with their child after separation. Multiple inquiries into the family law system have recognised that the equal shared parental responsibility provisions, in combination with the associated requirement for the court to consider certain care time arrangements, have been widely misunderstood as creating this right. As Justice O'Brien observed in 2010: a law that cannot be understood by the people affected by it—or worse still lends itself to being misunderstood—is a bad law. That is particularly so when we are talking about a law which affects families and children. Removal of these provisions will ensure that the law more clearly identifies that children's needs and interests should be the focus. It is a sad reality that concerns about family violence, health issues or substance abuse are present in a very large number of family law cases. As the Family Law Council's submission to the consultation process on the exposure draft of the bill observed, a 'legislative framework that attempts to influence decision-making towards a particular outcome is inappropriate, especially having regard to the high levels of concerns about child safety, family violence and other issues that can negatively influence child and adult wellbeing among the families that turn to the family law system for assistance with parenting arrangements'. In relation to parenting arrangements agreed out of court or by consent, these provisions have been found to cause parties to agree to unsafe arrangements because they believe the law requires them to do so. Many stakeholders consulted on the bill have also expressed concern that continuing requirements for parents to share decision-making for their children have provided avenues for high levels of conflict and coercive control. Where parents can safely consult on major long-term issues for their children, the legislation will encourage parents to do so and to focus on outcomes that will be in the best interests of the children. The legislation will make clear the orders that can be formulated in relation to parental decision-making on major long-term issues. While these changes are significant, it is important to note that the proposed amendments will not limit the court's power to make orders about parental responsibility or shared time. They will, however, implement a safer and simpler framework for making parenting orders. Enforcement of child related orders Noncompliance with parenting orders is a common issue, causing distress for many families. The ALRC and the joint select committee both identified challenges with the current law. The bill simplifies the operation of the existing provisions for enforcing parenting orders, helping parents understand the importance of complying with parenting orders unless there is a reasonable excuse not to do so. It will restructure the current division 13A of part VII of the Family Law Act into four clearer parts. The bill will make the consequences of noncompliance with parenting orders clearer and easier for court users to understand and for the courts to apply. The proposed provisions have been informed by Professor Richard Chisholm AM's suggestions, which were endorsed by the ALRC in its 2019 report. The redraft of the existing division 13A, while making it simpler to navigate, does not significantly change the underlying principles of any existing compliance and enforcement provisions. Where there is no reasonable excuse for failing to allow contact between a child and a parent, the courts will still have a range of options for addressing issues of noncompliance with parenting orders. In instances of noncompliance courts will still be able to vary a parenting order, provide for make-up time for missed visits, compensate parties for expenses related to missed visitations, and in more serious circumstances, impose a fine or imprisonment. The bill removes a rarely used option to impose a community service order in cases of contravention. The bill also amends the FCFCOA Act to allow for registrars of both divisions of the court to be delegated the power to make a further parenting order for make-up time where there has been noncompliance with a parenting order. Definition of a member of the family and relative The Albanese government recognises the significance of family and kinship within this country's proud Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures. To be more inclusive of these concepts, the bill will amend the Family Law Act's existing definitions to use language to reflect the diversity of meanings for family and relatives which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples may have. Independent children's lawyers The bill takes important steps to improve the ability for a child's view to be considered in family law proceedings. The Family Law Act currently provides for independent children's lawyers, or ICLs, to be appointed by the court to represent a child's best interests, particularly in cases which involve abuse, high levels of conflict and complexity. ICLs must form an independent view, based on the evidence available, of what is in the best interests of the child. ICLs are obliged to consider the views of the child, if they are expressed, and put these fully before the court with their own, independent, perspective about what arrangements or decisions are in the child's best interests. While many ICLs will meet with the child to determine their views, there is currently no legal obligation to do so unless ordered by a judge. The bill introduces amendments to require the ICL to meet with the child and provide the child with the opportunity to express any view about the matters to which the proceedings relate. This requirement will apply in all cases where an ICL is appointed, including parenting matters, welfare matters or where ICLs are appointed for children in Hague matters. It is important to recognise that there will be circumstances where it would be inappropriate for a child to meet with an ICL or express a view. An ICL is not required to meet with the child if the child is under five years of age, or the child does not wish to meet with an ICL or express their views. Further, to ensure the safety or wellbeing of the child, the bill provides that there may be exceptional circumstances when an ICL is not required to meet with the child or seek their views. These circumstances include, but are not limited to, if the meeting with the ICL would expose the child to the risk of physical or psychological harm that cannot be safely managed, or would have a significant adverse effect on the wellbeing of the child. These amendments support children's rights under article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, while safeguarding their safety and wellbeing. The bill amends the Family Law Act to expressly permit the appointment of ICLs in matters under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague convention) and remove the requirement that there be 'exceptional circumstances' for the court to appoint an ICL in these matters. This change will bring judicial discretion to appoint ICLs in Hague convention matters in line with other family law matters, so that ICLs can be appointed by the court to represent the child's best interests where appropriate, rather than only in exceptional circumstances. By enhancing the ability for a child's view to be considered in Hague convention cases, this bill will contribute to improved safety of the implementation of the Hague convention. Harmful proceedings order s Many victims-survivors of family violence, and their children, suffer the effects of continued abuse from their perpetrators through misuse of legal processes. To address a gap in the current law, the bill introduces the capacity for the court to restrain a party from repeated litigation by making a harmful proceedings order. The focus of the measure is on the protection of the other party and any children from harm, including the detrimental effect on the other party's capacity to care for a child. Once this order is in place, any further proposed proceedings would first be assessed by the court to ensure that matters that are vexatious, frivolous or unlikely to be successful are not being heard. There will be no erosion of the principles of procedural fairness—applicants will have the opportunity to make the case for the particular matter they wish to bring before the court. Overarching purpose of family law practice and procedure The ALRC found that prolonged family law proceedings have negative consequences for parents and children. This bill will improve case management and procedure by broadening the overarching purpose of family law practice and procedure that exists in theFCFCOA Act. This overarching purpose provision is aimed at encouraging parties to actively cooperate and negotiate with each other to resolve disputes, with the best interests of children in mind. The bill creates a duty on parties and their legal representatives to resolve disputes in a way that ensures the safety of families and children, promotes the best interests of the child, and is as inexpensive and efficient as possible. There will be cost consequences for parties or their lawyers if they have been found to not be acting in compliance with the overarching purpose. Lawyers will not be able to pass these costs onto their clients. Protecting family law information The bill will also update the Family Law Act to clarify restrictions on communicating identifiable information arising in family law proceedings. Consistent with the ALRC report, this measure will assist those within the family law system, including service providers, government agencies, professionals and parties, by providing greater certainty about the circumstances in which identifiable information can be shared. This measure also ensures that the privacy of those involved in family law matters continues to be protected. Standards and requirements for family report writers It is important that courts have the best possible evidence before them when considering what parenting orders to make. A family report is often the only independent evidence available to assist the court. It is crucial that families, the court and all those involved in the family law system can have confidence that every family report has been prepared by a professional with the skills and knowledge required to undertake this important task. The bill will introduce the ability to establish standards and requirements to be met by family report writers. Establishing a power for government to prescribe standards and requirements for these professionals is the first step in addressing concerns expressed by stakeholders across successive reports and public inquiries into the family law system about the competency and accountability of family report writers. Any standards or requirements will be outlined in regulations to be developed following further consultation with stakeholders. Amendments to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act The government is committed to the ongoing improvement of Australia's federal courts, and believes that a well-functioning court system is essential to the effective implementation of these reforms. The bill amends the FCFCOA Act to bring forward the review of the structural change that merged the Family Court of Australia with the Federal Circuit Court. It is important that such a monumental change to the family law system is reviewed in a timely manner to ensure the new court structure is providing families with a safe, accessible and efficient resolution of their family law disputes. The bill expressly clarifies that the appointment of a judge of the Family Court of a state to Division 1 of the court is permitted under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Conclusion In closing, the government is making these changes to the Family Law Act to make it safer and simpler to use, and to provide clarity to the community; guided by recommendations of detailed, insightful and researched reviews into the family law system. In proposing these measures, the government thanks all who have contributed to relevant inquiries and the consultation process on this bill. This bill will return the best interests of the child as the central focus of the family law system and will simplify what has become an overly complex and confusing framework for making parenting arrangements. Debate adjourned. Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 9

Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 09:50 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 is a significant step to ensure that children and families do not fall between the gaps of the federal family law system, and the state and territory family violence and child protection systems. The Albanese government is firm in its view that ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children and their families is a priority. This includes their safety within the family law system. This government has made its intentions on the family law system clear. This system must be safe, simpler to use, accessible, and deliver justice and fairness for all families accessing it. The government is delivering on this commitment through significant reform to the family law system, including through this bill. Measures included in this bill are complementary to the reforms proposed in the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023. Both bills will work together to create a family law system which meets the needs of its users, centring on the voices and best interests of children, and ensuring their safety and wellbeing is the paramount consideration. Family safety risk in family law matters The disappointing reality is that family violence, child abuse and neglect continue to permeate our community. Court data from the last financial year offers a sobering glimpse into the prevalence of violence and abuse in family law matters: Family violence was raised by one or more parties in 80 per cent of matters Child abuse, or the risk of child abuse, was raised by one or more parties in 70 per cent of matters The issue of a child experiencing family violence was raised by one or more parties in 74 per cent of matters, and 76 per cent of parenting matters were mandatorily referred for consideration by a state or territory child welfare agency by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. And it must be acknowledged the true figures are likely higher. The significant numbers of matters referred to state and territory child welfare agencies, and the prevalence of family violence and child abuse risk within family law matters, demonstrates a need to ensure these federal, state and territory systems are joined up when supporting and responding to the children and families accessing them. The importance of a joined-up approach between systems has been examined and highlighted by the many reviews and inquiries into the family law system over the last decade. These inquiries, including the Australian Law Reform Commission's (ALRC's) 2019 report Family law for the future: an inquiry into the family law system (Report 135), have been integral to developing this bill and the National Strategic Framework for Information Sharing between the Family Law and Family Violence and Child Protection Systems(national framework) it implements. A new framework for court-initiated orders for information sharing This bill will operationalise key aspects of the national framework, enhancing the sharing of family violence, child abuse and neglect risk information between the family law courts and state and territory child protection, police and firearms authorities. The family law courts do not have powers to investigate family violence, child abuse or neglect. They rely on the investigations conducted, and information provided, by state and territory agencies with those responsibilities. The current legislative framework facilitating information sharing is limited in the information that can be sought by the courts and provided by these agencies. Expanding the information sharing framework within the act will ensure the family law courts are able to access all relevant family violence, child abuse and neglect information, providing a holistic picture of the risks to both the children and parties to proceedings. This framework will provide powers for the courts to receive critical information earlier, quicker and throughout proceedings. The new order for particulars introduced by this bill will support early information being provided to the courts about the types of documents or information held by agencies. This will assist not only in the making of early or urgent interim orders, but will inform the safe and appropriate case management and triaging of matters. The new order will also increase the efficiency of seeking production of full documents or information, by allowing the court to target the specific documents considered relevant. The new order for production of documents or information will broaden the scope of information able to be sought. It will ensure the court has access to the full range of information it considers necessary to make orders in the best interests of the children, while considering the safety of all those involved. Admission of information into evidence A core tenet of the bill is balancing the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness against the potential risks associated with the disclosure of sensitive personal information. The bill requires that the courts admit into evidence particulars, documents or information shared through the enhanced information sharing framework on which they intend to rely. In doing so, the court must have regard to specific advice provided by information sharing agencies about any risks associated with disclosure of information. Safeguarding sensitive information—Exclusions This bill recognises the inherently sensitive nature of family violence, child abuse and neglect information. The broader scope of this new information sharing framework necessitated considerations of protected material, and the inclusion of safeguards on the sharing of all family safety information. Developed in consultation with frontline agencies and peak family violence and family law organisations, this bill includes protections where the disclosure of documents or information to be shared would: contravene legal professional privilege endanger a person's life or present an unreasonable risk of harm prejudice legal proceedings contravene a court order restricting disclosure, or be contrary to the public interest. In providing for the exclusion of these protected materials, the bill recognises there may be circumstances where the risk of disclosure is outweighed by the risk of non-disclosure. In these circumstances, the bill provides avenues for information sharing agencies to provide this information to the courts in a restricted manner, and to communicate the additional risk they see as being associated with the disclosure of information. The bill additionally recognises the importance of protecting confidential notifications made by mandatory reporters and everyday Australians concerning suspected family violence or child abuse. The court must protect the identity of notifiers, unless a limited exemption applies. The limited circumstances in which the identity of these individuals can be disclosed ensures that this critical protection is only infringed in rare instances, where the information is crucial to the decision-making process in the parenting proceedings. Safeguarding sensitive information—Information Sharing Safeguards In addition to excluding protected materials, the bill includes a requirement for information sharing agencies, and the courts, to have regard to safeguards when sharing, using, accessing, storing and disclosing information. The information sharing safeguards will be prescribed in amendments to the Family Law Regulations 1984, ensuring they can continue to evolve to reflect the best practice for the sharing of sensitive information. These safeguards have been informed by a Privacy Impact Assessment commissioned by the Attorney-General's Department, and through consultation with relevant family law, family violence and child protection stakeholders. It is envisaged that the information sharing safeguards will include items to ensure: information is only shared to the extent required to identify, assess, manage and respond to family violence, child abuse and neglect risk information sharing is conducted in good faith, and with reasonable care to the safety of all people involved information is sent, received and stored in a secure manner reasonable steps are taken to ensure that parties who may pose, or are alleged to pose, a family safety or child abuse risk cannot access sensitive information, and if discovered that information recorded and shared is incorrect, best efforts are made to correct the information shared and update relevant records. Information sharing agencies Amendments to the regulations will additionally prescribe a broader set of information sharing agencies ahead of commencement of measures in this bill. These agencies will include those state and territory agencies responsible for child protection and welfare, police, and firearms authorities. The new prescription of agencies will also be clearer about the role of Commonwealth agencies, where they are performing functions for states and territories. Relevantly, that includes the Australian Federal Police when performing the policing function in the Australian Capital Territory. The express inclusion of firearms authorities is the single biggest change to these agencies. This change is to support the court in understanding the holistic picture of family violence risk facing families and children. We know that acrimonious family law proceedings can escalate family violence risk, including the risk of homicide for women and children. Any death resulting from family violence is unacceptable. The government is committed to ensuring that the family law system is safe for families, including those experiencing family violence. Achieving this commitment means learning from and understanding failings in the past, to create hope for the future. Conclusion In proposing these measures, the government thanks all those who contributed to the various reviews and inquiries which have influenced this bill. In particular, the government recognises the contributions of individuals and families with lived experiences of family and domestic violence, the family law system, and its intersection with state and territory police and child protection systems. Your strength in sharing these experiences, and calling for reform, have been central to developing this bill. Keeping children and families safe is at the heart of the family law system. This bill is one part of ensuring the family law system can deliver on this responsibility. Debate adjourned. National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 11

National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023

First Reading 11 Second Reading 11 10:02 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In Australia, as in many other similar democracies, the powers of intelligence and security agencies have changed dramatically in recent years—the product of an increasingly complex and unpredictable security landscape. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Hope royal commissions developed a set of important principles to govern Australia's intelligence and security agencies. In his reports, Justice Robert Hope laid the foundations of a legal framework that ensures that agencies can operate effectively, in accordance with the rule of law and are appropriately oversighted and accountable. Those foundations remain just as relevant today as they did in the 1980s. On 30 May 2018, the then government commissioned the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community, which was led by Dennis Richardson AC, an eminent Australian. The review was delivered to the then government in December 2019, and publicly released a year later in December 2020. The review affirmed the principles that Justice Hope delivered 40 years ago. This includes foundational principles that agencies must operate in accordance with the law, with propriety and political impartiality, in a manner that respects human rights and fundamental freedoms, and must be accountable for their conduct. As Mr Richardson noted in his report: Our laws are not constraints or barriers to operational effectiveness … Rather, they are the guardians of valuable principles and enablers assisting agencies to perform their functions. Mr Richardson made 203 recommendations in his 2019 report. The former government implemented just 30 recommendations between December 2019 and May 2022. The National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 will implement a further 10 of the outstanding recommendations from the review that fall within my portfolio responsibilities. This parliament will see further legislation implementing other recommendations of the Comprehensive Review conducted by Mr Richardson in coming months. Recommendations of the Comprehensive Review The bill will address the following recommendations from Mr Richardson's report: Recommendation 18 would be addressed by amending the Law Officers Act 1964to remove the ability of the Attorney-General to delegate his or her powers under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. Recommendation 19 would be implemented through amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the ASIO act, and the Telecommunications (Interceptions and Access) Act 1979to prevent the powers of the Attorney-General relating to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation from being conferred on another minister through executive action, instead requiring legislative amendment. If the Prime Minister is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist, the Governor-General would continue to make a substituted reference order. Recommendation 66 would be addressed by providing for defences in the Criminal Code Act 1995 for ASIO for four offences relating to tampering or interfering with telecommunications carrier facilities, unauthorised modification of data and unauthorised impairment of electronic communications. Recommendation 136 would be addressed by inserting a new exclusion into the spent conviction scheme under the Crimes Act 1914 to enable ASIO to use, record and disclose spent convictions information for the purpose of performing its functions. Recommendation 145 would be implemented by amending the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013to require the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to include details in their annual reports about public interest disclosures and complaints received each year to enhance transparency. Recommendation 167 would be addressed through amendments to the Ombudsman Act 1976 to remove the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, the Office of National Intelligence, and ASIO from the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. These agencies are already overseen by the IGIS. Recommendation 186 would be addressed by removing the exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 regarding the non-intelligence functions of the Australian Hydrographic Office, within the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation. Recommendation 188 would be implemented by expanding the exemption under the Freedom of Information Actfor documents relating to suspicious matter reports and suspicious transaction reports beyond just those in the possession of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre to ensure consistency in handling of sensitive information. Recommendation 191 would be addressed by amending the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975and the Archives Act 1983 to ensure matters involving information that could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth arising under the Archives Act are heard in the Security Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Recommendation 192 would be addressed by amendments to the Freedom of Information Actand the Archives Act to provide that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security only be required to provide evidence before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to records that concern an agency within the Inspector-General's jurisdiction. Amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 The bill also contains amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001. The first amendment would clarify the level of detail that the Minister for Foreign Affairs must describe in a direction under paragraph 6(1)(e) of that act. The bill would also make amendments to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The purpose of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is to ensure parliamentaryoversight of the intelligence and security agencies. It is the parliament to which the agencies are accountable, and it is the parliament's responsibility to oversight and ensure agencies meet the requirements and standards it sets. Currently, the Intelligence Services Act provides that the committee is to comprise of 11 members and mandates a composition of six members of the House of Representatives and five senators. The bill would increase the number of members appointed to the committee to 13 members and remove current constraints on the composition of the committee. The bill would provide that the committee must comprise of at least two government members and Senators, and two non-government members and Senators. The remaining five members can be drawn from either chamber. The bill does not amend the requirement for the Government to hold a majority. The government is committed to ensuring the legal framework of the national intelligence community remains fit for purpose. The principles developed by Justice Hope in the 1970s and 1980s—affirmed by Mr Richardson in 2019—are founded in history, practice and philosophy, and establish important delineations between, and limits on the roles and functions of, agencies. They are of enduring importance in their provision of safeguards, clarification of agency roles and responsibilities, and ensuring lines of accountability. The bill I have introduced today affirms the government's commitment to those foundational principles. The government sees no reason to abandon them, and many good reasons to retain them. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023 13

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023

First Reading 13 Second Reading 13 10:12 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023 will update, improve and clarify the intended operation of certain provisions in the Crimes Act 1914and other Commonwealth legislation, to support the proper administration of government, law enforcement, oversight and judicial processes. This bill will make a number of minor and technical amendments. These include correcting errors in naming and referencing, and clarifying and improving a range of government, judicial, regulatory and oversight processes. The amendments do not expand or otherwise alter existing powers for law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Similarly, the amendments do not limit or in any way reduce existing scrutiny and oversight mechanisms for the exercise of those powers. Amendments to the Crimes Act 1914will correct drafting errors and clarify and improve judicial processes, including ensuring that persons arrested for a Commonwealth offence can be bailed or remanded in the timeliest manner.    Amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 will strengthen and modernise aspects of Australia's AML/CTF regime, and assist AUSTRAC in fulfilling its important functions as Australia's money laundering and terrorism financing regulator in an efficient and practical manner. The amendments will achieve this by strengthening and clarifying the civil penalty provision for a person failing to enrol with AUSTRAC. The amendments will also clarify the existing secrecy and access framework to ensure that sensitive AUSTRAC information, which is subject to extensive safeguards, cannot be inappropriately disclosed for the purposes of, or in connection with, court or tribunal proceedings, protecting the integrity of this information. Further, the amendments will explicitly authorise the AUSTRAC CEO to use a computer program to automate 'positive' administrative actions under relevant provisions of the AML/CTF Act, the AML/CTF Rules, or other instruments made under that act. Automated actions will only relate to 'positive' decision-making responsibilities regarding registration and enrolment of entities which do not result in an adverse outcome for a person or impact the application of procedural fairness principles. These will include decisions to renew the registration of a remittance service provider or a digital currency exchange provider. In practice, the computer program would consider an application for renewal alongside objective criteria such as whether the reporting entity has complied with all requirements specified in the AML/CTF Act and Rules, whether there have been changes to registration details or key personnel, and whether there have been disclosable civil or criminal proceedings, actions or convictions against any key personnel in the period since the entity was last registered. If no issues are identified, the person's application for renewal of their registration is accepted. If potential issues are identified, the application is forwarded to an AUSTRAC officer to manually process the application and make a decision. Amendments to the Witness Protection Act 1994will improve outcomes for participants of the National Witness Protection Program, and assist the Australian Federal Police in its management of the program. The amendments will achieve this by correcting a drafting oversight to ensure that past participants of witness protection programs, which preceded the existing National Witness Protection Program, are covered by the Witness Protection Act 1994. The amendments will allow participants to be temporarily suspended from receiving protection and assistance under the witness protection program in appropriate circumstances, rather than needing to exit and re-enter the program. The amendments will also modernise certain processes and terminology throughout the act, which will also assist with reducing the administrative burden on the AFP. The amendments to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987will expand the existing mandatory ground of refusal regarding torture. Currently, requests for assistance must only be refused if the person who is the subject of the request may be subjected to torture. This amendment expands the scope of the ground of refusal so that the Attorney-General must refuse requests where there are substantial grounds to believe that any person would be in danger of being subjected to torture if the request were granted. This may include witnesses, persons who consent to be transferred to a foreign country to give evidence, or other persons that may be impacted. Amendments to the Foreign Evidence Act 1994will streamline legal processes by expanding the categories of persons who can sign or certify foreign testimony and simplifying the process of obtaining testimony from foreign countries for use in Australian proceedings. An additional update to terminology in the act will reflect, and further enable, the current international practices of providing material by electronic means. These amendments will ensure our legislation reflects current international and Australian domestic practices, and will minimise difficulties in obtaining and admitting evidence. Amendments to the International Transfer of Prisoners Act 1997will allow the Attorney-General to refuse consent to applications for transfers to or from Australia at an earlier stage, instead of at the very end of the process. This will make the process more efficient and reduce administrative burdens by ensuring that state and territory governments, foreign countries and prisoners are not unnecessarily consulted where the Attorney-General would be minded to ultimately refuse consent but is unable to do so before seeking consent from all other parties. A minor amendment to the Criminology Research Act 1971 will update the process for appointing the Commonwealth representative to the Criminology Research Advisory Council. The amendment will clarify that the appointment applies to the holder of a particular senior executive position, not the individual officer. This will remove the need for the minister to revoke and remake the appointment each time there is a change in the relevant senior executive officer. Minor amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 will address referencing inconsistencies. The amendments will ensure that state and territory based public interest monitors can provide effective oversight on applications for interception activities made by the relevant agency in their jurisdiction. Minor amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, the Crimes Act 1914, the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Privacy Act 1988 will correct references relating to the South Australia Independent Commission Against Corruption. Amendments to the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002will correct a minor drafting error so that the penalty for noncompliance with a notice to produce is in the correct location in this act. Conclusion The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023 makes minor and technical amendments which will support the proper administration of regulatory, law enforcement, oversight and judicial processes. These changes will improve the everyday operation of government agencies by creating efficiencies and removing doubt and inconsistencies in certain provisions. These amendments will also improve outcomes for non-Commonwealth government stakeholders, including members of the public who come into contact with the judicial system, state and territory governments, and our international partners. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023 15

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 15 Second Reading 15 10:21 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Australia's security environment is complex, challenging and changing. As the threats to our country evolve, so too must our response. We need to out-think and outmanoeuvre those who seek to harm our national interest, we must expand our capabilities and we must sharpen our response. The Prime Minister has said that Australia faces the most dangerous strategic circumstances that our nation has looked into since the Second World War. We are living in a time of great global transition which historians will be writing about for a century to come. The choices that the Australian government makes will matter in this history. That is why the information that we have is more valuable and the protection of that information is more important. ASIO has said to this parliament that the biggest national security threat that we face is espionage and foreign interference. In fact, they say that we are more targeted by these two issues than we have ever been in our history. This is an enormously important statement from an organisation that has been protecting our national interests for many decades. The matters that ASIO refer to are not some kind of made-up fantasy. There are spies in our country today. They are trying to work their way into government so they can steal Australian secrets. Over time, the approaches of these people evolve and their practices and their tools get better and more targeted. That's why our government must be constantly on the move to prevent them from taking our secrets. The law reform that is before the parliament today is very important. It ensures greater protection of Australia's most sensitive information. It ensures that we have ongoing monitoring of those highest levels of security clearance, not a set-and-forget approach that assumes stasis. It ensures that we have a strong and consistent standard across government to protect the most valuable information that our country holds. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023 (the bill) contains a suite of amendments to uplift and harden Australia's highest level of security clearance in response to the unprecedented threat we face from espionage and foreign interference and drive shared initiatives and investments to improve interoperability and burden sharing as the Australian government delivers critical national security capabilities. The reforms in front of the parliament will implement a consistent approach across the Australian government to issuing, maintaining and revoking Australia's highest level of security clearance. This will reduce the risk of compromise of trusted insiders, maximise the utility derived from shared services to create efficiencies, improve the mobility and agility of our highest cleared workforce—enabling them to move across departments—and ensure the ongoing confidence of our most trusted allies. We have established a new national capability, comprising a national TOP SECRET vetting authority in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and a Quality Assurance Office in the Office of National Intelligence. This capability is underpinned by a new, classified standard for Australia's highest level of security clearance, known as the TOP SECRET-Privileged Access security clearance. This standard establishes stronger mandatory minimum security clearance requirements reflecting contemporary psychological and insider threat research. The national vetting authority in ASIO will be centrally responsible for issuing this new Privileged Access clearance, which over time will replace the positive Vetting Clearances. The existing operations of those agencies currently responsible for Positive Vetting clearances will similarly be transitioned to ASIO in phases. Centralising Australia's highest-level security clearance vetting in ASIO leverages ASIO's security intelligence functions, holdings and capabilities to allow a holistic assessment of a person's suitability to hold such a clearance, having regard to the most current and accurate information about the security threats confronting Australia. Drawing on their expertise, ASIO's analysts assess all available information, and use structured analytical techniques to test, retest and contest their assumptions. The Quality Assurance Office in the Office of National Intelligence will independently assure the quality, consistency and transferability of these security clearances, and drive the uplift of an insider threat capability for sponsors across the Commonwealth. Responsibility for the issue and management of lower-level security clearances, from Baseline to Negative Vetting Level 2, will remain unchanged. This means that the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency, known as AGSVA, will remain responsible for most of those clearances. The threat environme nt ASIO assesses that espionage and foreign interference is Australia's principal security concerns. In his 2023 Annual Threat Assessment, the Director-General of Security noted that more Australians are being targeted for espionage and foreign interference than at any time in Australia's history. Foreign intelligence services are aggressively seeking secrets at all levels of Australian society—to name a few, through public service agencies, universities, defence industry and even through our journalists. They are targeting our security-clearance holders—those with access to Australia's most privileged information, capabilities and secrets. Whether it is information from Australia's intelligence community or our Five Eyes partners, about Australia's ground-breaking nuclear powered submarines program with US and UK partners, or other advanced defence and intelligence capabilities, Australia's sovereignty absolutely demands that these secrets be protected. We must ensure that those Australians who have access to these privileged insights are suitable to do so and we do that through the bill that's before the parliament today. The reforms I bring forward today therefore put this government at the forefront of efforts to protect our nation from the threats that ASIO has described. Overview of the b ill The bill will enable the operation of the national vetting capability in five key ways. First, the bill will provide ASIO with a new function, and introduce a new Part IVA in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (the ASIO Act). ASIO's new function enables it to make security clearance decisions for ASIO and non-ASIO personnel alike, perform security vetting, and furnish advice to other authorised vetting agencies for lower-level security clearances issued by those agencies. Second, the reforms will enable persistent and more frequent evaluations of an individual's suitability to hold a security clearance. This is really important because up until now, the security clearance process has operated at point in time—one test on the day: are you suitable to manage a high-level clearance? This will create a process where that assessment is made on a more ongoing basis. It will enable: a stronger and more effective partnership and shared responsibility between ASIO and insider threat capabilities of sponsoring agencies; and an integrated, single point of truth about security clearance holders, empowering sponsors to responsibly manage their clearance holders. This reflects that this is going to continue to be a shared function across government in some ways. Consent forms the foundation of the new function. Only people who have voluntarily applied for a security clearance and consented to the collection, use and sharing of their information will be affected in this way. Third, the reforms will ensure that ASIO's use of these new powers is subject to stringent safeguards. The bill enshrines a robust framework allowing for merits review of ASIO's security clearance decisions and security clearance suitability assessments. With limited exceptions, those affected by ASIO's security clearance decisions will be eligible for internal review under a new statutory framework, as well as external merits review in either the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for existing security clearance holders and Commonwealth employees, or by an independent reviewer appointed by the Attorney-General for all other applicants. The fourth reform before the parliament is that the bill will amend the Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 (the ONI Act) to provide ONI with a new function to drive the uplift of insider threat capabilities across the Commonwealth, and independently assure the quality and consistency of TOP SECRET-Privileged Access security clearances. ASIO will continue to be overseen by the IGIS, who has powers akin to a royal commission. The IGIS will continue to review ASIO's activities to ensure the organisation acts legally and with propriety, complies with ministerial guidelines and directives and respects human rights. Finally, to implement all these reforms, the bill will also amend the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986. Conclusion One of the most important principles that has driven the government's approach to this very important national security aspect of our work is that it is a privilege, not a right, to hold the highest level of Australian government security clearance. These clearances are not titles and rewards—they come with serious ongoing responsibilities with which we expect our clearance holders to comply. These reforms will ensure that Australia's security clearance framework is uplifted and hardened, and remains at the forefront of international best practice, in the face of a complex, challenging and changing security environment. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023 17

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023

First Reading 17 Second Reading 17 10:33 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Last year, the government passed the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act. Secure Jobs, Better Pay delivered on the next step of the government's plan to lift wages, improve job security and close the gender pay gap. Secure Jobs, Better Pay was about raising the bar—raising the bar on awards, raising the bar on enterprise agreements, raising the bar on bargaining and lifting the floor for workers. This year, it's about closing the loopholes that some businesses use to undercut those arrangements. This bill is the first step. This bill is about protecting worker entitlements including by enshrining the right to superannuation as one of the National Employment Standards. The bill will also promote gender equality—the amendments to the unpaid parental leave scheme will provide families with greater flexibility so that work and care responsibilities can more easily be shared. The bill will also deliver reforms to improve fairness in the workplace relations system—by protecting all workers (regardless of visa status) and ensuring casuals in the coalmining industry are on par with their permanent colleagues with respect to long service leave. My department and I have engaged in close and constructive consultation with businesses and unions on these reforms. I'll now outline in detail the measures in the bill. Coverage of all workers by the Fair Work Act All workers working in this country are entitled to and deserve protection from exploitation. It's the view of the government that the Fair Work Act should be clear that it also applies to migrant workers—workers who are not Australian citizens. Doubt has been raised about this, and the government is acting to fix this. So while this change might turn out to have been unnecessary, it is it an important protection to make sure that Australian workplace rights apply to everybody. That's why this bill will make clear that all the protections of the Fair Work Act—including full pay for time worked—apply to all workers working in Australia, regardless of their migration status. There are too many workers in this country being exploited by unscrupulous employers who rely on an incorrect view that workers on temporary or working visas have fewer workplace rights than other workers. This amendment is to protect workers like Kate Hsu, a Taiwanese national system worker who I have met with. I've spoken about Kate before—a worker who had come here from Taiwan. Her story has stayed with me since we spoke. Kate was engaged as a fruit picker in regional South Australia, getting paid $4 an hour to pick oranges. Just to survive, Kate was forced to sift through public rubbish bins to find food. Sadly, Kate's story is not a unique one in an industry in which some employers rely upon vulnerable overseas workers on temporary visas. This amendment closes a loophole for employers whose business model relies on the false assertion that workers on temporary or working visas have fewer rights than other workers. This change gives effect to recommendation 3 of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce report, which this government has committed to implementing. It also implements recommendation 3 of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee's inquiry into the government's secure jobs, better pay legislation. Unpaid parental l eave The parental leave reforms from our government are a significant step forward in both fairness and economic participation. This parliament has recently passed the largest expansion to government funded paid parental leave since the scheme was established in 2011. The changes in this bill go hand in glove with changes which have been made by the Minister for Social Services. These changes provide the commensurate employment rights to ensure that the government's changes to paid parental leave have real meaning. The Fair Work Act also has a key role in implementing our vision for women's workforce participation—as well as ensuring families can jointly share work and care responsibilities. The amendments proposed by this bill will modernise unpaid parental leave to give parents more opportunity and more choice about how they balance and share their work and caring responsibilities. Parental leave works best as an entitlement when it suits the circumstances of each family. Balancing work and care looks different for every family. Our government wants a flexible unpaid parental leave entitlement that reflects modern Australia. This bill also significantly increases the days of leave which can be taken flexibly from 30 to 100 days. This allows families to work out arrangements on their own terms. The bill also allows for pregnant employees to access some of their flexible unpaid parental leave entitlement before the birth of their child. It also removes unnecessary restrictions on two working parents in a family taking more than eight weeks of unpaid parental leave at the same time. Notice periods will remain the same, providing certainty for business. Our government is serious about acting to close the gender pay gap. Making it easier for families to balance work and care is critical. This bill will deliver greater flexibility for working families. Superannuation in the National Employment Standards The bill will also protect workers' superannuation entitlements by including superannuation in the National Employment Standards. Australians are quite rightly very proud of our world-class superannuation system. Superannuation is a key part of workers being able to build a financially secure retirement. Currently, the Fair Work Act does not have an explicit requirement for an employer to pay superannuation to their employees. This is a loophole that needs to be closed. In almost every instance of wage theft, superannuation is also part of how workers have been ripped off. This amendment is about making sure that a worker can recover both superannuation and wages in an underpayment claim under the Fair Work Act. Until now, many workers have had to claim the take home pay and superannuation through two separate processes. It will still be possible (and preferable for some people) to recover superannuation via a complaint to the Australian Taxation Office. However, the red tape that requires workers to apply to two different systems for the same underpayment ends with this bill. Workers who do not have the protection of an award or an enterprise agreement can be left exposed as they do not have a statutory right to superannuation under the Fair Work Act. Enshrining the requirement to pay superannuation in the National Employment Standards puts on notice those who seek to exploit this loophole that payment of superannuation is a non-negotiable minimum standard. These changes will expand coverage to thousands of award-free employees, such as those on the national minimum wage, and employees in certain occupations such as accounting, human resources, marketing, public relations, and information technology specialists. Deductio ns For a long time, workers have signed deduction forms which are frequently used for both for both union membership and health insurance, and they've signed them in the knowledge that payments may vary from time to time. At any stage, workers can decide whether they want the deduction to continue. There have been some legal questions raised as to whether the initial deduction authority can continue if fees change over time. This change simply makes sure that the law is consistent with the intention of the individual worker when they sign a deduction form as deduction amounts change over time, without employers or workers having to go through endless red tape. Technical amendments to clarify the interaction between enterprise agreements and workplace dete rminations One of the significant achievements of secure jobs, better pay was to increase access to arbitration. We have an amendment here that clarifies that when there is an arbitrated outcome, it takes precedence over an agreement that covers the same workers. Coal Long Service Leave Scheme changes Until now, there has been, effectively, a glitch in the scheme—casuals have always been ripped off when it comes to long service leave in the coal industry. If a casual coal industry worker works a significant number of hours one week, and then has a week when they don't work any hours, the system does not average the hours fairly. This means that casuals are accruing a lower entitlement than their permanent counterparts even though they could have worked the same—or more—total hours. This amendment means that whenever you are working a week-on week-off roster, it all counts towards your long service leave. In December 2021, an independent review into the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Scheme (the Scheme) found that casual employees in the Scheme are treated less favourably than permanent employees. Measures in this bill will amend legislation enabling the Scheme to address this inequity and implement a recommendation of the independent review. The amendments will make clear that the levy imposed on a casual employee's wages within the Scheme and payment of an employee's entitlement include casual loading. This gives employers greater clarity and ensures that casual employees are not disadvantaged when accessing their long service leave entitlement. Currently, if you're a permanent employee who takes a week of annual leave, the time that you're on leave still counts to long service leave. Casual loading is meant to be in lieu of this certainty, but the loading hasn't been included. That unfair situation will end with this bill. Conclusion The secure jobs, better pay bill of last year was, as I said, about raising the bar for workers and their entitlements. There is no point raising the bar if loopholes that then undermine worker entitlements remain open. This bill, protecting worker entitlements, is the first step of our government's reforms to close loopholes. These reforms contribute to the fairer workplace system that our government is delivering for Australian workers. Debate adjourned. Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 19

Nature Repair Market Bill 2023

First Reading 19 Second Reading 19 10:45 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Our government is determined to protect more of what's precious, to repair more of what's damaged, and to manage nature better for our kids and grandkids. And today, as part of that mission, I am very proud to be introducing this legislation into the parliament. This bill will establish a new nature repair market in Australia—the first of its kind in the world. It will make it easier for businesses, philanthropists and other Australians to invest in activities that repair and protect nature. And it will reward landholders for the work they do in nurturing our natural environment. It will encourage good environmental work, like replanting a stretch of koala habitat—I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander, what a fan you are of the koalas—or repairing a damaged riverbank, or removing invasive species from a fragile ecosystem. That's what this legislation is about: connecting people who want to invest in nature repair, with the people who can do that work on the ground. This is critical work. It's work we need to promote as a nation, in every state and territory, in every corner of our vast continent. As the State of the Environment report made clear, Australia's environment is in a bad way, and it's getting worse. We live in the extinction capital of the world—losing more mammals to extinction than any other continent. These terrible extinctions have many causes, but chief amongst them is habitat destruction. When we knock down trees, or pollute a waterway, or experience a natural disaster, and when we don't step in to repair nature or to replace the habitats we've lost, that's how we get into the position we're in now, where koalas are endangered across most of the East Coast, where our beautiful beaches are eroding before our eyes, where our soil is losing its fertility, becoming more vulnerable to drought, or simply blowing away with the wind, and where our fish, right now, are literally choking to death in our rivers, because they don't have enough oxygen to survive underwater. When you look at these trends, when you look at the state of our environment, it is clear that we have to do more than just protect nature from future harm. We need to start restoring the places that we've damaged in the past. We need to start healing the land and the water. And that's what this legislation is designed to do—not to replace government effort, but to reinforce it; to add private money to the stream of investment our government is already making in nature protection and restoration. In December last year, I released our government's Nature Positive Plan. At the heart of the changes that I am proposing is a shift in ambition. For almost 250 years, since Europeans first colonised Australia, we've been running down our natural environment. And when we've tried to do something about it, when we've attempted environmental policies, we have slowed the pace of this decline. But the point of our plan, the point of being nature positive, is to reverse that trend, to stop the march of environmental destruction—and to go further: to begin the process of repairing nature, to start restoring damaged ecosystems and to genuinely leave Australia in a better state than it's in now. If we're serious about this goal, a large part of our work has to be on private land because more than 60 per cent of our country's landmass is in private hands. Of that land, a majority is owned by farmers and First Nations peoples. That's where a large percentage of the critical habitats exist. That's where many of our most endangered animals live, which means we cannot restrict our conservation efforts to national parks, or other places of sanctuary. We need to encourage and support nature repair everywhere. And that is what this bill will do. The purpose of this legislation is to establish the machinery needed for a nature repair market—the register, the rules and the regulator. This market will apply to projects that enhance or protect existing environments, as well as projects that establish or restore habitats. These projects can be on land, in our lakes and rivers, or in marine and coastal environments. They will be open in a voluntary way to all landholders: farmers, First Nations peoples, conservation groups, businesses, local councils—all will be eligible. Under the scheme, when a landholder conducts a project to repair or protect nature, they will be issued with a tradeable certificate. This certificate will provide a range of standardised information—such as the size of land repaired, the kind of work conducted, the threatened species protected, and the length of time actions will continue. This will help buyers understand exactly what they're investing in—and allow them to compare and value projects. Once projects are approved by the regulator, these certificates can then be sold on to a third party—like a philanthropist, a business, a government or an individual. This will give the landholders extra income. It will help companies demonstrate their environmental credentials. It will help philanthropists achieve their social mission. And most importantly, it will protect and repair Australia's environment. These certificates will be tracked via a public register. This register will be open and transparent—helping buyers show their shareholders and customers exactly how they're supporting nature repair. And a regulator will ensure that projects are being implemented according to the rules, and that the register accurately describes what is happening on the ground. The nature repair market will encourage all kinds of good work—work that landholders already want to do, but often don't have the funds to complete, like helping a farming family, who want to remove invasive plants and manage feral animals on their land so they can better protect a stretch of native forest where endangered greater gliders live; or a group of Indigenous land and sea rangers, who want to control feral species across a coastal floodplain, to protect sea turtles, migratory birds, and to improve water quality for fish and crabs; or another farmer, who wants to replant native grasses and trees on an unproductive stretch of land to make the area more resilient to drought and salinity; or a group of fishers, who want to work to regrow a meadow of seagrass that was previously killed off by poor water quality so they can provide a habitat for dugongs, turtles and seahorses and, at the same time, improve fish stocks. The nature repair market will cover a broad range of different types of nature restoration. And it will reward the people for getting involved in it—money for farmers, jobs in First Nations communities and, at the end of the day, homes for our native animals and plants. That's what this legislation is designed to promote, because there's no shortage of repair work that needs to be done. And this scheme is flexible enough to make sure that landholders can do the environmental work that is needed specifically on their patch of land, like supporting the east coast koala population; or reviving critical nature corridors that animals can travel through for food and water, for shelter, or to avoid bushfires; or replanting hillside vegetation to stop erosion and to protect and enrich the local soil. These projects will look different in different places, depending on local needs. And the nature repair market will work absolutely hand in hand with carbon credits. It will help ensure that, when we plant new trees, we're not just establishing an endless monoculture, relying on a single species, but that we're supporting a rich spectrum of biodiversity; of plants and animals and ecosystems; and that we're planting the right trees in the right places. We know that organisations are very keen to support these kinds of projects. International organisations are looking to Australia as a destination. They understand that Australia is a megadiverse continent, with plants and animals found nowhere else in the world. And they recognise we're one of the most important sites in the global fight to protect biodiversity. When I talk to businesses and philanthropic groups, they tell me that they want to support this type of nature repair effort. That's what their shareholders are asking of them. That's what their customers are asking of them. It's what their employees are asking of them. Shareholders, customers, staff—they want to know that they are investing in and working for environmentally responsible enterprises. In fact, these investments are already happening in small ways. But they are happening without an institutional framework to support them, which makes the whole process more difficult to enter into, far more cumbersome, risky and ineffective than it should be, making these investments impossible for the vast majority of businesses and landholders that would like to engage. This legislation will solve two major problems with the status quo, making it much easier to invest in nature repair and protection. Firstly, it will connect people wanting to fund this work with landholders who are willing and capable of doing it. Currently, if an organisation wants to support environmental restoration, they have to either buy the land themselves and then contract the work or find a willing landholder to enter into some sort of custom management agreement. This can be very frustrating for everyone involved. Most companies are not usually in the business of environmental management and, in general, they shouldn't have to own land in order to contribute to the protection of it. And, basically, we wouldn't want them to or need them to, because no-one knows their land better than the farmers and First Nations communities who steward it. And these landholders often don't want to sell their land or engage in complex legal arrangements. When this scheme begins, investors will be able to find projects they want to support, without having to purchase their own plot of land, and without having to design their own contracts. And both parties will be able enter into the arrangement with the confidence of a legal framework behind them. This leads me to the second problem this legislation will answer, which is the question of trust and integrity. Currently, organisations and conservationists are understandably nervous about some investments in nature repair. How do they know these projects will actually deliver the improvements that they advertise? Without a legal framework, without a national regulator to enforce the rules and ensure compliance, there's a greater risk that business and the public will fall victim to greenwashing, that the proposed project will look different in practice to what has been promised. This bill will introduce necessary oversight and assurance. It will enable the Clean Energy Regulator, an independent statutory authority, to certify biodiversity certificates. The regulator will monitor and publish landholder reports on the delivery of these projects, including the progress being made towards the environmental outcomes specified. And the regulator will also have enforcement powers—to ensure that projects are following the rules. This is a scheme that will be built on transparency. The regulator will publish information on projects and the ownership and use of certificates. It will actively release relevant data, which will allow parliament and citizens to scrutinise the scheme. And we welcome that scrutiny. I acknowledge the recent review of carbon crediting led by Professor Ian Chubb. Like the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, I am committed to learning the lessons of that review, and to make sure that those lessons shape this market as it develops. Nature markets—like all markets—need to be properly regulated, and this is, of course, challenging because environmental outcomes generally aren't measured in tonnes or kilometres. Just because something is difficult, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It means we should put some thought into making sure we do it properly. And that's what we're doing with this legislation, because we need every tool available to us if we want to build a nature-positive Australia. If we want to leave this country in a better place for our kids and grandkids, we need effective national environmental laws. And we need active government investment. And, yes, we also need private money and philanthropists. Our government welcomes that support. This scheme will bring more money into nature repair. And it will guarantee that that money is doing what it's intended to do: restoring habitats, improving our soil, helping threatened species, protecting our beaches and making our land more resilient to droughts and floods. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I and Macarthur's koalas thank the minister. Debate adjourned. Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 22

Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

First Reading 22 Second Reading 22 11:02 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 supports the operation of the nature repair market being established under the Nature Repair Market Bill. The market is delivering on the government's commitment to the environment through the Nature Positive Plan. It will be instrumental in better protecting Australia's environment and preventing further extinction of native plants and animals. The independent Clean Energy Regulator will be responsible for regulating the nature repair market. Their knowledge and experience in the carbon market, including administrative processes and systems, will ensure an efficient establishment of the nature repair market. Their regulation will also provide efficiencies and synergies between the carbon and nature markets. This bill makes minor, technical amendments to two acts relevant to the functions of the Clean Energy Regulator. These are the Clean Energy Regulator Act and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. The bill updates the Clean Energy Regulator Act to provide complementary functions for the nature repair market with those of climate change law, currently administered by the Clean Energy Regulator. It also ensures the board of the regulator has sufficient expertise to support the new nature repair market. Restoring public confidence and public accountability and trust is a key principle of the government's Nature Positive Plan. This bill makes amendments to the Clean Energy Regulator Act to ensure environmental data held by the regulator is publicly available and accessible. This will support transparency and integrity in the nature repair market and allow the Australian government to demonstrate our continued delivery on international biodiversity agreement obligations. Audits are a core assurance mechanism central to effective implementation of the scheme and delivery of nature positive outcomes. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act will be amended to allow the nature repair market to appropriately utilise the qualified and experienced auditors under this scheme. Future amendments to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting subordinate legislation will further support this outcome. The amendments in this bill will ensure the nature repair market operates with efficiency and integrity, delivering on a nature positive future for our environment. Debate adjourned. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023 23

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023

First Reading 23 Second Reading 23 11:05 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Labor has a proud history of improving the lives of Australian children and their families. It was a Labor government that introduced Paid Parental Leave, it was a Labor government that launched the first National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, and it was a Labor government that legislated child support in 1988. The Hawke government introduced the child support scheme to protect the economic security and wellbeing of children affected by family breakdown. Then social services minister, the Hon. Brian Howe MP, said in parliament at the time, 'This bill will make the legal right of children to be supported by both their parents a real right. We will turn what for most children is an empty promise into solid, regular financial support.' The Albanese government is continuing this proud legacy. We are committed to ensuring children of separated parents have financial security. Government has an obligation to make sure the child support scheme is working for parents and children—many depend on it for economic security and stability. Last financial year, $3.7 billion in child support payments were transferred between 1.3 million parents for 1.2 million children. The median income of parents who receive child support is around $33,000. That is less than half of the annual average weekly total earnings of all employees. The majority of parents who receive child support receive a social security payment. These are low-income parents, most of them single mothers, who need and rely on the government supporting them. I am keenly aware of the difficult financial circumstances facing many single parents, and I am committed to ensuring these parents receive the financial support that they, and their children, are entitled to. Most parents do the right thing and fulfil their child support obligations. Since its introduction in 1988, the government scheme has transferred over $33 billion in child support payments. But when parents don't pay their child support on time, it has a real and material impact on the financial security of single parents and their children. As a government, we are deeply concerned about the $1.69 billion in child support debt that has accrued over the last 35 years. It is critical that our system is effective at assessing and collecting child support. The bill I introduce today, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023, will improve debt recovery and help prevent future debts for low-income parents. This bill is a first step to make the scheme better for parents and children. It implements our commitment, outlined in our response to parliament's family law inquiry, to legislate the child support measures first announced in the 2021-22 MYEFO. From 1 July 2023, the bill makes three changes to help reduce child support debt. These changes are expected to recover up to $164 million in debt owed to parents and their children. First, the bill expands the circumstances where Services Australia can deduct child support debts directly from a parent's wages. Known as employer withholding, this is the default method of paying child support. The government's obvious preference is that child support is paid on time to ensure parents have the financial resources they need to meet the cost of their children on an everyday basis. Employer withholding is an effective and efficient way for the government to collect child support and administer it to parents. Last financial year, Services Australia used employer withholding to collect $743 million in child support from around 91,000 parents. Currently, Services Australia can only initiate employer withholding in active child support cases—as in, cases where there is an ongoing child support obligation. This bill will fix that. It will allow Services Australia to use employer withholding to collect child support debts in any case, including those that have ended. For example, the child may have turned 18 and therefore the case ended, but a debt is still owed to the receiving parent. Over two years, this change alone is expected to recover up to $164 million in unpaid child support from around 18,000 parents, with an average debt of nearly $11,000 owing to the receiving parent. A second change will tighten the rules around departure prohibition orders for parents who deliberately and repeatedly avoid their child support obligations. When parents do not pay child support on time, Services Australia has a range of options to enforce payment, including deducting it directly from wages and intercepting tax refunds. Reserved for extreme cases, after other avenues have failed, Services Australia can prevent a parent from leaving Australia by making a departure prohibition order. However, under current rules, Services Australia must issue an exemption if the owing parent provides financial security—like a bond—for their return to Australia by a specified date. Their bond must be returned to them if they return to Australia by the specified date—regardless of whether or not they repay their child support debt. The current rules mean a parent who has the financial resources to provide a bond is able to travel overseas despite actively avoiding their legal obligations to provide financial support to their children. The bill will stop these parents from exploiting this loophole. It will allow Services Australia to refuse an exemption, even when they offer financial security—unless Services Australia is satisfied the parent has made arrangements to repay their child support debt. While this measure will only impact around 110 parents, this group is responsible for a large debt pool, at an average of $43,500 each. The number of cases may be small, but the detrimental impact on children and single parents is significant. A third change will improve income accuracy for around 150,000 low-income parents each year who are not required to lodge a tax return. While most parents are required to lodge a tax return, for some of the most low-income parents, the Australian Taxation Office does not require a tax assessment. A parent with child support obligations is not required to lodge a tax return if they receive an income support payment and their adjusted taxable income is less than the child support self-support amount, which is $27,508 in 2023. The self-support amount recognises parents not only need to support their children, they need to meet their own living expenses—the self-support amount quarantines part of their income before child support is assessed. If these parents do not lodge a tax return, they must lodge a return not necessary with the ATO and separately advise Services Australia of their actual income for the relevant financial year, so this can be factored into their child support assessment. However, for those who don't provide any income information, Services Australia must use an alternative provisional income in the child support assessment. Currently, Services Australia may apply a provisional income that is two-thirds of the annual male total average weekly earnings—$55,016 in 2023. This default provisional income is twice as high as the self-support amount—the upper income limit that applies if a parent is not required to lodge a tax return. Therefore, it can significantly overestimate the parent's income. An inaccurate estimate can put low-income parents into financial hardship in two ways—it can result in a parent receiving less child support than they should, or it can result in a parent being liable to pay more child support than they are able. The bill fixes this problem—from 1 July 2023, for a parent who lodges a return not necessary and does not provide Services Australia with income information, Services Australia will create a provisional income that is equal to the self-support amount. This will ensure Services Australia reflects the parent's low income in their child support assessment. This change is expected to benefit up to 150,000 parents each year, with parents who receive child support making up around 70 per cent of this group. The change will prevent future debts by ensuring that for both receiving and paying parents, the rate of child support reflects their financial capacity. This change will work in conjunction with existing provisions in the scheme to ensure child support assessments reflect accurate and contemporary earnings information—parents can advise Services Australia of their actual income at any time and Services Australia access information from the ATO. The changes in this bill will make a real difference to the lives of single parents and their children. But we also know there is more work to do to improve the child support system to better support families. In the government's response to the family law inquiry, tabled in January 2023, we agreed to a range of recommendations to improve the operation of the child support scheme over the longer term. This includes reviewing compliance, with a particular focus on improved collection and enforcement. While most people do the right thing, some people deliberately avoid paying child support to inflict financial control and abuse on their former partners. We also know that in some circumstances the child support system is used as a means of continued financial control and abuse after people have left abusive partners, which results in sustained trauma for victims-survivors. All forms of family and domestic violence are unacceptable. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring single parents and their children receive the financial support they are entitled to, and that government systems don't exacerbate any abuse, including financial abuse. The government will also consider interactions between the child support scheme and government payments, like family tax benefit. In 2023, we will establish a child support consultation group to provide a strong voice to government on issues impacting families, and commission an evaluation of separated families to understand what can be done to support parents where private collect arrangements have broken down. The government will also commission new research into the costs facing separated parents, and establish a child support expert panel to ensure the child support formula reflects the current costs of raising children in Australia. In summary, we in this place have a responsibility to improve the lives of Australian families, and we must work together to strengthen the child support scheme and deliver on its promise that children are financially supported by their parents. The best interests of children will always be paramount to any changes the Albanese government makes to the child support scheme. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. NOTICES 25 NOTICES Postponement 25 11:18 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I move: That notices Nos 11 and 12, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 25 BILLS Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023 25

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

Report from Federation Chamber 25 Third Reading 26 11:19 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023 26

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023

Report from Federation Chamber 26 Third Reading 26 11:20 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham 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 26

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

Second Reading 26 11:22 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I have the great honour to lead the first government in Australian history where the majority of members are women—54 female members out of a caucus of 103. Through our first 10 months in office, our government has worked to make equality for women a national priority, working to implement all 55 recommendations of the Respect@Work report, including the creation of a positive duty for employers to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. One of our first acts was to make 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave part of the National Employment Standards—that came into effect on 1 February this year—because no woman should have to choose between her job and her safety. We are making gender pay equity an objective of the Fair Work Act. We've legislated a statutory equal remuneration principle to make it easier for the Fair Work Commission to deliver pay rises for low-paid women workers, and on 1 July aged-care workers, predominantly a female workforce, will receive a substantial increase in their pay. These are people who got us through the pandemic and they deserve more than just our thanks; they certainly deserve that pay rise. We are creating expert panels within the Fair Work Commission for female dominated industries, like the community and care sector, those heroes of the pandemic. We've committed to expanding paid parental leave to a full six months and making it more flexible, an important reform as well. And from 1 July we're delivering cheaper child care for 1.2 million Australian families. These initiatives are important acts of social progress, but they're also significant economic reforms, because the full, equal and respectful participation of women in our economy is our nation's greatest untapped resource. Advancing economic equality for women is the fair thing to do and the right thing to do, but it's also the smart thing to do. This legislation, boosting transparency and accountability to help close the gender pay gap, is driven by this same understanding. Men and women should enjoy an equal right to a good job, a fair wage and a and respectful workplace, yet at present Australian women are overrepresented in low-paid industries and underrepresented in leadership roles. In November last year the gender pay gap stood at 13.3 per cent. Women earn less and then they retire with less as well. By and large, that gap has been a constant for three decades. This legislation, which the Minister for Women introduced to the senate on International Women's Day, is just part of our plan to change that. This bill will enable the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to report on the gender pay gap by employer, not just by industry, so from early next year, rather than talking about an overall or national figure, Australians will be able to see how individual companies are progressing. This will encourage best practice. It will mean a new level of accountability and transparency. It will put a spotlight on the pay gap between men and women and the gap between a company's words and its actions. It will empower employees and employers to have informed, evidence-based conversations about economic equality for women in their workplace. It will also give Australia the opportunity to recognise and celebrate companies that are leading the way—and so many of them are doing the right thing in action on pay, leadership and representation. I want to see employers competing and innovating to be the best in the nation on gender equality. It's good business practice for businesses to be out there saying, 'This is what we are doing to advance equality between men and women in our workplace,' because that will be more attractive to the customers and clients of those businesses as well. All of this includes the Australian Public Service because we understand our obligation as well. Importantly, employers won't be required to collect any new data to facilitate this public reporting. There's no red tape involved here, no additional expenditure—just drawing from information that they already provide to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. At the same time, as a result of consulting closely with business and employers, we are working to streamline other reporting requirements in this area, meaning employers can focus on making progress, not completing paperwork. Above all, this legislation recognises the truth that the Labor movement and the Labor party have always known: fairness isn't inevitable. It doesn't just happen; people make it happen. People make it happen through conscious decisions, and my government is acting consciously to achieve greater equality and greater fairness throughout Australian society. If we just sit back and wait, wish and hope that the gender pay gap will close on its own, it will be another three decades before our nation achieves the equality that Australian women are due. One of the issues that we are also dealing with is the non-disclosure agreement principles whereby people should be entitled to have privacy about their pay if they choose to do so if the circumstances are appropriate. But the idea that someone is prevented from telling publicly what they are paid or telling other workers in their workplace—it's just extraordinary that that is still in place in 2023. That is just another part of the change. This legislation is about delivering that meaningful change and measurable progress. Today is of course not the end of the road. There is much further for us to travel and much more for us to do. But this bill is a chance for us to aim higher and to hold ourselves to that higher standard. It speaks to our government's commitment to building a better and more equal future for Australian women, and it's an economic reform that will benefit the entire nation. I'm proud to commend this closing the gender pay gap bill to the House. Debate adjourned. National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 27

National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 27 11:32 M 91219 Chifley r HUSIC (—) (): I move, with pleasure: That the amendments be agreed to. 11:32 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler This is a very good day indeed. Last night the Senate passed the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund legislation. This is one of the biggest ever investments in our nation's manufacturing capability and one of our key election commitments. Throughout the election campaign I made it very clear I want to see a future made in Australia. I want manufacturing jobs in Australia. I want value-adding here in Australia. Our resources sector has played such an important role for many decades, and we should continue to export our resources. But where possible we should value-add, because they're the options: export our resources, wait for the jobs to be created, wait for the value-add, then import it back at greater value—or can we do better than that? The lesson of the pandemic isn't just, 'Can we?'; it's 'We must do better than that,' because while we're at the end of global supply chains our economy is vulnerable. This legislation will support Australian innovation and Australian industry. Australia has always been good at innovation. We've been good at research; we've been good at breakthroughs. What we haven't been good at is commercialising those opportunities in order to maximise job creation in this country. This particularly will create jobs in our outer suburbs, like in the electorate of Aston; in our regions; and throughout the entire country as well. We're backing Australian manufacturing, creating more secure work for Australians. There are seven key areas the fund will invest in: renewables and low-emission technologies; medical science; transport; value-adding in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector; value-adding in resources; defence capability; and enabling capabilities. One of the things we know, and I'll be speaking at a conference in Western Australia on Sunday, is we have enormous benefit—just as we benefited from the resources we had in the 20th century and continue to have. The growth in areas like lithium, cobalt, nickel and copper is quite extraordinary. We have everything that goes into a solar panel and yet we don't make enough of them here. We make very few. We have everything that goes into a battery. Already 10 per cent of the automotive vehicles around the world have a lithium battery, but that process is set to accelerate massively. The Inflation Reduction Act in the United States is a powerful piece of legislation. If we don't compete, we will see capital sucked from Australia to the United States. We need to recognise the opportunities which are there to grow our economy and to grow jobs. Foreign investment can be one thing we harness as well to create jobs here in Australia. I met with Reliance, a major company in India, when I was there recently. They want to invest billions of dollars here in Australia, value-adding and creating jobs here in our region. There is an enormous opportunity to do so. We need to learn the lesson that was created when those opposite were in government and they told the car industry to leave Australia, because that had a massive impact on the economy. High-value manufacturing isn't just about the direct jobs that are created. One of the things that the AUKUS project is about isn't just the direct jobs. It's the multiplier impact throughout the economy that occurs. Most of those jobs will be in our regions, our outer suburban areas and those industrial estates in Western Sydney, eastern Melbourne, around the Hunter Valley, the Illawarra, around Western Australia and around Adelaide and the hub that we will establish there to build our nuclear powered submarines in the future. And they will be around Queensland. Just to give one example, Tritium in South-East Queensland is a company that produces the fastest electric vehicle charging station in the world. It's creating jobs in South-East Queensland. They have also set up a factory in Tennessee in the United States. I want us to make more things here. I think that is very much in Australia's interest. We need to harness that opportunity. The National Reconstruction Fund will use the Clean Energy Finance Corporation model not only to support private sector investment to support job creation; also, importantly, it will produce a return to taxpayers just like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation does. That is why this is such important legislation. I want to thank the crossbenchers in the House of Representatives and in the Senate for their support. They chose to participate in debate and to put forward their arguments, some of which were agreed to and some of which weren't. The ones that were consistent with the plan that we took to the election we were prepared to support as long as the integrity of what we put forward was maintained. It's beyond my comprehension why those opposite choose to be the observers of Australian politics rather than the participants, but that is what they have become with their relentless opposition to everything. Mr ALBANESE R36 The member for New England says they are participating at the moment pretty well. They should have a bit of a look at what happened on Saturday in New South Wales to see how well their brand is going at the moment. The Liberals and the Nationals lost seats to the Labor Party. The fact is that we will continue to put forward constructive ideas. We will continue to engage in this parliament to get things done. My government is absolutely committed to implementing the agenda that we took to the election. We received a mandate at that election, with a majority in this House of Representatives. This is very much in our national interest. I commend the bill to the House. I commend the amendments to the House as well. I conclude by congratulating my friend here, the Minister for Industry and Science, who has argued the case so strongly and so effectively for this important piece of legislation. It has been welcomed by industry and business, by unions and by those in communities who will benefit from the sort of growth that can occur. Just to give one example of what can occur, Maryborough in Queensland was a town that was not doing as well as it had in the past. When rail manufacturing was brought back to Maryborough, through the Downer EDI site, a manufacturing hub that has operated for more than a century—I've met workers there who are part of a third generation, workers whose father and grandfather have worked on the same site in Maryborough—that town is now thriving. Through the renewables sector, particularly renewables manufacturing, they are expanding, because that one big industry has meant skills that can then be used throughout advanced manufacturing, and these skills are attracting businesses and industry to the area. That is a town that is doing so well there in Central Queensland. That can be replicated around the country. Part of my vision for this country is cleaner, cheaper energy driving advanced manufacturing, with Australians being skilled up for those jobs. That is the future opportunity that we can take, if we have the courage, the vision and the insight to seize it. This legislation will facilitate that, and I commend it to the House. 11:41 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer The coalition will be opposing this bill, as amended by the Senate. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 remains significantly flawed, even with the amendments that the Senate agreed to. The government has, unfortunately, made a habit of rushing poorly considered legislation through the parliament. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill is no exception. This bill, as amended by the Senate, poses more questions than answers. Key issues remain. Consultation has been rushed. Parliamentary oversight has been sidestepped. Advice on critical matters was not sought by the government in their drafting of the bill, nor in their response to the amendments that were agreed to. Questions from the parliament remain unanswered, as debate was guillotined in the Senate last night. There is not a single clause or amendment in this legislation that will tackle: the high and rising costs of energy; a shortage of skilled workers; a disrupted supply chain,; or the red tape impacting our industries. This bill remains silent on these issues that are critical to the success of our manufacturers. Instead, it offers government loans and equities. Not once have I heard these called for by our industries. It is not their primary concern. This legislation, returned from the Senate, delivers on what the government arrogantly suggests our manufacturers need, while failing to address the pressures that our manufacturers urgently seek to resolve. In securing passage of this bill through the Senate last night, the government has made a desperate, dodgy deal with the Australian Greens, prohibiting the fund from investing into coal, gas or forestry projects. Yet, the government could not clearly articulate the implications of this amendment when asked in the Senate. Nor have they asked for any advice or consulted industry as they hastily accepted this really bad deal for our manufacturers. I can tell you that the implications are indeed dire. While the government states that the fund would never have invested in the particular industries now prohibited in this bill and reaffirmed by the other place, we were regularly reminded before the election about industries such as forestry that would actually be a beneficiary of this fund. This legislation, as passed by the Senate, prohibits investment into our important forestry sector, another broken promise from this government. When asked in the Senate how far-reaching these amendments will be down the forestry, gas or coal supply chains, the minister dithered and dodged, providing no assurances and no clear answers. This bill also lacks the appropriate transparency warranted by a fund of this scale, size and complexity. The Senate was ready to ask questions on behalf of industry, which is confused and concerned about this legislation. And yet the government chose to guillotine debate in order to avoid scrutiny. This legislation allows the National Reconstruction Fund $15 billion to invest in a wide range of industries, all with different risk profiles, market conditions and competitive pressures. Sensible amendments to introduce additional scrutiny measures were opposed by the government in the Senate. This bill before the House, as amended by the Senate, is a blank cheque for the minister to deliver on whatever priorities may be given at a given point in time. The minister suggests that this is a blue-collar bill, but the reality is that it's anything but. If the minister cared about blue-collar jobs he would put up a fight and address the crippling energy prices being made worse by his government. Instead, he just stays silent, just like this legislation does on this critical issue. This is a bad bill which does not respond to the questions and concerns raised through the limited consultation process with industry. This bad bill does not respond to the concerns raised by the opposition or, indeed, by the crossbench. For matters so critical to the future prosperity of Australia, there should always be an open approach to accountability, scrutiny and concern. We will be opposing this bill as amended by the Senate. 11:46 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley When I was walking into the chamber, I saw one of the members here and I thought straightaway about what we're trying to do in terms of the significance of this National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, and the impact of past decisions on this person's community. I thought about those people who took great pride in what they did in making things; seeing their products on Australian roads and knowing that they had a part in Aussie-made manufacturing. I thought of the member for Spence and his communities, particularly those at Elizabeth, who were hit hard by this whole waving away of the value of car manufacturing by the coalition when they were in government. I would have thought, friends, that after that hugely disruptive moment in time—blue-collar workers with their jobs upended, and all these other businesses reliant on the sector having their lives changed fundamentally by this callous disregard for Australia manufacturing by the coalition—that the coalition would have learnt. But they didn't. What we just had wasn't just justification; this was an excuse for the continued betrayal of Australian manufacturing by the shadow minister. It continues a legacy where they wave, with a white flag, Australian manufacturing offshore. They have not learnt a thing, friends, and they have stood in the way. What we had was a shadow minister speaking on behalf of a coalition which refused to engage. They just waved off and opposed straightaway a bill that would have backed Australian manufacturing. Their contribution has been scrawled on the rocks that have been thrown against this bill and the continuum of Australian politics that exists today. This side, Labor, builds; they wreck. Any time there's a nation-building moment, those opposite see it as their sole purpose to tear it down. We believe in building things up and they tear things down. The Prime Minister has championed the National Reconstruction Fund. This bill represents the will of the Prime Minister and those in our party who recognise a future made in Australia. We're determined to make sure that growth capital is available for all those people in the outer suburbs—the firms in the outer suburbs and the regions—who say that it's so hard to get backing and the capital that backs them to grow. So many of us on this side know that, and some on that side too. We want to make sure that it's available: us backing know-how, us backing ideas, us backing manufacturing, us backing business and us backing jobs. It's us backing us getting back up off the mat, where we are the lowest in manufacturing self-sufficiency in the OECD. We believe that we need this $15 billion financing vehicle as part of that broader push by us to rebuild our industrial capabilities so that we can be a country that makes things. Modern, large economies need capabilities in manufacturing to grow. We need those jobs, not just for now but for our kids and for their kids in the longer term. That's what this is about: securing our future prosperity and driving growth. It's about leveraging our natural and competitive strengths and providing finance in the priority areas that the Prime Minister has outlined: investments in projects to support, diversify and transform industry. I've already highlighted that the coalition stepped back. When they stepped back the crossbench stepped up and they engaged. As the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, we didn't agree on everything but we did agree on areas where we could work together. We wanted this to be a moment where the parliament did what the public expects: that we work together on the big problems facing the country and we come up with solutions and we did. From the committees that reviewed the bill, to industry stakeholders who prepared submissions and those here and in the other place who worked closely with the government on the bill to make it better we have produced a very strong bill indeed. In response to that feedback and our discussions with state governments, industry, unions, the crossbench and the Greens amendments have been made to this bill. The amendments include amendments to clause 17 of the bill to make it clear that the board's got to have regard to important things like creating secure jobs, creating a skilled and adaptable workforce, transforming Australian industry, helping meet Australia's greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Amendments to clause 75 require the corporation to develop policies on environmental labour, social and governance matters and how investments impact on our First Nations people. These sorts of broad policies represent modern best practice and we thank the stakeholders who raised these issues. We made amendments to clause 21, proposed by Senator Pocock, amending the term of board members from five to four years and a change to clause 91 seeing the first review of the act taking place by 31 December 2026. We've also agreed to amendments from Senator Tyrrell, on behalf of the Jacqui Lambie Network, to increase the size of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation board and ensure a balance of expertise and skills across the skills mix—again, best practice corporate governance. Finally, we did a bit of housekeeping in response to comments by the scrutiny committee, amending clause 90 to clarify CEO delegation powers. Again, the Albanese government wants to ensure that the National Reconstruction Fund is a nation building piece of legislation bringing the parliament together—very important. We need to address supply chains to ensure we have the products this country needs when we need them most and to help reduce inflation. We need to create more secure, well-paid jobs in the key industries that build our national strengths. We need to build capability, resilience and productivity in Australian manufacturing. We are delivering on our commitment today to the Australian people that we would set up the National Reconstruction Fund. It is an unashamedly modern approach to industry policy, leveraging our natural and competitive strengths and supporting the development of strategically important industries. I want to thank colleagues for their contribution to the debate. The engagement of the Greens and the crossbench throughout the whole legislative process is much appreciated. We know this is a moment in time where we can make a real difference for business, for jobs and for the nation longer term. It is a nation building endeavour, a major reform to back in Australian manufacturers which prioritises Australian industry through the National Reconstruction Fund, an unprecedented $15 billion investment in manufacturing capability. To the member for Spence and to all the other members here who represent manufacturing in all their electorates across the country, we are signalling to all those firms and all those workers that we have got your back. We will make sure that we back Australian ideas, that we back Australian firms and that we don't have firms leaving our shores because they feel like they don't have the support and the backing. Government, business, unions, the broader community working together to build a stronger economy, more jobs and prosperity, not just for our kids but for the kids that follow. This is a great moment in time. I thank everyone for their support on this bill. I commend it to the House. 11:53 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I urge the House to support these Senate amendments secured by the Greens, because it will stop public money going to coal, gas or logging our native forests. The Greens support manufacturing. The Greens support public investment in manufacturing. In fact, I wish the government had actually gone a bit further, because what we need to see in this country is more publicly owned manufacturing. Imagine how much better a position we would have been in to deal with the pandemic if we had a publicly owned vaccine manufacturer here in this country. I hope that, as part of this new board's mandate, they look at the options that are available to them and ensure that, when the Australian public invests in manufacturing, which we support, the Australian public also gets a decent return from that, including, where appropriate, the Australian public having a seat at the table on the decisions that get made. Some of the biggest advances in manufacturing in this country have come when there's publicly owned and invested control over manufacturing and when it's done for the public good rather than for private profit. During the course of the pandemic we have seen how absolutely critical that is. The significant investment in manufacturing that this bill will deliver, especially with the Greens amendment, is something we support, which is why we support the bill and also urge the House to accept these amendments. We know from bitter experience in the past that we need to write legislation not just for this government and its intentions but for future governments as well—future governments who may have a different view. We know that when we established the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, with the Greens, Labor and Independents working together to establish that success story, we had to put guardrails in it to ensure that money could not be spent from that fund on dirty energy. You would have thought, with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the name being in the title, that might have been clear enough. But we know we needed those guardrails in that and also in the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, because what we saw in the last term of the coalition government was them trying to use public funds that were meant for clean energy for gas and even coal, to try and redefine gas and coal as clean energy. That is why it is so critical that, if this authority and entity is going to stand the test of time and be there to support manufacturing and not be used as a slush fund by a future minister to bankroll coal and gas projects—like the previous government sought to do through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Renewable Energy Agency—we need to put the protections in law. I want to thank the minister and his office for their engagement on this to ensure that we futureproof this piece of important legislation to ensure that public money does not go to coal, to gas or to logging our native forests. In a time of climate crisis, public money should be going to renewables, public money should be going to public schools and public money should be going to public hospitals, but it should not be going to coal or gas or logging our native forest. What you will find through these amendments is that we've stopped public funding, through this entity, going to coal or gas or logging native forests. We've seen the Greens secure changes with respect to other public funds. We're going to work through all of these funds one by one to ensure that, in a time of climate crisis, public money is not going to make the climate crisis worse. I commend the amendments to the House. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments be agreed to.    

The House divided. [12:02]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 87 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. 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, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 55 NOES Archer, B. K. 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. Gee, A. R. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 34 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Resources Sector 34 Reference to Federation Chamber 40 12:47 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt By leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 41 MOTIONS Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop PEP11 and Protect Our Coast) Bill 2023 41

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop PEP11 and Protect Our Coast) Bill 2023

12:47 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I seek leave to move the following motion: 1. That the House notes that: a. in February this year, the Federal Court released consent orders in the litigation between the federal government and Asset Energy regarding the Petroleum Exploration Permit 11, which returned the project to further consideration by the joint authority; b. in February 2021, under the previous government, the Prime Minister and many representatives of this current government categorically stated that PEP11 would not proceed under their government; c. the quickest way to ensure that the licence is cancelled is by debating and passing the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop PEP11 and Protect our Coasts) Bill 2023; d. passing this bill will reduce the risk of litigation based on apprehended bias and provide the government with a legitimate mechanism to cancel exploration in the PEP11 area permanently; and e. the Prime Minister and the ALP voted to suspend standing orders to urgently bring on this bill for debate when in opposition. 2. That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent private members business order of the day No. 17, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop PEP11 and Protect Our Coast) Bill 2023, being called on immediately and given priority over all other business for final determination of the House. Leave not granted. Ms STEGGALL 175696 I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent private members business order of the day No. 17, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop PEP11 and Protect Our Coast) Bill 2023, being called on immediately and given priority over all other business for final determination of the House. This is an important motion. This motion must be debated today because it deals with vital issues—climate change, environmental destruction and the fate of the economy—for a significant portion of the east coast of Australia. We have just heard the resources minister and the shadow minister support further gas exploration. It is essential that this issue be resolved without delay, as so many in our communities demand it. Petroleum exploration permit 11, known as PEP-11, is a work bid permit granted under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. Petroleum exploration permit 11, PEP-11, is a licence for oil and gas exploration off our coast, covering some 4,575 square kilometres of ocean from Newcastle through to the Central Coast and down to Manly, coming as close at points as within five kilometres of our coast. The area covered is home to millions of people and significant biodiversity and is on a whale migration path. The community's wellbeing and local economy is tightly intertwined with the health of the ocean in this area. Last month the Australian government and Asset Energy agreed in legal proceedings to set aside the decision made by Scott Morrison in 2022 when he secretly took on the additional portfolio of resources. This means the application to extend and vary the PEP-11 licence is back before the federal minister for determination. The Warringah community and so many others along the coast are strongly against this application, and while this was a headache for the previous coalition government—with a love of gas exploration, a focus on gas and local MPs threatened by this project—the irony is it now impacts all seats that are held by either Independents or Labor government MPs. So the Prime Minister now has a problem. He is on the record at numerous demonstrations and rallies, as are many members in this House, making an election promise to oppose this licence and project. Now they need to make good on that promise without delay. This bill must urgently be debated because it will stop PEP-11 once and for all. When we hear statements in this House spruiking more gas exploration, it's incredibly important we deal with this issue without delay. This bill will ensure no future applications for any reason can be granted by the joint authority or titles administrator for the area covered by PEP-11. Without changes to the legislation, the joint authority's decision could be subject to further review or challenge. Questions around bias and apprehended bias will be made by those proponents, and they will remain, given previous statements made by the Prime Minister, numerous members of government and those impacted along the coast. There is a high likelihood proponents of the project will pursue litigation against the government regardless of the final decision by the joint authority, in light of comments made in the lead-up to the election. It's open to the government now at any time to make laws enabling and excluding activities in certain areas. This bill provides a much simpler and faster resolution of this issue. I urge the government and minister for resources to consider the merits of pursuing this route to cancellation, rather than the joint authority process. Our communities were promised that this licence would not proceed. The government must deliver on its promise. For so many reasons this should be debated without delay and this licence should not proceed. The project will affect communities from Newcastle, Shortland, Dobell, Robertson, Mackellar, Warringah and the broader Sydney coastal area. Our communities in the vicinity of PEP-11 know this and are adamantly opposed to any explanation or drilling for oil or gas. In February 2020 I tabled a petition of over 60,000 names calling for the cancellation of PEP-11. I've received hundreds of emails from concerned constituents. I thank Save Our Coast, Beyond Gas Network, Surfrider, Surfers for Climate and many other community organisations fighting against this project. Many are here today. Once PEP-11 is resolved we must turn our attention to all other exploration licences, but for today it is urgent, particularly in light of comments made in this chamber, that we debate the PEP-11 bill. This bill is for the millions of people that are living near PEP-11. It's for their continued wellbeing and economic prosperity. It's for our amazing diversity of animals and marine life and to protect them from the ravages of an oil spill. This bill is for the climate and for our children. It speaks to our commitment to net zero by 2050, and it should speak to the government's commitment. I urge the Prime Minister and the government to support this motion, to debate this bill, to pass this bill and to stay true to that election promise. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the motion seconded? 12:54 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar Yes, I second the motion to suspend standing orders as moved by the member for Warringah. This issue to extinguish the licence for PEP-11 needs to be urgently debated today. My electorate of Mackellar and the people up and down the coast of the northern beaches are absolutely horrified after being promised by both sides, by both large parties, at the last election that this was dead in the water—100 per cent, exclamation mark, full stop—and that there was no chance that this would go ahead. But here we are debating it again. We are still here. It needs to be urgently debated today because the people of Mackellar and all the other electorates that it affects have had this hanging over our heads for way too long, for year after year. We were promised that it was dead in the water, and now we know that it has gone back to the joint authority. This is not nearly good enough because it will give us no finality whatsoever. It will only assess the current companies' licences. It will leave the door wide open for future companies to take on this license. So we will have to fight this over and over again. Also, this current process of it being assessed by the joint authority leaves it open to being challenged in court again because of the argument of apprehended bias. We know that the Prime Minister, the minister for resources and all sides of government have publicly commented that they do not support it, so there would be a good reason to challenge this in court. We must have finality on this. I must say that people up and down the northern beaches will never accept this—never. It will be strongly opposed if any company wishes to go ahead. It will be vehemently opposed. We hear that there is a gas crisis. Let's be clear: there is no gas shortage in this country; it's just that up to 80 per cent of it is shipped overseas. We don't have a gas shortage in this country. Even in Japan, which is one of our greatest markets, in their latest strategic energy plan they are reducing their gas consumption by 30 per cent by 2030. The world is in transition. We are moving to the future. We are moving away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are the past. They are 20th century technology. Why are we hanging onto the past when we should be moving to a profitable future in renewables? We know that the whole world is transitioning. So why do we have people hanging onto the fossil fuel past? It is time to move forward to a profitable future. The people of Mackellar and up and down the coastline want some absolute certainty on this. We cannot keep debating it. We have been promised by both sides of parliament. Now is the time to act. This amendment is the way to get some finality and some certainty around this. It's time to move on and move into the future. The transition is on. Let's do it. Let's make a profitable future for our country. It's time to debate this now, with no more delays. 12:58 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I'll open by explaining the reasons why the government will oppose the suspension of standing orders. But, in doing so, I want to indicate the utmost respect for both the member for Warringah and the member for Mackellar and the reasons they wanted to bring this forward. The position that the Albanese government finds itself in regarding the PEP-11 licence is simply because of an indefensible administrative process that was undertaken by the previous government. Both the New South Wales government and the Australian government are required, under law, to consider any future decision on PEP-11 in a manner that's fair and in accordance with proper procedure. While I respect the member for Warringah's bill, which proposes an alternative pathway—that is, that rather than it being dealt with under current law it be dealt with through parliamentary debate—the government intends to consider the PEP-11 application under current law. Going back to the reason we are in this situation, the member for Cook took an extraordinary course of action when he was Prime Minister. He provided an ongoing commentary on official decisions of government and then took a portfolio for himself. The member for Cook expressed a view on the project and then intervened on an official decision to end the project. That's not a defensible process, and, as a result, we as a government weren't able to defend the decisions of the previous government when they were being considered in the Federal Court. We're not going to involve ourselves in a similar abuse of procedure. Any decision that is with the current minister and any decision that the minister makes will be based on the facts and consistent with legislation. This is the approach that any responsible government would take. It's a basic competency that the Australian public expect of their elected representatives. In terms of the straight procedural issue of whether we give this precedence over other legislation, I'm wanting the House to be able to return to the gender equality bill. I do believe that under current law we have an appropriate process of being able to deal with PEP-11, but we have nothing under current law that allows us to deliver the various issues that we're wanting to deliver on the gender equality bill. I'll leave time in case anyone else wants to contribute, but for those reasons the government will be opposing the suspension. 13:01 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I support the words of both the member for Warringah and the member for Mackellar. In the lead-up to the last federal election, Anthony Albanese told voters: A Labor Government that I lead will rule out PEP-11— and said: My position on PEP-11 is clear. It's a bad idea and only a Labor government will stop it. No ifs, no buts. He even reiterated to parliament: This … project should be consigned to the dustbin of history, where it belongs … This is a complete no-brainer. Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, talked a big game in opposition about stopping the toxic offshore oil and gas drilling project, PEP-11, but, contrary to his election promise, all we've heard from the Prime Minister are excuses. The Prime Minister's claim that PEP-11's fate is now a matter of regulatory procedure is an absolute cop-out. His government has the power to legally kill the project. Anthony Albanese could at least personally assure the communities that rallied to stop PEP-11 that the Prime Minister will fight to uphold his election promise. This is a serious test for the Prime Minister and the government. Is he going to stay true to his words on stopping this grossly unpopular climate bomb, or is he going to pander to fossil fuel companies and hide behind excuses of procedure or propriety? Not only is this project affecting the New South Wales coastal areas which the members for Warringah and Mackellar and others represent; it affects all of us. So it should be consigned to the dustbin of history, as the Prime Minister said. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The question is that the motion be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [13:07]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Georganas)

 47 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Birrell, S. J. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Chesters, L. M. Coker, E. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Garland, C. M. L. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Hill, J. C. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, L. S. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Repacholi, D. P. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Sukkar, M. S. Tehan, D. T. Templeman, S. R. Thompson, P. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. van Manen, A. J. Violi, A. A. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. 14 NOES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. (Teller) Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 44 BILLS Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 44

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

Second Reading 44 13:11 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina by leave—Yesterday, when I opened my contribution to this, I quoted my daughter's Facebook page, in which she quoted that famous women's empowerment line: Here's to strong women. May we know them. May we be them. May we raise them. Indeed, we want to have strong women. We want to have women, be they strong or whatever, getting the same pay for the same job, and that is why the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 is important. It is important for any number of reasons but mostly for equity, for equality and for fairness. The parliament should always be about equity, equality and fairness. No technical change, as I said last night, is required of employers in terms of reporting processes, and that is important because we do not want to have a burden placed on businesses already doing it tough with red tape, doing it tough with changing legislation. Presently, organisations with more than 100 employees must provide remuneration data to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. The main change is to allow the WGEA to publish this data publicly by organisation as opposed to just industry type. It is vital to note that businesses in Australia were first required to report this data to the WGEA under this act from New Year's Day 2013. The reporting requirements for businesses are nothing new. This is a set of reforms that, had we been in government, we would be introducing, as we committed to implementing it. We provided $18½ million in funding to ensure these steps could and would be taken, and we proudly take ownership of these reforms. I know that often a lot is made about the other side being pure in spirit and sometimes us being not so—for reasons unknown to me! But we did provide that funding and we did commit to making these changes. That's why, obviously, we support this. We have a longstanding track record of achievement in reducing the gender pay gap, as well as in boosting workforce participation by women to record highs. In fact we only have to look at the record of the former federal coalition government: 815,600 female business operators as at August 2021. We have to remember that that was at the height—or maybe 'depth' would be a better word—of the global pandemic, the COVID-19 virus, when it was so hard for small businesses. This was despite that. I still remember the news of the first death from COVID-19, James Kwan, on 1 March 2020 and the rippling effect that had, not just on those who sat around the table and implemented the measures by which we were going to combat the effects of the virus as a nation but indeed right throughout the nation. The JobKeeper measures, brought in so brilliantly by the former member for Kooyong, saved 700,000 jobs and 11½ million Australians benefited from tax relief. Many of those jobs, and much of that tax relief, were about women. You could almost argue that most were women. We were proud, and still are, of our achievements for women in the workplace. At the time we had eight women in cabinet, and that was the most ever. I know that a lot is made by those opposite about the number they have in the parliament—and, good on them: we need more women in parliament, and I acknowledge the two women sitting opposite me now. At the time, 50.2 per cent of government board positions were held by women. Here's an interesting statistic: more than half of the government board positions under us were held by women, and that was up from 41.7 per cent under Labor prior to 2013. That's something that I think we should be proud of, and it's something that we are proud of. The fact is that we increased that number. I know that the media makes a lot of play about female participation and the numbers of females with those opposite, sitting in the parliament and on the front bench, but our achievement is something that we should be very proud of. I just want to talk about the wonderful women that I, as the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, gave powerful positions to. That was not because I just wanted to do it as a tokenistic measure but because they earned those jobs. They deserved those jobs and they will continue to make a huge contribution to our society. I'll mention Julieanne Alroe, who was chair of Infrastructure Australia, and the role that she played in that important position. Pip Spence continues to be an outstanding chief executive officer and Director of Aviation Safety with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. And Romilly Madew was the chief executive officer at Infrastructure Australia. Those are three dynamic, vibrant women—can-do females who will continue to make and take bold, brave and good decisions to help Australia be its best self. As I understand it, they were the first females to occupy those three positions that I mentioned. I gave them those roles, and I gave them those roles because they deserved them—they earned them. But if we take the clock back 10 or 15 years, perhaps those three leaders would not have got those positions because of the glass ceiling which, unfortunately, existed back then. We can look at someone like Lea Vesic, who is taking great strides in aviation. Aviation has been—some might argue continues to be—a very male-dominated sector, particularly at the highest levels. I am proud of what Ms Spence has done but what Lea Vesic, who is running an airline pilot academy in Melbourne, has done for female participation in aviation is second to none, getting women not only behind the controls of planes but also doing jobs on the tarmac, doing jobs in airport terminals, doing jobs in aviation. Lea was my aviation adviser when I was the transport minister and did a marvellous job, and I wish her all the best for the future. This is another coalition record: 90 per cent of families had access to a childcare subsidy of between 50 and 85 per cent. That was our record and is a record of which we are very proud. In 2021, the coalition government commissioned a review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act. In 2022, in the women's budget statement, the coalition also provided, as I said before, $18½ million dollars to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to support the implementation of recommendations from that particular review. It is interesting if you look at that review, which was released in March 2022. It concluded that the gender pay gap in Australia was not closing at a fast enough rate. Almost similarly, we are taking great strides and making great progress in closing the gap for the Indigenous population but we need to do better in this regard too. I stand here and admit that. Whilst there has been a lot of work in progressing women's economic equality in Australia, there has also been slow progress on closing the gender pay gap, with progress stalling at 22.8 per cent in 2021 and 2022. Women's superannuation is often talked about by members on both sides. This is difficult because women, obviously, sometimes—in the past certainly—have been the major caregivers in a family, often during those years where a male—generally—really gets that superannuation lump sum increased. The women in the past haven't had that opportunity because of the fact that they have taken leave from work—in some cases unpaid—to have children, to raise them and to rear them. I know we have come a long way. My mother, Beverley Shaw, a wonderful woman, often tells me about how in the past the moment women got married or, in some cases, fell pregnant, that was it; they were then required to step down from the workplace. She tells horrendous stories about women having to go to their male boss to get a key just to go to the toilet. I mean, that is extraordinary. But the work she has done in Wagga Wagga as a marriage celebrant and, perhaps more importantly, as the person who officiates at funeral services, has been very well received. I and our city thank her for her efforts. After the coalition came to government in 2013, we created around 1.9 million jobs. 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. That is compared to 58.7 per cent when we took government in 2013. The gender pay gap reached 13.8 per cent under the coalition, down from the 17.4 per cent it sat at under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. We delivered landmark funding—$5½ billion dollars for women through our two women's budget statements. That is a good record and that is a record that won't be shouted from the rooftops because everything, it seems, that we did, certainly under the Morrison years, has been demonised and condemned. But let me tell you that I steadfastly maintain that we were a good government. We helped women. Could we have done better? Yes, of course we could have. Could the Albanese government do better? Yes, of course it could. Let's hope it will. Let's hope this bill is part of the way that we can continue to further progress women's participation in the economy and close the gender pay gap. I thank those brave, bold and visionary women who do so much for our economy and so much for our communities and our families. 13:25 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I think a starting point for this debate on the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 is to reflect on all of those women who have come before us in this place to advance women's equality in politics and public life and who have been such staunch advocates for gender equality in workplaces everywhere across this country. I think of Joan Child, the former member for Henty. Joan, like me, represented the eastern suburbs of Melbourne and was the first woman from the Labor Party to be elected to the House of Representatives. It does cause me quite a bit of grief to reflect that it took until 1975 for the Labor Party to elect a woman to the federal House of Representatives in this country, but I'm really delighted that since that point progress has happened fairly rapidly. Of course, it was a Labor Party prime minister, Julia Gillard, who was the first—and only, sadly—woman to occupy that position, and I'm very honoured to be one of the many women to comprise a government that is a historic government in that a majority of women, 52 per cent, sit in the government party room. While it's great for us to reflect on all of the progress that has been made so far for women in this country, the reality is that there is a long way to go. While it was really wonderful to have the Prime Minister come here and talk about our commitment as a government to equality and the things that we've already done, it is really clear that there is a long way for us as a nation to go in having genuine gender equality in workplaces and communities. Earlier today, the report on the national attitudes to violence against women was released, and, appallingly, one in three people surveyed believe that women make up claims of sexual assault, even though the evidence suggests that this is absolutely not true. Clearly, we need to do more to shift community attitudes when it comes to respecting women, believing women and doing all we can as a society to bring about genuine, meaningful gender equality right across our communities. Even though it has improved somewhat, we still have a gender pay gap of 13.3 per cent, which is too great, and we still see inequality in workplaces across the country, which has given rise to the need to change the Workplace Gender Equality Act to make sure that the way we report on gender equality is improved, that we have better data and that we capture more information at a workplace level so that we get a much clearer picture of where we're at as a nation to inform how we get to where we need to be, which is true equality. The reforms in his bill will be a key driver for employer action, transparency and accountability, helping to speed up progress towards gender equality in the workplace, and it will also streamline reporting for employers. For the first time, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, WGEA, will report gender pay gaps at the employer level, not just at the industry level. That will help encourage companies to prioritise gender equality and work to close their gender pay gap, accelerating progress towards gender equality, which I believe everyone in this House does wants to see. I'm really pleased that this is one of many parts of the government's suite of changes to truly address gender equality and workforce participation. This sits alongside our legislation to make child care cheaper, which will encourage more women to go back into workplaces where families have made the decision that child care is not affordable if that were to be the case. We've also made some important changes to paid parental leave to give more flexibility to families, again—(Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. As your speech was interrupted, you will be given permission to continue when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 46 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Fairfax Electorate 46 13:30 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax There are fewer greater honours than to represent people in this chamber, in Australia's parliament. I can't tell you how grateful I am every single day to represent the people of Fairfax on Australia's beautiful Sunshine Coast. Together, as a community, we have already achieved so much. When I was first elected the message I received from the community was to focus on infrastructure. I am delighted to report that since then we have had enormous wins: $3.2 billion for the Bruce Highway, $390 million for the North Coast rail line, a $180 million concessional loan for the Sunshine Coast Airport, $160 million for the Sunshine Motorway, a $1.6 billion commitment for rail through to the Maroochydore CBD. But you can't just be thinking about what has been committed or delivered, you have to look to the future and that's why I launched the biggest survey. I am calling on residents across Fairfax to tell me what they want my priority to be as their federal MP as we move forward. Already over 1,400 people in Fairfax have responded to the biggest survey. It is going to stay open until the end of April. Please go to tedobrien.com.au and have your say. Pakistan 46 13:31 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I rise to speak about the concerns raised with me by many of my constituents who have written regarding the current political situation in Pakistan, in particular they are concerned about the postponement of provincial elections in Punjab, Pakistan's largest province. This has led to fears amongst many in Pakistan and the diaspora communities about threats to democracy and stability. My constituents are also very concerned about the treatment of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and members of the PTI party. I note that Australia's high commissioner recently met senior members of the opposition, including Mr Khan. Respect for constitutional mandates and the right to hold free and fair elections on time stands as the basis of functioning democracies. With Pakistan being a very important country to our regional stability and to global peace and security people are very worried. The Australian government continues to call on all parties to adhere to the rule of law and to respect and promote human rights for all. The Australian high commission in Islamabad continues to closely monitor developments in Pakistan, including for any security or consular implications for Australians in Pakistan. I want to join with my community in urging and calling for calm and peaceful elections, for respect for the rule of law and for justice and dignity in Pakistan. Outback Way 47 13:33 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to welcome the team representing the Australian Outback Way, Australia's longest shortcut to the House. The Outback Way is a journey through the heart of Australia, a 2,700 kilometre road through some of the most remote and iconic country—harsh desert, vast floodplains, huge pastoral stations and Aboriginal lands. It links Laverton in my electorate of O'Connor to Winton in Queensland via the Red Centre. It was a dream of Patrick Hill, President of the Shire of Laverton, who's here in the House today—g'day to Pat, who would be in the gallery if he'd got tickets in time!—Councillor Jack Carmody of Perentie Downs Station; Marty Seelander of the Pakaanu Aboriginal Corporation and Peter Craig, President of the Shire of Leonora. Twenty-five years ago Pat moved a motion at the Australian Local Government Association conference to seal the route from Laverton to Winton and The Outback Way dream was born. Since then the five shires of Laverton and Ngaanyatjarraku in O'Connor, the shire of Alice Springs in Lingiari, and the shires of Boulia and Winton in Maranoa have worked as a single Outback Highway Development Council. Led by General Manager Helen Lewis, they have secured over $1.2 billion in state, territory and federal funding to literally pave this way across Australia. I congratulate Helen, Pat and the team on 25 years of hard yakka. I invite you to learn more about The Outback Way at their afternoon tea presentation, which will be hosted by the member for Lingiari—who was here a minute ago and has just stepped out—and myself in Senate committee room five at 4 pm. Kerin, Hon. John Charles, AO 47 13:34 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa This morning I was informed of the passing of the former member for Werriwa, the Hon. John Kerin AO. Mr Kerin was elected to the federal parliament as the member for Macarthur in 1972, losing in the 1975 election. On Gough Whitlam's retirement in 1978, Mr Kerin was elected as the member for Werriwa. He represented the seat for 15 years and was in this parliament for 18. John Kerin grew up in rural Australia and worked in the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics while juggling a double degree in Arts and Economics. John Kerin helped transform Australia as a minister in the Hawke-Keating Labor governments, serving as Minister for Trade and Overseas Development, as Minister for Transport and Communications, as Treasurer, and as Minister for Primary Industries and Energy for eight years—the longest in Australian parliamentary history. His work was pivotal in helping implement the reformist agenda of the Hawke-Keating governments, and his contribution to Australia will always be remembered and recognised. In 2001 he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for his service to this parliament. I recognise Mr Kerin's commitment and contribution to our community. He was the first member for Werriwa that I got the opportunity to vote for. I pass on my sincere condolences to Mr Kerin's family and his friends at this time. National Library of Australia: Trove 47 13:36 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan The National Library is pleading that without additional government support it's going to be forced to shut it's incredibly important and popular resource Trove by July. Trove is the free online service that provides public access to collections from Australian libraries, universities, museums, galleries and archives. Many in Ryan have contacted me, very concerned, as Trove is essential to them. The numbers tell the story: Trove has more than 22 million visits per year and is one of only two Australian government websites in Australia's top 15 global internet domains—the other is the ABC. This threat to the public's access to nationally significant collections is emblematic of the decades-long bipartisan funding starvation Australia's national collecting institutions—not just inconvenient but undemocratic. The arts minister mentioned at the Woodford Folk Festival that financial decisions about the cultural institutions weren't going to be dealt with at the January culture policy announcements, and he mentioned it again recently in parliament and media interviews, so I hope that means they will be dealt with in the upcoming budget. I implore the minister and the government to properly fund this important resource or we will be seriously abandoning the researchers and writers, the family historians, the school students, and everyone needing access to this incredible cultural archive. Kerin, Hon. John Charles, AO 48 13:37 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I also rise to mark the passing of a great Australian and, more recently, a great Canberran. Born in Bowral in 1937, John Kerin began his career on the family farm before going on to work in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. As the member for first Macarthur and then Werriwa, he would hold a suite of ministries. He played a critical role in advancing the Hawke government's economic agenda. In post-parliamentary life, John served across a range of science bodies, including CSIRO and a clutch of CRCs, as well as UNICEF and the Crawford Fund, lending his expertise and wisdom. He is recognised in the ANU Alumni Hall of Fame. His approach to public policy in his own words was to: Analyse, read, work, think creatively, always think beyond the immediate by standing back and taking on board the views of others John dedicated his recent memoir to all the good people who enter the political fray and work to make things better, but particularly those of the Australian Labor Party. For the last decade I've been privileged to be a member of the same branch as John—the mighty Woden branch. He remained firm in his views on the importance of members being connected to their local areas. In May last year, John helmed the Garran booth, providing support to both myself and the member for Canberra. Our condolences to June and to all who love this extraordinarily decent man. Myelofibrosis 48 13:39 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth Today I'd like to speak about Murray, a constituent of mine in Wentworth. Murray is 41 and suffers full myelofibrosis, a deeply serious condition which requires a bone marrow transplant. Murray is not alone: more than 600 people will receive a lifesaving blood stem cell donation this year, some before their first birthday. There are more than 160,000 registered donors on the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Register, but that's not enough. The register is shrinking because more people are ageing out of the donor pool than new people joining it, and the pool is not big enough. There are three times as many donor searches as transplants each year, meaning that three in four patients failed to find a match. This is partly because the donor pool is often older and less diverse than the Australian population, which means that patients like Murray must look overseas. This is difficult, time-consuming and expensive. The good news is that it's easy to become a donor. All it takes is a cheek swab, and it's easy for government to support a massive cheek swab rollout. The register already has funding and resources; it just needs agreement from state and territory health ministers. I have written to the ministers about this issue, and I'm calling on them to do the right thing. It's a no-brainer: if other countries can do this, so can we. Let the register roll out cheek swabs so that we can get more and more transplants, and help to save lives. National Reconstruction Fund 48 13:40 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Today is an historic day. Today, in this place, we passed the National Reconstruction Fund. This is the largest government investment in industry since World War II. What does the National Reconstruction Fund mean for Australia? Jobs, jobs and jobs. And not just any jobs: good jobs, secure jobs and well-paid jobs. They're Aussie jobs, jobs that our kids can be proud of and jobs that will exist in the year 2100. The pandemic taught us how fragile our supply chains were, and we discovered how much of our essential goods were made overseas. We saw skills shortages across the world and supply routes were unreliable. I particularly remember when the rail network between WA and South Australia was flooded and the shelves were bare in WA. And now we have the war in Ukraine. In addition to this, WA has been addicted to the boom-bust cycle of commodities, but we're now at a time when Australia must become a more advanced and diversified economy. I started my career in steel capped boots on a mine site, and I'm proud of the innovation that has been created in the mining sector against Australia's harsh outback conditions. However, the National Reconstruction Fund will take us further, and it makes sense that we should add value to what we mine. The people of Swan tell me that they want to see more things made in Australia: if we can make it here, we should. Women's National Basketball League: Townsville Fire 48 13:42 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert How good are the Townsville Fire? When it comes to sport, it's pretty special to take victory in enemy territory. It's even better when it's a premiership-winning victory. That's what happened last Wednesday night in Melbourne, as the Townsville Fire took out the Women's National Basketball League for the fourth time in the local club's history. It was an absolutely emphatic win against the Southside Flyers after a dominant season on the court. The match was the second victory in a row of the best of three games in the grand final series. Even more amazing, it was the Fires' 16th straight win of the season, with the side unbeaten for the 76 days leading up to the final match. The Fire were a point behind, 58 to 57, early in the fourth quarter, but quickly turned the game on its head to finish with a comfortable 82 to 69 win, with Steph Reid contributing a massive 28 points. So this afternoon I want to give massive congratulations to the Townsville Fire for an amazing season. We look forward to seeing them do this again next year. They've had a period of rebuilding since they last brought home the silverware, in 2018, but they dug deep and absolutely deserve this hardfought accolade. It has been fantastic to see Townsville fire up and paint the town orange, as we proudly got behind our national basketball team. Just before my time ends, I would also like to acknowledge the veterans who are here today. Thank you for joining us during question time. Macquarie University: Girls to Graduates Program 49 13:43 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to Associate Professor Taryn Jones and the Girls to Graduates project, engaging and empowering women to succeed in the STEM program at Macquarie University for their successful funding through the women in STEM and entrepreneurship program. Macquarie University's Girls to Graduates program was just one of 17 projects nationwide to receive funding in this scheme. Their program focuses on the inclusive principles of engagement, encouragement and empowerment to bring together school, academic and industry partners to promote the participation of girls and women in STEM education and careers. The funding will allow them to run important initiatives, such as sponsored STEM holiday program placements in their Macquarie Junior Science Academy Program for girls from equity backgrounds; STEM learning and leadership opportunities for high school girls from low-socioeconomic backgrounds; and establishing a new equity pathway and scholarship scheme to support entry into undergraduate STEM programs. Despite progress in recent years, women are still significantly underrepresented in STEM careers, and this gender gap is even more pronounced in entrepreneurship. The women in STEM and entrepreneurship grant is an excellent initiative to address this issue. I'm glad to see the success of programs such as this and the Girls to Graduates program in promoting diversity and inclusion in the STEM field, particularly at Macquarie University in my home community in Bennelong. Forde Electorate: Sporting Clubs 49 13:45 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde As all my colleagues in this House would well know, one of the great joys of going around our electorates is visiting our local sporting clubs. I've got 50-odd great sporting clubs right across the electorate of Forde. As we move from the summer sports of cricket and baseball, we move into the winter sports of football. In the past couple of weeks I've had the pleasure of attending the Souths Logan Magpies season launch and seeing some of our great football clubs, like Logan Lightning and the Bethania Rams, start their season. Logan Lightning have had a lightning start to the season and sit on top of the table after four rounds. It was also great to catch up recently with my sporting club presidents at some drinks I held for them in my office to hear the challenges that they're seeing across their various clubs, whether it be netball, baseball, our local motocross club or our local equestrian club. All of these clubs have different challenges but provide a great contribution to our community. I see the Treasurer has wandered into the House. We both attended the Souths Logan Magpies season launch. It was a great event, and he was presented with the No. 1 jersey, so congratulations to the Treasurer! Can I say all of the clubs, to the presidents, to their committees, to all the volunteers that make these clubs operate every year: congratulations and have a wonderful season. Canberra Electorate: Canberra Forum 49 13:46 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to update the House on the Canberra Forum, my deliberative democratic panel, which I'm running with the support of democracyCo, who are generously donating their time to run this Australian first, where 40 randomly selected Canberrans are going to advise me on a topic of their choice. I can report that, since I last updated the House, they have chosen their topic, which is: what can the federal government do to improve affordable housing? It is surely a topic at front of mind for so many Australians at the moment. I also want to thank my colleagues the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, and the Minister for Housing, Julie Collins, who gave their time to address the group, and we had a really great discussion. I again want to thank the participants for the time they have put into this, including last Saturday, where we had a meeting all afternoon and we had a great discussion with the Minister for Housing. Right at this moment we are trying to get through this parliament our Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. It is critically important to get this done so that we can assist Australians with the housing crisis they are currently facing. The Canberra Forum process shows just how important this issue is for Canberrans. They considered a range of topics, including transitions to renewable energy and no-one being left behind, to community voices being heard in parliament, to other topics they were really interested in, but this one came to the top. Richie's Rainbow Foundation 50 13:48 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I rise to update the House on the incredible success of childhood cancer charity Richie's Rainbow Foundation. It was established after local little legend Richie Walsh tragically lost his battle with cancer. Richie was just nine years old. Mum Lisa and dad Karl Walsh and their children Melissa, Luke and Layla vowed that Richie's strength, courage and bravery would never be forgotten, so Richie's Rainbow was created. As you might have also guessed from the name, Richie loved rainbows. On Sunday 26 March, Richie's Rainbow celebrated their first birthday with a fun walk at Lota Park along the Wynnum Manly foreshore. And what a fantastic event it was. I, along with my team, local schools and 300 walkers united to help raise funds and awareness for childhood cancer research. I'm excited to share that, from this event, Richie's Rainbow has raised over $14½ thousand and still counting. This is on top of over $100,000 they have already raised and donated to childhood cancer research in their first year of operation. No child should ever die from childhood cancer, and I'm proud to support Richie's Rainbow as they work to make this a reality. International Women's Day 50 13:49 Dr RE 300126 Robertson ID () (): I rise to acknowledge International Women's Day this month and the continued fight for women's rights, gender equality, reproductive rights and the elimination of violence and abuse against women. With that, I want to talk about the amazing women in my life, starting with Shaylee Hilton, the love of my life, a speech pathologist who treats children with disability; my mum, Leanne Reid, a compassionate and loving woman and a small business owner; her mother, Elaine, Rowan, who opened up her home and cared for foster children for most of her life; my auntie, Robyn Reid, who most of the people in this chamber know, a well-known ALP celebrity and Mingaletta elder; and Grace, my sister, a proud Wiradjuri woman and dental student. I also acknowledge the women in our office: Jo Lloyd, Cherie Pulley, Bernadette Cox and Joley Laingmaid. They do so much for our Central Coast family every day to make our community a better place. These are strong, intelligent, empathetic people who are capable of changing the world, and they make our world a better place. Albanese Government 50 13:51 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Labor has abandoned Melbourne's outer east. Local residents tell me about skyrocketing inflation, cost-of-living pressures and mortgage stress. They worry about their children's mental health and their parents' future in aged care. They're concerned about their small business and rising energy prices. This government has offered nothing to ease this pressure. In fact, they have cut programs and funding in the outer east. This Labor government has ripped millions of dollars out of desperately needed infrastructure projects like the roads to community road sealing program in the Dandenong and Yarra ranges. They have set back the traffic congestion problems in Casey and in Aston, cutting funding for the Wellington Road and the Napoleon Road duplications, Dorset Road extension and Rowville rail. The good people of Aston have an opportunity on Saturday to send this out-of-touch government a message. They have the chance to elect a smart and passionate woman to fight for them in Aston. Roshena Campbell will always listen and will always fight for the people of Aston. If Roshena Campbell comes to Canberra, I have no doubt she will represent her community with dedication and diligence. She will tell the government that they should never take the outer east for granted. The people of Aston have a chance to send this out-of-touch government and out-of-touch Prime Minister a message on Saturday, and I urge them to support Roshena Campbell so they have a strong voice fighting for them in Canberra. Hawke Electorate: Industrial Relations 50 13:52 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Workers at Melton City Council will tomorrow stop work as part of protected industrial action. Like most communities, Melton had an enormously challenging few years with COVID-19, through which council staff worked exceptionally hard to support our community. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty and hardship, our community knew that council staff would provide the foundation of support and encouragement they so desperately needed. Providing this support despite the high turnover of staff and the workforce impacts of COVID-19 has caused enormous personal and professional stress for council staff over the past couple of years. During the same period, the City of Melton has run a surplus of almost $300 million per financial year, approximately 60 per cent of their operating income. Despite the obvious financial capacity, Melton City Council has refused to recognise the contribution of its workers with fair pay and conditions and bring wages into line with similar and surrounding councils. The Australian Services Union is organising workers to stop work tomorrow as they return to the bargaining table. The ASU is calling on Melton City Council to put forward an enterprise agreement that ensures they can attract and keep staff so that our community can continue to be served by this extraordinarily dedicated workforce. I thank all the workers at Melton City Council for their hard work and thank the ASU for defending their right to fair pay and conditions. Fisher Electorate: Infrastructure 51 13:53 Mr 265967 Fisher WALLACE () (): Building infrastructure which boosts our digital and mobile connectivity is crucial if we want to encourage growth in our regions. Mobile phone reception has been a big problem for the communities within my electorate of Fisher. In six years, the coalition delivered mobile phone service upgrades from Conondale to Caloundra South, from Glenview to Glass House. We didn't just talk about digital infrastructure; we actually built it. But there's more work to do. Alongside my community, I've been fighting for better mobile phone reception in the Glass House Mountains, Beerburrum and Beerwah areas. I've spoken with service providers and put the Sunshine Coast hinterland at the top of the list of every relevant grant process. When the government had the opportunity to fix the problem, they opted instead to play politics. Nearly three-quarters of upgrades were in Labor seats, at the expense of communities in need. What a disgrace! Once again we have a federal Labor government abandoning regional Australians for petty political games. Madame Deputy Speaker, I do want to take this opportunity to welcome to the chamber all of the veterans with whom we today commemorated the 50-year anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. Thank you for joining us today. Federation 51 13:55 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Today is a very important day in the history the nation. On 29 March 1901, 122 years ago, the first ever federal election was held and the colonies that made up this continent came together as one in our first federal parliament. Interestingly, this election took place over two days, with Queensland and South Australia not heading to the polls until 30 March. Because there were not yet any federal laws, voting followed the processes of individual states. This resulted in different voting methods and was the reason voting was split up over two days. Madam Deputy Speaker, in those days electorates were huge. My electorate of Hunter included the whole of the Hunter, from Murrurundi in the north-west to Port Stephens on the east coast. And, because the population of Australia was less than four million, electorates had only thousands, and sometimes only hundreds, of electors. I know there are a few in this place who might wish that were still the case! Seventy-five members and 36 senators were elected at the first federal election. The Hunter holds a proud piece of this history. Not only is the Hunter one of the founding electorates of this parliament but our first Prime Minister, Sir Edmund Barton, served as the member for Hunter, a title that I am now honoured to hold in this House. Tobias, Hon. Murray Herbert, AM RFD KC 51 13:56 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise today to speak about a giant of a man and a giant of the legal world in New South Wales. I speak of the Hon. Murray Herbert Tobias AM RFD KC, who passed away on 4 March this year. At Murray's funeral, his daughter and grandsons spoke beautifully about Murray the dad and grandad. I can only speak of him in my capacity of having briefed him on many occasions when he was a silk and I was a junior solicitor. His kindness to and support and encouragement of me will always be appreciated. Murray was one of the first practitioners in the planning and environmental law jurisdiction in our state. Having been admitted to practice in 1964, he then took silk in 1978, finishing his career on the bench. At his funeral, Her Excellency the Hon. Margaret Beazley, Governor of New South Wales, spoke of his support for women at the bar, particularly his support for her when, in the early 1970s, there was very little mentoring and support of our pioneering female barristers. I know the Hon. Justice Sandra Duggan has always spoken of his mentoring of her and how she owes so much of her career and success to Murray. Others at his funeral included legal luminaries Tim Hale SC, Malcolm Craig KC, Peter McClellan AM KC and the clerk of the leading Land and Environment Court floor in Sydney, Michele Kearns. Murray was a prolific letter writer, having recently written to one of his grandchildren, 'Stand straight, meet the challenges of life, be sensitive to others, conduct yourself with integrity and humility. Vale, Murray Tobias. (Time expired) National Reconstruction Fund 52 13:58 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence What a great day it is to be the member for Spence! The community, my community, are supercharged, excited, lit up. That's because of the passage this morning of the legislation for the NRF, a $15 billion fund that will see the revival of manufacturing in my home state of South Australia. This is going to deliver a better green-tech industry, a better high-tech industry, better ag tech and better medical tech. It's going to improve the transport industry—and a big shout-out to my TWU friends up in the Speaker's gallery today. This is a fantastic day. My people, my constituents, have been waiting for something for quite some time. The passage of the NRF bill does exactly that. We on this side of the chamber are celebrating. To the Minister for Industry and Science, quite aptly the member for Chifley: today is a light on the hill moment for those in the manufacturing industry. I've got one last thing to say, Mr Speaker. I'm disappointed in those opposite. I'm extremely disappointed in the member for Sturt, the member for Barker and the member for Grey. Opposition members interjecting— Mr BURNELL 300129 You continue to leave our people in our great state of South Australia lagging behind. Well, today we corrected that record; we set it straight. PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 52 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS Speaker's Panel 52 14:00 The SPEAKER 53517 Pursuant to standing order 17(a), I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable member for Bass, Mrs Archer, to be a member of the Speaker's panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 52 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. During the five-week election campaign the Prime Minister promised to cut energy prices by $275 per year on 97 occasions. Prime Minister, people took you at your word. But since the election, the Prime Minister has never made mention of it again. Australians are hurting, and your government is making the situation worse, not better. Prime Minister, how can Australians trust you and this government when you continue to fail to live up to your word and to your promise? 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The Leader of the Opposition would know full well what the circumstances are because he came in here in December and voted against energy price relief. He voted against $1½ billion of support on energy policy. The Leader of the Opposition might be confused because those opposite had 22 announcements but did not land one. But over in the other place, they are discussing the safeguard mechanism, which is not only the key to driving down emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 but also the key for investment certainty, the investment certainty that business has been crying out for, the business certainty that is absolutely necessary. My predecessor, the member for Cook, as Prime Minister in September 2018 said: 'Angus Taylor has one job, get electricity prices down.' That is what he said. The member for Cook is not known for wanting just one job. That will not be in the biographies written about the member for Cook because multiple jobs were given out to all those opposite. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will return to the question and not refer to matters not included in the question. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was very deliberate in its construct. There are families who are hurting, struggling to pay their power bills, and they want a straight answer from the Prime Minister. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 There is no need for commentary for a point of order. I will get the Prime Minister return to the question regarding the policy he was asked about. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Dixon will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 Clare Savage, the chair of the Australian Energy Regulator ,said that the work we put in place last December has already made a substantial difference. Philip Lowe, the RBA governor says the same thing. The figures today on inflation are promising. We would not say it is more than that. We know that people are doing it tough, but inflation is heading in the right direction, which is a positive thing, off its peak. What we need to do is further work. We understand that is the case and that is what my government's focus is. Vietnam War: 50th Anniversary 53 14:04 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Prime Minister. This year marks 50 years since the end of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War. What action is the Albanese government taking to honour the service of our veterans? 14:04 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Hasluck, and I thank all the members of parliament who attended the ceremony that was held this morning. This year, we mark half a century since Australian guns fell silent in Vietnam. Sixty thousand Australians served in that conflict, more than 3,000 were wounded and, tragically, 523 were killed. Futures were robbed and lives were changed forever for those who went and for those who loved them. And yet for so long the truth is that we as a nation didn't measure up to them, to those people who served in our name and who did their duty in our name. We didn't hold up their names so proudly. So to each and every one of our Vietnam veterans today I say: we honour you and we thank you for your service. This morning I had the great privilege, along with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, to present 10 veterans—and they are here with us today in the gallery and I welcome them—with the commemorative medallion and certificate of commemoration. Barney Hanson, Brian Armstrong, Colleen Thurgar, Gerry Mapstone, John Moore, Mac Weller, Noel McLachlan, Pedro Rosemond, Ray Lastelle and Rodney O'Regan—to all of you I say: thank you for your service. To the men and women who continue to serve us in the Australian Defence Force, we thank you for your service as well. We also want to acknowledge the families of Vietnam veterans for their sacrifice and support. We will continue to honour, particularly in this 50th year, the veterans who served our nation. We should give them the gratitude of our nation. I'm sure that I can speak on behalf of every member of this parliament on this occasion. We do honour you. In August, when we commemorate on Vietnam Veterans Day there will be a range of commemorative services around this country as well. I am certain that members of parliament from across the spectrum will participate in it. You are very welcome here and I honour you today. 14:07 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—I support the Prime Minister's find words. It was a great honour to be at the ceremony this morning. I say to people in the gallery here today and people watching question time that, if you look up to those people sitting in the front row of the gallery, they are our finest Australians. They represent the values of our original Anzacs. They continued through their service whilst in uniform and in many cases since then to deliver us a great deal of pride. Vietnam veterans, when they returned from a war that their government had sent them into, were not treated well by any stretch of the imagination. The mental weight of that has been carried by many, not just veterans but by their families as well, and, in some cases, every day since. I hope today and this year, as we commemorate the 50th anniversary, they understand the pride that we have in their service and in the way in which they have contributed to our country. Like the Prime Minister, I acknowledge the fact that 60,000 Australians were involved in serving in Vietnam, 15,000 were conscripted, 523 lives were lost, 3,000 were wounded and many, many people came back with significant scars, mental and physical. It was not just the veterans. Their partners, children and grandchildren have borne some of that weight as well. We pay tribute to them for their sacrifices, be they mother, father, aunt, uncle, brother or sister of those who served in uniform. We live in the greatest country in the world. In large part it is because of your service and many like you have gone before you and who are serving in uniform today. We pay you true honour. Cost of Living 53 14:09 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week's ANZ consumer confidence survey showed consumers are as pessimistic as when the pandemic started, it's a bad time to buy major household items and mortgage holders are increasingly grim. But the Prime Minister says Australians have had a good 10 months. When will this out-of-touch Prime Minister finally admit that Australian families always pay more under Labor? 14:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Flinders for her question. We certainly know that too many families are doing it tough. Inflation is a problem right around the world. Today's figures showing a downward trend is a positive, but we know there is much more work to do. Our biggest priority this year has been making sure that Australians have that economic security and stability so that they can plan ahead and build better futures. That's why we're acting on cost-of-living measures. That's why cheaper medicines began on 1 January. That's why cheaper child care begins on 1 July. That's why 180,000 Australians are benefiting from fee-free TAFE. When I was in the electorate of Aston last Friday with the member for O'Connor and the Minister for Early Childhood Education, we had the opportunity to talk to students there who had enrolled in courses in order to secure their future, because they were fee free. From talking to those students, the fee-free places had made such a difference to them. They were giving it a crack, enrolling in courses, including, in particular, in the health sector but in other services sectors as well, to ensure that they could get secure, well-paid jobs into the future. That's what they wanted to do. But we're not just doing that. We're extending paid parental leave to six months. We're getting wages moving again. We're also dealing with issues including housing, with our Housing Australia Future Fund, which is opposed by those opposite. Earlier today, we had the bizarre situation of those opposite actually calling a division after the Senate returned the National Reconstruction Fund legislation to this chamber. That's about growth, that's about investment and it's about making sure that our economy grows. On top of that, of course, you have the $1½ billion in the Energy Price Relief Plan—something that was opposed by those opposite. The fact is that those opposite come in here and they just oppose everything. They've stopped participating in debate. They're just the observers of Australian politics—the people who just sit back and say no to absolutely everything that is put forward, who never move amendments and who don't have any constructive alternatives. (Time expired) National Reconstruction Fund 54 14:13 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. What has the Albanese Labor government done to support Australia's manufacturers, and what progress has there been on the National Reconstruction Fund? 14:13 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Today we have made a big step in the parliament, with both houses passing the National Reconstruction Fund bill. That's a big one. It's a good day if you believe in Australian manufacturing. It's a good day if you believe in good blue-collar jobs. It's a good day if you believe in backing businesses, from our outer suburbs to our regions to remote Australia. It's a very, very important day. When I visit Australian industry, as I have over many years, I see the ambitions of those who want to be self-sufficient in the most critical areas of our economy, who want to reduce our dependence on concentrated and broken supply chains and who want to see us able to create good, secure, well-paying jobs not just for now but for our kids and for their kids—making sure we've got that economic prosperity long term. It's an ambition that government can work with industry to get things done. Most importantly, friends, it's an ambition that Australia should be a country that makes things. We work together. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hunter is warned. Mr HUSIC 91219 Many parliamentarians—not all—worked together in this and the other place to be able to make the NRF better. We talked to all of those who wanted to make a contribution to make it better and to make the country better. That's how we made progress. The only people who didn't want to support manufacturing and see that progress are sitting opposite. Every single one of those members didn't just vote once or twice against manufacturing— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hunter is on a warning. Mr HUSIC 91219 they voted multiple times. And when the bill came back today they doubled down on dopiness and wanted to make sure their names were on the list of people against Australian manufacturing. They voted against it straightaway. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Longman. The member for Hume. Mr HUSIC 91219 They scratch their criticisms on rocks that they chuck at us and then say, 'Why won't you accept our ideas?' That is their contribution to it. Imagine the fate of the National Reconstruction Fund if we had a Liberal member for Goldstein or a Liberal member for Curtin or a Liberal member for Wentworth or a Liberal member for Kooyong—have I missed anyone? No, I'll keep going—or a Liberal member for Mackellar or a Liberal member for Warringah. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hunter. Mr HUSIC 91219 A Liberal member in all those seats would have opposed this. Every one of those members can go back to their electorates and say they backed Australian manufacturing. I can tell you, there is one job the NRF has already created. It's a job for every one of those members opposite, and it is to go back to their communities and explain why they would not support Australian manufacturing. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Lindsay. The member for Hunter. Mr HUSIC 91219 We've got a vision, we've got a plan and now we've got the National Reconstruction Fund. Honourable members interjec ting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise on my right. The member for Hunter will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a) for continually interrupting. I can't hear the answers. The member for Hunter then left the chamber. Macquarie Point Stadium 55 14:16 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to my repeated lobbying of you and your government to not contribute funding for a third AFL stadium in Tasmania—specifically, at Macquarie Point. Frankly, the community remains overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal and rightfully insists that more federal funding go to the things that really matter. Prime Minister, in light of all of this, will you rule out funding for this ridiculous idea? 14:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Clark for his question. I am proud that Labor governments have such a strong history of investing in Tasmania. In the past I've certainly worked constructively, as a minister, with the member for Clark—formerly, prior to Clark, the electorate was called Denison—on constructive proposals including— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr ALBANESE R36 including the $50 million that the federal government provided for the Macquarie Point site way back in 2012. It is true that since then there was a failure to invest and progress urban redevelopment on that site. I think that site is ideal for a significant urban project and renewal for Tasmania. I've thought that for a long period of time. It is unfortunate that the site still has remediation work to do. I understand the member's position, and he's put it very clearly, but I'll continue to work constructively with the Tasmanian government of Premier Rockliff. I'll continue to engage with him. As the member knows, the Tasmanian Premier, in particular, has a very strong view about this. Proposals have been submitted to the government and they're being considered as part of our budget process. At the time, in 2012, I said this: A carefully re-designed Macquarie Point precinct has the opportunity to transform the waterfront. It is a project that will boost Hobart's liveability, sustainability and the Tasmanian economy. I want to make sure that we move beyond a debate just about a stadium or a non-stadium. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Leichhardt. Mr ALBANESE R36 I want to move towards making sure that we get appropriate residential, recreational and commercial activity at the site. Ultimately, we want to ensure that whatever happens at Macquarie Point produces maximum benefit for the people of Tasmania and that is what we'll be working towards. I will continue to engage with the member for Clarke, as I will with other federal members of parliament and, indeed, with the Tasmanian state government, with whom I enjoy a positive relationship, as I do with all of the state governments. I had a positive relationship with Premier Perrottet as well and I wish him well for his future. Defence 55 14:20 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. What challenge is the Albanese Labor government facing as a result of the former coalition government's mismanagement of the Defence budget? 14:20 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Can I thank the member for her question and say how honoured I am to serve in a caucus with her. At the heart of the former government's defence strategic posture was making announcements. When it came to announcements, they were a formidable power. They would make announcements at the Press Club, they would make announcements at defence bases, they would make announcements with hoopla, they would make announcements with Top Gun music, they would make announcements about prospective capabilities but they would make announcements about announcements and, when the announcements were finished, they would brief the media, and we would be presented with visions of future next-generation weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles. But what stood behind those announcements was a different story. Often it was absolutely nothing. The 2016 Defence white paper provided for $30 billion of procurement expenditure through to the decade ending in 2026. Within two years, those opposite had quietly reallocated $9 billion of that out of Defence. Last March, those opposite made a $10 billion announcement for REDSPICE, a critical cyber capability for the Australian Signals Directorate, but it had in it an $8 billion hole. They announced an uplift of 18½ thousand Defence Force personnel but they only put aside money for 12½ thousand. The Integrated Investment Program is the 10-year procurement schedule for Defence. After a decade of those opposite making announcements without any funding, it is estimated that the over programming of the IIP next year will be 32 per cent. What that means is that for almost one-quarter of what Defence plans to buy it has absolutely no money for. That is the legacy that those opposite have left us. It is literally all announcement and no delivery. It is as if they thought they could walk onto the battlefield with a megaphone and announce our adversaries into submission. Well, our government is very different. We are serious people making serious decisions about serious capability with serious money. That is what we have done with the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines. That is what we will do with the Defence Strategic Review that we will release next week because we understand that it is in the making of hard budget decisions that we actually acquire the military capability that we need as a country to keep Australians safe. Energy 56 14:23 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies My question is to the Prime Minister. Gas producers have warned that the Prime Minister's deal with the Greens will create more hurdles and reduce investments in new gas projects. With new projects facing the axe, which will increase energy costs, and AEMO my warning Victorians face gas shortages this winter, when will this out-of-touch Prime Minister admit this deal with the Greens will make a bad situation worse for Australian families and Australian businesses? 14:24 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Menzies for his question about the safeguard mechanism, which is being debated in the Senate as we speak, and I expect there will be a majority of senators who vote for it. We have entered into good-faith discussions across this parliament. Those opposite chose not to be involved. They chose again to be the observers of Australian politics rather than the participants in Australian politics. I am asked about what industry has had to say about what has been announced. The Business Council of Australia have said this: Business welcomes progress towards ending the impasse on climate and energy policy and delivering certainty about the future. …   …   … Businesses agree that we can't make the same mistakes as the past by letting ambiguity and uncertainty undermine progress, Australia needs a credible, durable framework to reach its climate targets and grow the economy. Innes Willox, from the Australian Industry Group, said this: 'It's a good deal. Overall, industry will view the announced deal with some relief that pragmatism and reasonable compromise have prevailed. This gives industry the certainty it needs to make the investments it needs to both keep the lights on and industry moving.' The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said this: 'We welcome the certainty the agreement will bring.' The Australian Pipelines and Gas Association said this: The Australian Pipelines and Gas Association (APGA) welcomes the certainty of the reformed Safeguard Mechanism which will help Australia reach its emission reduction targets faster … That's what they had to say. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting or will be warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 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 about how the safeguard mechanism could be improved. Ms Ley 00AMN How is this relevant to the gas prices in Victoria? Mr ALBANESE R36 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, 'How is this relevant?' to a comment from one of her own backbenchers. I'll tell you what, what is relevant is that we are getting on with the job of delivering. Those opposite could try and get anyone who lives anywhere near the seat of Aston—unlike their candidate for Aston— (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 57 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS South West Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils, Scriven, Ms Clare, MLC 57 14:27 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to advise— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Casey is warned. I'm trying to acknowledge some guests in the gallery. I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation from the South West Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils and also the Hon. Clare Scriven MLC, a minister in the parliament of South Australia. I extend a very warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Climate Change: Safeguard Mechanism 57 14:27 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How do the Albanese Labor government's safeguard reforms deliver policy certainty for business and industry? What will be the investment benefits as a result of these reforms, and how have they been received? 14:28 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Thanks to the honourable member for her very important question. It is a very good day for manufacturing jobs in Australia, with the passage of the National Reconstruction Fund bill through the parliament. Again, I'm sure honourable members will join me in congratulating the Minister for Industry and Science for his work in getting this bill passed through both houses of parliament. If the last few years have reminded us of anything, it's the importance of sovereign capability—the ability of our country to make things and the ability of our country to supply our own needs as much as possible in key strategic industries. That's also important for our renewable energy transformation. Making the things that make renewable energy is the key to our economic success. That's the case in particular in relation to aluminium, alumina, steel and cement. The House knows that business has been very supportive of the government's reform agenda. We recognise, again, the support of the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, ACCI, the Investor Group on Climate Change and many other groups. I want to particularly mention today the support received from Manufacturing Australia for the changes announced to the safeguard reform earlier in the week. The CEO of Manufacturing Australia, Ben Eade, said: Australia has profound opportunities to create and retain high quality jobs, grow its manufacturing sector … through a carefully managed transition to low emissions manufacturing. Of course that's the case. That's why this government's package, which has passed the House and is currently receiving scrutiny in the Senate—which scrutiny I am confident will go well—has emphasised the importance of those strategic industries and of manufacturing across the board. Manufacturing, increasingly, will be required, for domestic purposes and for export purposes, to show their decarbonisation plans. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting, or he will be warned. Mr BOWEN DZS Investors demand it. Insurance demands it. And consumers demand it. That's the key to our bright manufacturing future, and that's the key to our reforms. When you put the National Reconstruction Fund together with the safeguard reforms, you see a real plan for Australian manufacturing. The Climate Council put it well when they said, 'The era of climate gridlock in Australia is over.' The era of climate gridlock in Australia is over, because this government gets things done. This Prime Minister gets things done. And what gridlock led to was investment uncertainty. What gridlock leads to is a lack of investment in jobs and job creation. What getting rid of gridlock fixes is the roadblock to a better manufacturing future for Australia, and, under this government, we will be a country that makes things. Cost of Living 58 14:31 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised Australians that they'd be better off and have cheaper mortgages under a Labor government. But NAB yesterday reported increases in the number of households reporting financial difficulties, with households 'starting to feel the pinch' and getting more worried about their financial future. When will this out-of-touch Prime Minister finally admit that Australian families always pay more under Labor? 14:31 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. And she asked a question about the commitment that we had at the WA election launch, there at Optus Stadium, on the shared equity scheme. It's a shared equity scheme— Opposition members interject ing— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. Mr ALBANESE R36 based upon the WA model. It's one that the Perrottet government was implementing in New South Wales. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker is warned. If he interjects one more time, I promise I'll— Mr ALBANESE R36 The Andrews government in Victoria— The SPEAKER 53517 Just pause. The continual interjection by the member for Barker, every single day, is not— An honour able member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order!—helpful or respectful at all. If it continues once more today, he'll be asked to leave. Mr ALBANESE R36 The member suggests, somehow, that, when the Liberals are in government, people don't pay more. But the fact is that the peak of inflation, in terms of the largest ever jump in any quarter this century, was in March 2022, and the jump was 2.1 per cent. The fact is also that the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison government was the second highest taxing government in modern Australian economic history. The highest, of course, was the Howard government. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom. Mr ALBANESE R36 The fact is that interest rates, when this man was the Assistant Treasurer— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 were 6.75 per cent, which is higher than 3.6 per cent—6.75 compared with 3.6. And the fact is that the budget papers accompanying Josh Frydenberg's final budget confirmed not just that there were no surpluses over the forwards. Instead, the coalition was on track to rack up $224 billion in additional borrowings over four years, and the Intergenerational Report produced by them showed that no budget would be in surplus in any year between now and 2060. That's in spite of the fact that, in the lead-up to the election in which they attained office in 2013, the then shadow treasurer and the then Liberal Party said they would have surpluses each and every year, going forward. They never delivered. They stopped the 30 years of consecutive economic growth thanks to the Hawke-Keating economic reforms. The fact is that those opposite talk a big game but they never ever deliver. Housing Australia Future Fund 58 14:34 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How will the Housing Australia Future Fund help build more social and affordable homes? What will the impacts be on people who need it most if the Housing Australia Future Fund is further delayed? Opposition members interjecting— 14:35 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank the member for Macnamara for that important question and say it was great to be with him in his electorate to meet tenants of an affordable rental property in his electorate that was made possible through federal government money, and what a great success it is—and it shows that it can be done. As I was getting up to answer this question, we heard from those opposite, 'Why aren't you building the houses?' We aren't building the houses from the Housing Australia Future Fund yet because, of course, people are delaying it in the Senate, because people over there voted against it. But we have heard the pleas from workers on the front line—people who deal day in, day out with people who have no safe, affordable place to call home. As Everybody's Home pointed out, even 'full-time breadwinners are now living in tents'. The news is full of stories of people who are finding it tough—families sleeping in cars, young people having to choose between paying the rent or buying food. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin is continually interjecting on the minister. He'll be in the same boat as the member for Barker. So just cool it with the interjections. Ms COLLINS HWM We all in this place hear stories from people who are dealing with rising rents, who are forced to couch surf or who are contacting our electorate offices and have nowhere to go. This is what our Housing Australia bill is about; it's about people. So I say to the members in this place who seem to have forgotten that: please don't just write to me about social housing and homelessness; get your senators to vote for more social and affordable housing. I say to the member for Riverina, the member for Bradfield, the member for Hughes: go back to your electorates and say you stood in the way of more social and affordable housing for your constituents when you write letters to me. Say that to them. We introduced our Housing Australia Future Fund to help people—to build tens of thousands of social and affordable rental homes for some of the most vulnerable in our community. Our housing agenda is ambitious because it needs to be. I want to remind members in this place that the Housing Australia Future Fund will build more social and affordable homes in its first five years than were built over the past decade from the combined contributions of the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. That is what we're talking about. There's a substantial number of homes for people in need—for women and children who are fleeing family violence, for older women at risk of homelessness and for veterans who don't have a safe, affordable place to call home. For the people that need help, we want to do it with the Housing Australia Future Fund. I say to the Liberal senators and the Greens senators: please don't stand in the way. You can not address our housing challenges by standing in the way of real action. This is not an opportunity to delay action, because there is a cost to delays, and the costs are being borne by the people that need our support the most. (Time expired) Cost of Living 59 14:38 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie My question is to the Prime Minister, and it concerns what my constituents in Petrie have said to me about Labor's cost-of-living crisis. Georgina said, 'Two of us spend $300 plus on groceries. It just keeps going up and up.' Shenelle said, 'A family of five used to spend $400 a fortnight for a huge shop. Now we need to set aside an extra $200 per fortnight.' These quotes are from this week, in 2023. When will this out-of-touch Prime Minister finally admit that Australian families always pay more under Labor? 14:39 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Australians paid more, under the coalition, in inflation, because the largest increase in any quarter this century was March 2022—2.1 per cent. Australians paid more tax. The highest taxing government in modern Australian history was, of course, the Howard government. The second highest was, you guessed it, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. That's a fact. The deficit was larger under those opposite. We understand that there are inflationary pressures in the economy. Today the inflation figures have come off a bit, the monthly figures, but we understand there is more work to be done. We understand the pressure that constituents, such as the ones mentioned by the member for Petrie—I assume. I never actually get the correspondence, but I will take him at its word. He's a Dolphins fan so he can probably be trusted. I'll take him at his word. We understand that people are under pressure, and that's why I just hope that the member for Petrie told those people: 'Yes, that's true. I get that it's tough. Sorry for voting against $1½ billion of energy price relief.' Economy 59 14:40 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham My question is to the Treasurer. In light of today's monthly consumer price index, how is the Albanese Labor government responding to the inflation challenge in the economy? 14:41 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the wonderful member for Cunningham for her question. As the Prime Minister said a moment ago, the ABS has released the monthly inflation gauge which shows that consumer prices rose 6.8 per cent in the 12 months to February, which is down from 7.4 per cent in last month's figures. As I have said before, we do need to be careful about this new measure of inflation which will be volatile month to month, but on the face of it this is a very encouraging sign. It's also a sign of the economic times around the world that a number with a six in front of it is still seen as welcome news. This is more evidence that inflation is moderating in our economy but it remains unacceptably high. It's more evidence that inflation peaked at the end of last year and it's moderating this year, but it will be higher than we would like for longer than we would like. We do understand that Australians are under the pump with cost-of-living pressures, and that's why inflation is still the primary focus of our three-part economic plan and a major influence on the budget that I will hand down from this dispatch box in just under six weeks. It's why it is so important that our strategy has three parts: relief, repair and restraint. Cost-of-living relief where it's affordable, where it's responsible and where there is an economic dividend, whether it's cheaper early childhood education, cheaper medicines, getting wages moving again or providing some relief from higher power bills, which is a measure that those opposite voted against; repairing busted supply chains, a really important reason why it was so important that the parliament did pass the National Reconstruction Fund earlier today; and restraint so that we are getting genuine value for money for our investments in our economy and in our people, and cleaning up the mess that those opposite left behind when they left office. The Leader of the Opposition can hide from the voters of Aston, but he can't hide from his record as a central part, a central figure in the Morrison government which left programs unfunded and had nowhere near enough to show for a trillion dollars in Liberal Party debt. He can't hide from the fact that the worst quarter for inflation last year was the— Mr Fletcher L6B A point of order on relevance. Mr Speaker, you have, in the past, directed the Treasurer and others back to the terms of the question, which had nothing about the Leader of the Opposition's record. He should return to the subject matter of the question. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to draw the Treasurer back to the question. He has had a compare and contrast. I'm bringing him back to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The question was inflation—the worst quarter for inflation was the March quarter last year when the member for Dickson was a member of the Expenditure Review Committee in the Morrison government. He can't hide from that. Australians understand that a lot of these inflationary pressures come at us from around the world but some of them are homegrown as well, and a decade of economic mismanagement has made people more vulnerable to these shocks. This is why we are working, in a methodical and responsible way, to put together a budget that takes some of the pressure off people who are dealing with cost-of-living pressures, even as inflation moderates in our economy in welcome ways. Housing 60 14:44 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. When electricity bills were rising, you pulled together all the states and territories and got parliaments across the country recalled to deal with it. With a fully-fledged rental crisis gripping millions of people around the country who need help right now—not in future, but right now—will you show the same level of urgency and organise a national rent freeze? 14:45 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. I do have a proposal to change the Constitution, which we've been talking about here, but that sort of measure would require us to take over from state and territory governments, and the member for Melbourne knows that. One of the things I won't do is promise absolute pixie dust. Because that's what that is. The fact is that the Commonwealth government, and the member knows full well— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. You will need to state the standing order that you're referring to. Mr Dutton 00AKI Very clearly, the Prime Minister—is he going to sit down? The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is being in order. I have asked you to state the point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI Having sought the call and having been given the call, as is the practice in this House, the Prime Minister should have the courtesy of sitting down, unless the rules don't apply equally in this parliament. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. Unless the Leader of the Opposition states what the point of order is—the standing order—he'll be sat down as well. Mr Dutton 00AKI Of course it's on relevance, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume! The House will come to order immediately, otherwise people will be excluded from the House. The member for Longman is warned. The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 Angry Peter is back! The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct titles and will continue his answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 He made appearances on corflutes last Saturday, Mr Speaker. He mightn't have been able to go to New South Wales, but we made sure he was there. We made sure he had a big presence. And I'll give you the big tip: he'll be there in Aston, too, on Saturday. The Greens party ask about housing policy and ask about the cost of housing. I say to the Greens political party: pass our Housing Australia Future Fund. You can't have credibility coming in here and saying: 'We don't think $10 billion is enough. We want $20 billion. Therefore, we'll oppose $10 billion.' It's just absurd to vote for zero rather than to vote for progress. The Housing Australia Future Fund is on top of the Housing Accord, it's on top of the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, and it's on top of the homelessness plan that we have. It's in addition to Commonwealth rent assistance as well. All of those measures represent a comprehensive plan. But one of the things that we do not have control over is a rent freeze, and the member knows quite well that we are not able, as a Commonwealth government, to flick a switch and demand a rent freeze. He knows that that is not possible. He knows it's not real, and he should do better than come in here and make statements that we knows can't be delivered. We can deliver something. He can talk to his senators across there and say unblock the filibuster and the nonsense that's around the Housing Australia Future Fund. That will make a difference for emergency housing, and that will make a difference for affordable and social housing. Paid Parental Leave 61 14:49 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide My question is to the Minister for Social Services: how will the Albanese Labor government's paid parental leave changes increase support to working families after nearly a decade of policy stagnation? 14:49 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I thank the member for Adelaide for his question and his advocacy for families in his electorate. Earlier this month the government's paid parental leave legislation passed the parliament. Now from 1 July over 180,000 families each year will benefit from a stronger and improved Paid Parental Leave scheme. Families can now start pre-claiming under the more generous means-testing provisions and the more flexible arrangements. We know raising children and managing work is a juggle for many Australian families. We also know it's a time when there are lots of bills to pay and families need all the help they can get. Our changes means from 1 July this year not only will more parents have access to the government payment but they'll also have more flexibility in how they transition back to work. Of course, by 2026 our government will have expanded paid parental leave to allow parents to take six months of government paid parental leave. This approach has been backed by a range of organisations, such as Minderoo Thrive by Five, who said a more generous Paid Parental Leave scheme will benefit parents, infants, employers, employees and the Australian economy. In response to the inquiry into the government's changes to PPL, the Australian Institute of Family Studies said: Ensuring that all parents have access to paid parental leave is important, to provide parents with options at the birth or adoption of a child. Chief Executive Women welcomed the expansion of paid parental leave as beneficial for women, for families, for children and for the economy. Our significant investment helps make up for the nine years of wasted time by those opposite. As a result of the nine years of coalition government neglect, Australia's Paid Parental Leave scheme lagged behind the rest of the OECD. But the intention of those opposite when the government went beyond just neglect. The Leader of the Opposition would know all too well about that, as he was a cabinet minister in the coalition government that tried to cut the entitlements for thousands of families to access both government paid parental leave and their workplace entitlement. In the 2015-16 budget those opposite tried to end what they insultingly called double-dipping, when mothers rightfully claimed both their workplace and government entitlements. This is a disgrace. Paid parental leave is a proud Labor legacy, and the Albanese government is building and expanding on that legacy. We will not cut it. Cost of Living 61 14:52 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Prime Minister. The body representing small businesses in the hospitality sector, the Restaurant and Catering Association, has warned Australians that cafes and restaurants are having to jack up prices because of Labor's high electricity prices and rising interest rates. When will this out-of-touch Prime Minister finally admit that Australian families and businesses always pay more under Labor? 14:53 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Lindsay for her question, and I say I was in Lindsay last Friday, in Penrith, with former mayor Karen McKeown. Karen McKeown and I were talking with small businesses in Penrith, and the small businesses we spoke to gave us a very warm welcome. We went to the Westfield in Penrith and we talked to the new coffee shop's owner, which had been open for just a few weeks, and they were optimistic about their future. We spoke to restauranteurs. We spoke to all the small businesses in the heart of Penrith. Last Saturday they responded by electing Karen McKeown as the member for Penrith, with a record swing in that electorate. One of the things they were looking for in Penrith when I was there was an end to the sort of Eeyore philosophy of those opposite—'It's all doom. The world's going to end. Everything's terrible.' Those opposite are turning into one of those cults that say the world's going to end. Every time the Senate passes a piece of legislation they put their robes on and they all get ready, because it's all going to end! Whether it's the safeguard mechanism, the National Reconstruction Fund or industrial relations—remember the IR legislation? They said small business was going to be destroyed by that. There were going to be mass strikes. The only strike we've seen has been from the Leader of the Opposition entering New South Wales. That's the only strike that we've seen. The fact is that we are getting on with the business of making a positive difference. Whether it's in actions such as the safeguard mechanism, dealing with supply chain issues through the National Reconstruction Fund, housing through our Housing Australia Future Fund or the industrial relations legislation—the legislation that I spoke on before question time about gender pay equity—with all of these issues, what we're doing is working constructively for solutions, because that's what Australians are looking for. They have conflict fatigue. They want a government that will deliver and that will make a difference, notwithstanding the challenges before the global economy. They want a government that is actually legislating an agenda and making a positive difference. That's the feedback I got in Penrith last Friday. Early Childhood Education 62 14:56 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education: How is the Albanese Labor responsible cost-of-living relief to Australian families by making early childhood education and care more affordable? 14:56 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Bendigo for her question and also take the time to acknowledge her deep commitment to families and children in her electorate in Bendigo. I also thank the member for Bendigo for giving me this opportunity to speak about the Albanese Labor government's reforms to make early childhood education and care more affordable. These will make a real and tangible difference for families right across Australia—1.2 million families, as a matter of fact, including 265,000 families in rural and regional Australia. It is responsible cost-of-living relief that will reduce pressures on family budgets, support greater workforce participation and, importantly, enable more children to get the absolute best start in life in those critical first five years, when 90 per cent of brain development occurs. I can't count on two hands the number of people who have stopped me or who have written to me to demonstrate their gratitude to the Albanese Labor government for these reforms. They have said that this is not just going to give them relief for their household budgets but it's also going to open up opportunities for them and give them options, whether those options are taking on more hours at work, returning to work or, indeed, taking on further study. But we know that there is more to do, and that's why we have the ACCC review of pricing in the early childhood education sector, as well as the Productivity Commission report exploring future options for early childhood education and care. We also know that a quality early childhood education and care sector that will deliver for our children requires a stable and supported workforce. In an earlier answer, the Prime Minister mentioned a visit to Swinburne University and Swinburne TAFE that we did last Friday. He mentioned that we met with some students there who were taking up our fee-free TAFE places in early childhood education and care. Two of them, Tiana and Connor, spoke to us about why they were choosing early childhood education and care. They said that it was their passion for children and their interest in child development that led them down this career pathway. Indeed, that's reflective of all people who choose early childhood education and care as a career pathway. On this side of the House, we acknowledge them. We recognise them for the professionals that they are and for the important work that they do in educating our youngest Australians. We will deliver for families and we will deliver for the sector, continuing to work with them on addressing the issues and on fee relief for families in less than 100 days. (Time expired) Community Batteries for Household Solar Grants Program 62 14:59 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The department's FOI response on selection criteria for the Community Batteries for Household Solar grants program stated: 'The selections were determined by the Australian Labor Party while in opposition, prior to the May 2022 federal election. The department was not involved in these decisions and therefore has no records or documents to show the criteria applied to processes involved in making and approving the eligible selection locations.' How is this difference to sports rorts, minister? 15:00 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question, but I must say, with respect to the honourable member, that it would have been rather surprising if the Department of Climate Change and Energy were involved in election commitments we made from opposition. I'm not quite sure how that would have worked! These were election commitments for 58 community batteries out of a program of 400 and, yes, they were election commitments that will be delivered. I'm happy to report to the honourable member that the process of determining the service providers who will deliver those 58 is well in advance. The Business Grants Hub in the Department of Industry, Science and Resources has called for tenders; those tenders have closed and those bids are being considered. In relation to the rest of the batteries—the rest of the 400—I am very pleased to inform the honourable member that ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, will be calling for tenders and calling for bids and expressions of interest from communities and network service providers as to which communities should host the rest of those batteries. Yes, oppositions make election commitments—yes, we do. Governments, when elected, then deliver on those election commitments. So those 58 sites will be delivered and the rest of those sites are open for tender from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. That tender will start in the first week of April, I'm very pleased to advise the honourable member. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister has concluded his answer; is the member for Mayo seeking the call? Ms Sharkie 265980 I seek leave to table the FOI report. Mr Burke DYW I presume that if it's an FOI report it's already public, so leave is not granted. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting immediately so that I can hear the member for Calwell. Vocational Education and Training 63 15:02 Ms VAMVAKIN 00AMT Calwell OU () (): My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting students with cost-of-living pressures as part of its plan to build a highly skilled workforce, particularly in areas of high demand? What has been the response to the government's plans. 15:02 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I thank the member for Calwell for her question and for her strong advocacy for the VET sector and for TAFEs in northern and north-west Melbourne. I think that everyone in this place would agree—on this side, certainly—and genuinely appreciate that education and training are transformative to a person's life. We understand that acutely and we understand that personally. It is absolutely transformative. Access to education and training, therefore, for students and workers to reskill or upskill in areas of emerging demand is really important and life-changing. It also increases, of course, the likelihood of good and secure work; good wages; and career progression. In fact, in many respects, it is a change in the quality of life for people who acquire those skills, that knowledge and that education. It is for that reason that we need to ensure that people access training and education. On the macro level, a skilled and knowledgeable workforce leads to a more productive and efficient economy, putting downward pressure on the costs of goods and services. So there are multiple benefits to improving the acquisition of skills and knowledge in our labour market. But to achieve these ends we must remove financial barriers to education and training, especially in areas of skill shortages or emerging skill shortages. That's why we struck eight historic game-changing agreements recently with the state and territory governments—Labor and Liberal—to invest in 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places for 2023. That's an additional investment for this year, and that's, of course, providing opportunities for students and workers to acquire skills in areas of emerging and existing demand so that they can be properly employed and find good, secure work and so that businesses can find the skilled workers they need. I have been asked: what is the response to the government's plan? I'm afraid to say that those opposite, if they had their way, would deprive thousands of students and workers of these opportunities. Left to those opposite, New South Wales students in aged care would have to find up to $1,450 to continue to train in this area of skills shortage. Victorian students training in hospitality would have to find $3,419 to continue their courses. South Australian students undertaking cybersecurity courses, an area very important to national security, would have to find up to $6,521 to pay for that course. The fact is that the opposition oppose fee-free TAFE, even though it helps students, businesses and the economy. (Time expired) Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 63 15:05 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will the Voice be justiciable? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'm going to ask the member for Berowra to ask that question again. I didn't hear it. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will just pause for a moment. I want to hear the question. Mr LEESER 109556 My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will the Voice be justiciable? The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not interject. The SPEAKER 53517 She will cease interjecting immediately. I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, standing order 98(d) expressly says what questioners must not ask ministers. There is nothing in this question other than a legal opinion. The entire question is a legal opinion. There's nothing else in it at all. If ever there was a question that just completely offends the prohibition in standing order 98, this is it. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left! I will hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI This question is completely in order. It goes to the design feature of the Voice. It goes to public commentary that the Prime Minister has been making freely in relation to this very question, and he should be able to answer the question in this parliament. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is against standing orders, as the Leader of the House has clearly indicated. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! But I will give the member for Berowra an opportunity to rephrase the question so it complies with standing orders. If it doesn't, it will be ruled out of order. Mr LEESER 109556 My question is to the Prime Minister. Is it the government's policy intention that the Voice be justiciable? The SPEAKER 53517 That question is in order as it regards a policy pertaining to the government. I give the Prime Minister the call. 15:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm not a lawyer, but Robert French is a pretty good one. He was the Chief Justice of Australia between 2008 and 2017. This is what he had to say about the words that have been put forward: The power of the parliament is expanded under the revised paragraph three to cover laws with respect to matters relating to the Voice generally. Thus, the parliament can make laws about such things as the duties, if any, of the executive government in relation to any representation and the legal effect of representations to the government. That was Justice French. That comment was made on 25 March. Very clearly— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left, I cannot hear what the Prime Minister is saying. Cease interjecting immediately! Mr ALBANESE R36 Ken Hayne, a former justice of the High Court of Australia, is someone who was chosen by those opposite to conduct royal commissions. Ken Hayne is reported as saying: A lot of people have spent a long time trying to think 'well, what possible quirks, [legal] minefields, could there be?' I think there are none. And another prominent lawyer, called Julian Leeser, said this: 'From the perspective of a constitutional conservative, this proposal I think has two distinct merits. First, the proposal is designed in such a way that it doesn't empower the High Court to strike down acts of parliament— Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker--- Mr ALBANESE R36 Oh, come one! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Minister for Home Affairs and the minister for infrastructure. I will hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI It's on relevance. The question was very specific. It was about the government's policy. Citing examples and past legal commentary on previous models et cetera, is not relevant to what is a very tight question. The Prime Minister of our country should be able to answer the most basic questions about the government's public policy on a very major proposal— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The question was phrased in a way that it was about the government's policy. He is referring to that. I will bring him back to the question. He's entitled to add to his answer regarding evidence or information. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm amazed that those opposite would disagree— Mr Dutton 00AKI Just answer the question, for goodness sake! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Honourable members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 The anger! It just bubbles up! Th 53517 Members on my right will cease interjecting so I can hear the Prime Minister. Mr ALBANESE R36 He said this: 'First, the proposal is designed in such a way that it doesn't empower the High Court to strike down acts of the parliament. There'll be no new avenue to challenge laws in the High Court.' He went on to say: 'Secondly, the proposal is designed to ensure that better policy-making occurs in the Indigenous policy space.' I will tell you what: I agree with everything in terms of the government's intent. It is exactly the same as the intent that was shown by the member for Berowra over a long period of time—exactly the same. That's why, on so many occasions, he said, for example, 'I think one of the particularly good aspects— (Time expired) Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! You do not need to yell out 'Time!' If anyone does that again, they'll be warned. It is highly disorderly. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. One more time and she will be warned. When the House comes to order, I want to hear from the member for Reid. Health Care 65 15:12 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering cheaper medicines for Australians and why is it important? How have pressures on the cost of health care changed over time? 15:13 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the terrific member for Reid, who worked so hard to win her electorate at the last election, including by promising her constituents to strengthen Medicare and to deliver cheaper medicines. I am pleased to report to the member for Reid that in just the first two months of this year her constituents have saved $272,000 on the price of medicines because we delivered the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS. Even before that, we slashed the maximum amount that pensioners pay for medicines across the year by 25 per cent. That means they pay no more than $5 a week over the course of the year for all of their medicine needs, no matter how many scripts they get filled. In September we cut the price of 2,000 brands of medicine, delivering $130 million back into the pockets of hardworking Australians. And this Saturday we will cut the price of 600 more brands of medicine, putting millions of dollars more back into the pockets of Australians. We're continuing to list life-changing and life-saving medicines on the PBS. This Saturday, OPDIVO, the well-known medicine, will be expanded to certain oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal cancers, benefiting 400 Australian patients who would otherwise be paying $85,000 for a course of that life-saving treatment. It will now be just $30. The contrast between our approach to cheaper medicines and the approach pursued by the Leader of the Opposition when he was health minister could not be clearer. When he was Minister for Health, the Leader of the Opposition tried to make medicines more expensive—not cheaper but dearer. In his first budget as health minister, the Leader of the Opposition tried to jack up the price of medicines for every single Australian, including by $5 for every single general script—so down by $12.50 under us, up by $5 under that fellow. While we've slashed the PBS safety nets by 25 per cent, he tried to jack up safety net thresholds for general and concessional patients by as much as 10 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition's 'dearer medicines policy' would have ripped $1.3 billion out of the pockets of Australian patients, had he had his way, and, Mr Speaker, he was proud of it. Introducing the legislation to implement his dearer medicines policy, the Leader of the Opposition said it was another example of the Abbott government's 'work to protect the best interests of Australians'. Mr BUTLER HWK Now he says, 'Hear, hear!' No wonder Australia's doctors overwhelmingly voted this man the worst health minister in the history of Medicare. (Time expired) Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 66 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Kerin, Hon. John Charles, AO, West, Hon. Stewart 66 15:16 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I report to the House the sad news that former ministers in the Hawke government John Kerin and Stewart West have both passed away today. We will have formal recognition of their contribution to this parliament after we consult with the families involved. I expect that that probably won't be tomorrow. It most likely will be on budget day. But I think it's important that we note this very sad passing. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 66 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Defence 66 15:17 The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Prime Minister has indicated he needs to add to an answer. 15:17 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like to add to my earlier answer today during question time when I referred to the Defence Strategic Review. For the clarification of the House: it is the intention of the government to release that review in a month's time. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 66 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Standards 66 15:17 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Yesterday in the House we witnessed an unparliamentary and dangerous scene which fell below the standards of the code of conduct that we as a parliament have endorsed. What measures are you taking to ensure the safety of everyone who works in this building? 15:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the honourable member for Indi for her question. The incident was indeed serious, and one which should never have occurred. I once again assure the House I'm committed to ensuring all staff who work in this building are safe at work. Today I requested the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services to conduct an urgent risk assessment in relation to the work of parliamentary staff in the chamber, to ensure that all staff are guaranteed of their safety in the workplace. In addition, today I'll be writing to all members, reminding them of their obligation to treat this chamber and parliamentary staff with respect. This is not only an expectation of me but what I believe is an expectation of all Australians. This morning I also met with Michelle Wicks, the interim head of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, and Ms Kate Jenkins, the author of the Set the standard report and the outgoing Sex Discrimination Commissioner, to discuss the incident. I take this opportunity to remind members and staff again that the PWWS is available at all hours to provide support to anyone affected by the incident, and, indeed, any other matters that arise where assistance may be needed. I call the Leader of the Opposition. 15:19 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. On this topic, I just want to confirm something with you, and my question to you is: will your deliberations or the deliberations of your departmental secretary extend to an incident which occurred last Thursday in this chamber at the doors at the back, and will that come within scope of what you report back to the parliament? 15:19 The SPEAKER 53517 It will. 15:19 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Mr Speaker, this is also a question to you. With respect to the previous question about the dangerous and disgraceful scene during a division yesterday, as a member of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, I ask whether the Speaker would like this issue to be referred to the task force for consideration, in particular with respect to the implementation of the code of conduct for members of parliament. 15:20 The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the honourable member for Warringah for her question. I will be referring any relevant information regarding the incident in question to the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, as is appropriate. STATEMENTS 67 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 67 15:20 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The S 53517 Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Absolutely. The SPEAKER 53517 Please proceed. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Last week, on 22 March, the member for Fadden claimed to have been misrepresented by me in question time, where I quoted royal commission evidence by Kath Madgwick that her son, Jarrad Madgwick, took his own life hours after receiving a robodebt notice. Specifically, the member for Fadden said, 'It was not a robodebt; it was not part of the robodebt cohort.' Today I set the record straight. Opposition members interjecting— Mr Fletcher L6B He needs to say where he has been misrepresented. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I'm about to. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business has taken a point of order. I will ask the minister to directly indicate where he has been misrepresented so he may set the record. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The member for Fadden got up and said that I was wrong and that it wasn't a robodebt and that it was not part of the robodebt cohort. Following his intervention last Wednesday, I contacted the department. I set the record straight. In May 2019, a Check and Update Past Information review was commenced in relation to Mr Madgwick to resolve a discrepancy. CUPI was the last system and business process iteration of the robodebt scheme, which was called the Income Compliance Program by the then Department of Human Services. Since the member for Fadden's misrepresentation, I have received advice from Services Australia that specifically says about Mr Madgwick's debt notice, which triggered him to take his own life, 'The debt was raised as a result of an income compliance review that was undertaken by part of the robodebt scheme.' The SPEAKER 53517 The manager will resume his seat. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I'll finish up in another sentence— The SPEAKER 53517 The manager will resume his seat. The minister must immediately conclude— Mr 00ATG I will. The SPEAKER 53517 or provide more information about where he's been misrepresented. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I ask the member for Fadden to stop gaslighting the dead and the bereaved! The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The Manager of Opposition Business? Mr Fletcher L6B That shows a complete disregard for your rulings and for the conventions of this House. I submit that you should deal with the minister in a severe fashion. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to ask the minister before he leaves to withdraw the last part of that statement. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Sure. I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Warringah has indicated an indulgence. The member for Fadden has not indicated to me that he is seeking the call, but is it about a personal explanation? Mr Robert HWT It is. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. 15:23 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ROBERT HWT I do. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr ROBERT HWT Just now, the Minister for Government Services said that I'd been wrong in saying that Mrs Madgwick's son's debt was properly raised and was not done by averaging either fully or partially and therefore was not part of the robodebt cohort. That remains the case and those remain the facts. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 68 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE STEFFEN, Emeritus Professor William Lee (Will) 68 15:24 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Yesterday, Australians from around the country gathered in Canberra to honour a giant of Australian science. Professor Will Steffen sadly passed away in January. He was one of the country's and the world's most respected climate scientists. He co-authored the paper on the Anthropocene with Paul Crutzen, which earnt Dr Crutzen a Nobel Prize. Professor Steffen was an internationally esteemed expert in global change research, serving as executive director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. He was a contributor to five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports. This work, for all our benefit and the benefit of future generations, came at great personal risk to him and his family. They received death threats from those who rejected the IPCC reports. His colleague Dr Joelle Gergis, senior lecturer of climate science at the Australian National University, said Will was a visionary, a brilliant scientist and gifted communicator 'who was so generous with his time.' Professor Steffen made substantial contributions to science policy in Australia, serving as a climate advisor to various departments and agencies under successive governments, particularly under Prime Minister Gillard. His research spanned a broad range within earth systems science, with an emphasis on sustainability and climate change. He was instrumental in pioneering and communicating the influential concepts of the planetary boundaries, the great acceleration and the Anthropocene. Professor Steffen's life work is a reminder of the importance of science and scientists to our society. I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to honour this great Australian scientist, a leader in his field and a brilliant communicator on the biggest challenge of our time. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 68 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Procedure: Condolences 68 15:26 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I have a question of you, Mr Speaker. It's in regard to the deaths that were announced today by the Prime Minister, which are quite shocking and tragic. Many of us have memories. John Kerin, as some of you with grey hair might know, was a particular favourite in this House not because of his expertise as a minister, especially in regional and rural areas and rural affairs—and chooks! He was also a favourite of the House. That's not to diminish former minister West. The question I would ask of you is: because the date of the next sitting will also be the budget sitting of this House, will members be kept informed as to what will be the arrangements or the protocols? And we have one day tomorrow; could there be some brief indulgence tomorrow? I am putting the question to you, Mr Speaker, but it might be for the Leader of the House to answer. The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Leader of the House before I respond. Mr Burke DYW And as a former agriculture minister, I know exactly what the member for Monash is saying about the warmth with which John Kerin was held. We have a really strong principle of letting families be the guide of when we make the speeches. They might not end up choosing budget day, but there have been occasions where we've actually waited some weeks before the speeches happen. The undertaking that I can certainly give, though, is that, on whatever day it occurs, I will certainly move a resolution referring the speeches that are being made to the Federation Chamber so that there is a proper opportunity for the many members who want to speak on the condolences to do so. Notwithstanding how much we would like to say something straight away, I really don't want to depart from the principle that we have kept in letting the families make that decision. 15:28 The SPEAKER 53517 I appreciate the member for Monash's sentiment and will advise the House accordingly out of respect for the wishes of not only the House but the families as well. DOCUMENTS 68 DOCUMENTS Commonwealth Ombudsman 68 Presentation 68 15:28 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Commonwealth Ombudsman quarterly report under section 65(6) of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 for the periods 1 July to 30 September 2022 and 1 October to 31 December 2022 and Commonwealth Ombudsman quarterly report under section 712F(6) of the Fair Work Act 2009 for the periods 1 July to 30 September 2022 and 1 October to 31 December 2022. Document made a parliamentary paper. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 69 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 69 15:29 The SPEAKER 53517 I've received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Prime Minister's failure to address rising mortgage costs and rising power bills. 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— 15:29 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin The Prime Minister has undoubtedly failed to address rising mortgage costs and rising power bills. I am yet to see in this chamber a more slippery or pathetic performance from a Prime Minister in my entire time here. The man is incapable of answering a straight question with a straight answer. The truth, what the Prime Minister really believes, slipped out a couple of weeks ago. It slipped out. It was not in scripted remarks. It wasn't in a note handed to him by an adviser. It wasn't in some sort of whispered advice from the Treasurer, which often happens when the Prime Minister doesn't know a particular number, which is very regular. What the Prime Minister said was, 'It's been a pretty good 10 months.' Day after day, we ask the Prime Minister questions about the cost-of-living issues being faced by Australians every single day. There's no one in this chamber, nobody, who would not be hearing a cavalcade of messages from people in their electorate highlighting what those pressures are. We keep asking question after question of the Prime Minister just to see if there's any acknowledgement from him, any understanding from him, that Australians now, 10 months after his election as Prime Minister, are doing it so much tougher than they were under the former coalition government. Today was another example, with this slippery, sneaky Prime Minister refusing to answer a question and refusing to acknowledge the pain that is being felt by Australians. It probably shouldn't be any surprise to members of this House. When it comes to taking selfies with celebrities, this Prime Minister is all over it. No celebrity can arrive in Australia without the Prime Minister wanting to sidle up for a bit of a selfie. No musician, no former politician, no actor can arrive in Australia without the Prime Minister trying to get some sort of deferred glory. There are a few inconvenient truths for the Prime Minister and the government. For a household with an average mortgage of $750,000—that is the average; many in large capital cities will be a lot more than that—those people, those families, are paying an additional $20,000 a year in repayments. That's a pretty good 10 months according to the Prime Minister. An extra $20,000 a year, or nearly $2,000 a month, is what every household with a mortgage has to find in order to meet their mortgage repayments. This is coming from a Prime Minister who promised in a speech before the election that if he was elected he would deliver cheaper mortgages. Where are those cheaper mortgages? I say to those opposite: where are the cheaper mortgages? The Prime Minister won't even acknowledge that he made that promise. He won't even acknowledge that he said the words. We see it time after time. We ask the Prime Minister questions: 'You said X before the election. Will you repeat it now?' He never can, on a succession of promises. The most extraordinary of those is that he promised 97 times before the election not that he would keep our prices where they were, not that he would reduce the increased growth in energy prices, but in fact that he would reduce power prices by $275 a year. I must say, when he made it the first time, most of us looked at that promise and thought: Was this a slip of the tongue? Is this realistic? Does anyone seriously think that he will be able to deliver power price reductions of $275 a year to households? Lo and behold, he went on to promise it 97 times. It wasn't a slip of the tongue. It wasn't an accident. It wasn't an unscripted, bumbling remark, which we're very used to from this Prime Minister. He made that promise 97 times. We get to post election and we see the evidence coming out that, in fact, just with electricity—this doesn't include gas—we're going to see increases of up to 31.1 per cent for households and 33.2 per cent for businesses. For those in the gallery, what that means for a household in New South Wales is an extra $564 a year, $485 for someone in South Australia, $432 a year for someone in Queensland and $426 a year in my home state of Victoria, where we will have a by-election on Saturday in Aston. The residents of Aston will pay an extra $426 a year when the Prime Minister promised on 97 occasions before the election that he would deliver a reduction of $275. We get to post election and you wonder what the alibi could possibly be. When he made a promise 97 times what could the alibi be? The Prime Minister came to question time one day—he hasn't repeated it since—and said, 'The reason we can't meet that commitment any longer is because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.' People in the gallery might think, 'Well, maybe that is a plausible explanation.' The problem is the Prime Minister made that promise 26 times after the invasion, 26 times after we saw the consequences that had for global energy markets. So we have a slippery, sneaky Prime Minister with his pathetic performances in question time where he won't even acknowledge the promise he made. You're talking to households that are not only seeing $20,000 a year increases in the mortgages when they were promised cheaper mortgages but are spending hundreds of dollars more a year on just their electricity. In my home state of Victoria I have constituents who have received notices from their gas supplier saying that their expected gas bills for this upcoming financial year will be $1,000 more, so $500 more for electricity, $1,000 more for gas, $20,000 more for their mortgage, yet it has been a pretty good 10 months for the globetrotting Prime Minister who likes to hang out with celebrities. We also see today, bizarrely, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer come in here crowing about today's inflation figures. I don't know if I am living in the twilight zone but never did I think there would be a day when a Prime Minister or Treasurer would walk into this chamber feeling happy about an inflation rate of 6.8 per cent. They were beside themselves with excitement. Let me go through some of those numbers. The most significant price rises were for housing, nearly 10 per cent—9.9 per cent; food and beverages, eight per cent; transport, 5.6 per cent. I hate to break it to those opposite but the biggest rises in inflation are not in luxury items. These are things that people cannot take out of their budget. When you're talking about a 10 per cent increase in the cost of housing, an eight per cent increase in the cost of food every time people go to the supermarket, nearly six per cent increase in the cost of transport, these are not things that Australians can remove from their household budgets. The Prime Minister and Labor think it has been a pretty good 10 months, patting themselves on the back, doing a victory lap, a victory parade, every day. Never have I seen a government clap themselves more than in the first 10 months in this government. They clap themselves every day—how pathetic. Australians are suffering out there. Australians are poorer, their budgets are stretched, they are making difficult decisions they don't want to make for their children and their families, and we have this pathetic mob clapping themselves, and this Prime Minister doing a victory lap in question time every day. Shame on Labor. 15:39 Ms TEMP 181810 Macquarie LEMAN () (): I thank the member for Deakin for raising this matter of public importance. It is a pity that he is walking out of the chamber, as always, and not bothering to listen to things here. If he did more listening and less interjecting, he might actually understand the work that we are doing. We care deeply about the impacts on people of rising mortgages, power bills and, in fact, all the increased costs of living that we are so mindful of. Unlike the opposition, we are doing something to address these issues. I listened to the member for Deakin and, sadly, his rhetoric was as empty as the policies he put forward when he was housing minister, when the best we got was money for wealthy people to do renovations. It might not have been him, but his government was certainly keen to say that, if you needed to buy a home, you should get a better job or just be born into the right family. There are issues that we have inherited. The difference is we accept that. We knew coming into government that we were going to have to clean up a mess. There are probably a few people in this chamber who know I enjoy gardening. That's not to say I do very much of it these days. But when I think about what is involved in creating and nurturing a beautiful garden I see parallels with the work you have to do to nurture the economy so that people and businesses thrive. I also see parallels with what happens if you neglect it. The impact doesn't happen immediately. Your garden still grows for a while. The flowers still bloom. But there are signs of distress, and you do well to pay attention to those. But at some point, if you ignore those, without the work that is needed in the garden you find yourself looking at a mess—overgrown grass, weeds as tall as your rose bushes and fruit trees in dire need of TLC. How does that help describe where we find ourselves today on this side of the parliament? For a start, as much as those opposite would like to pretend that the challenges we face have only occurred in the last 10 months, the facts just don't back that up. In 2019, well before COVID and, in my community, bushfires and floods, the cost of living was biting. One of the reasons was wage stagnation. Wages simply have not moved. As we found out, that was because those opposite didn't want wages to go up. In March 2019, the then federal finance minister Mathias Cormann said low wage growth was a 'deliberate design feature' of their economic architecture. So there was deliberate neglect taking place. There were early signs, and they were completely ignored by those opposite. They ignored the pleas of workers, who said, 'Things are tough.' They ignored the issues we raised when we said things were biting for people. Then, of course neglect led to even worse situations, with inflation biting. That is obviously the defining challenge of 2023. But let's remember the largest jump in inflation. We just had the member for Deakin quoting a bunch of inflation figures. The largest jump in inflation in any quarter this century occurred in the March quarter of not 2023 but 2022. It was a 2.1 per cent leap. By the way, that was before we took office. That was the worst period for inflation, and interest rates started to rise following that. So you can see the signs of distress were there. They weren't hiding in the soil. They had broken out and were in plain sight. When your garden gets into a state, there are a few things you need to do. You need to get some quick control, and weeding is one thing that will absolutely make a difference. But you can't stop there, because that's not addressing the real issues. You need to mulch so that the weeds don't come back as fast as you pull them out. Then you need to nurture that garden. You won't see the results immediately. I know the National Party will understand that nurturing is really important. It takes time, whether it is roses or wheat that you are growing. Without that, it's never going to thrive. That's the same sort of thinking we have applied to all the issues we have been left with, whether it's power bills, inflation or housing. We don't hide from it. We are proud that we are willing to get out there and do the work. Let's start with energy. I'm not sure whether the member for Deakin actually referred to this issue in his MPI ramblings—that is a good way to describe it—but let's talk about power bills. Jennifer Westacott, a highly respected businesswoman, said: … we have not done the work that we should have done for the last decade … we've really made a mess of energy policy. The chairman of Newcrest, Peter Tomsett, says: If you don't have policy for long enough— which has been our situation— you wind up with a situation where intervention is required. This need not have happened had the right energy policy been put in place. What we're seeing is a symptom. And, indeed, there were 22 policies, and they didn't land one of them. They left Australia with a national energy grid built for the last century, so we are doing the work. We know there is long-term work to do, but we also know that people need help quickly. That's why we worked so closely and quickly with the states and territories on getting cost-of-living support that would not drive greater inflation. That was really well thought through in collaboration with the states. Our aim for those deals with the states, working individually with each state, is that we are really looking forward to being able to see those flow through to people in the coming weeks and months. It does take time to do that work. By the way—and I feel we've said it a lot here—we know that Russia's invasion of Ukraine saw energy costs skyrocket. We understand how challenging that is for small businesses and big businesses. We made key decisions last year. Do you remember when we brought the government back, and those opposite voted against any price relief for people? We know that what we've done has made a difference. AGL, in a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange just last month, said: Notably, the impact of government intervention contributed to a sharp decline in forward electricity prices … So we know that what we're doing is working. Steven Kennedy from Treasury described it as a package that 'will make a material difference to reducing cost-of-living pressures'. So in energy we have bitten the bullet. We are doing the longer-term work getting clean energy, which is the cheapest form of energy you can have. The passage of our safeguard mechanism means that we will start to see significant and serious change. Our incentives to get people to move across to electric vehicles and all those things will make a difference. Those opposite talk about interest rates. It is so challenging for people who have mortgages to cope with the additional costs they are facing. That is driven by inflation. So what are we doing to tackle inflation? We know those opposite recognise this issue, because in September 2022, May 2022 and April 2022 the member for Hume, the Leader of the Opposition and the former Prime Minister all talked about the pressures of rising costs of living coming not just from the war in Ukraine but the disruptions to supply chains. And of course we are tackling that supply chain issue with the National Reconstruction Fund, which this parliament passed—no thanks to those opposite. Every measure we have put in place has been opposed by those opposite. In the time I have left, I think it's really is important to touch on the things we've done. We know people's mortgages have gone up, and we also recognise there are things that we can do quite quickly, just like weeding the garden. We can make some quick changes to ease the cost-of-living pressures on people. What are those things? Well, cheaper medicines is one of those things. As we've heard today, we have had the biggest cut in the cost of medicines to people in the entire PBS scheme. That has made millions and millions of dollars difference to people around the country by saving them that money. We also have cheaper child care in less than 100 days for families with children in child care. That is one of those areas where we can make a difference. And guess what? We have—unlike those opposite, who saw the danger signs and chose to ignore them at every single step of the way. Now, all they do when we put up the solutions is say no. They have said no to our Energy Price Relief Plan. They are saying no to the Housing Australia Future Fund. Guess what? More supply takes pressure off housing prices, which helps people have lower mortgages. They should be ashamed of themselves for coming in here and pretending to care and doing nothing. 15:49 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Do you know what else we'll oppose, Member for Macquarie? We will oppose and fight all the way to the ballot box the truckie tax—the 10 per cent hike that Labor is going to introduce on our truckies. If there was one industry that kept this country going and kept goods moving throughout the COVID pandemic—and I know it hasn't gone away yet—it was the trucking industry. And what does Labor want to do? They want to slug it an extra 10 per cent. Do you know what happens when you whack the trucking industry with an extra 10 per cent in heavy vehicle user charges and fuel taxes? It makes every good that goes to every supermarket in this country cost more. The bread-and-butter issues for Australians right across this nation just become that much harder to pay for. But don't take my word for it. Let's hear from a couple of constituents who phoned my office today. There was a Commonwealth Bank owner occupied mortgage entered into by a constituent in 2018 on a $435,000 loan. The interest rate rose from 3.32 per cent to 3.57 per cent in May 2022. From there, the principal and interest payments rose from $1,975 at 3.32 per cent to $2,628 at 6.82 per cent earlier this month. What do we say to that person? What do we say? We can't just say: 'Labor will fix it with higher wages. Labor will fix it because Labor fixes everything.' No. The fact remains that that person has to find that money. They have to tighten their belt that much more. They have to go without the things that they shouldn't have to go without. Another constituent, Drew Davis, rang my office this morning from Henty. Henty is in the neighbouring electorate of Farrer. He called the Wagga Wagga office today to say that his power bill has gone up $750 since last year. What did we hear the Prime Minister on 97 occasions say that he was going to do? Reduce power bills. How much did he say he was going to do it by? Mr Conaghan 279991 By $275. Mr McCORMACK 219646 That's exactly right, Member for Cowper—$275. But it was a fib. He duped the Australian public into thinking they were going to get reduced power costs. Drew lives by himself in a unit in the middle of a town of just over 1,200 people. His electricity bill used to cost around $150 to $250 a quarter. It now sets him back $500 to $600 per quarter. He said he was terrified—his word, not ours—of further increases and did not know how much more it will cost him and how much he will be able to cover future bills. It's a worrying trend that in Wagga Wagga, my hometown, charity workers say people are seeking help for the first time amidst the cost-of-living crisis, They are concerned many more will need assistance should the cost of groceries, rent and utilities continue to rise. It's not 'should'—it's a matter of fact that they will. They will rise in the electorate of Bennelong, in the electorate of Hasluck and in the electorate of Hunter. What are those members doing about it? What are they saying behind closed doors when Labor caucuses? Are they saying: 'Prime Minister, we need to actually get these costs down. We need to give these people relief. We need to give these people help'? No. They just go along blindly with the policies of the Labor government and say, 'Hey, we're in government right across mainland Australia. We'll do what we like, and to hell with what people's costs of living are.' St Vinnies and the Salvos have recorded a 25 per cent increase in demand for their services in Wagga Wagga. The Wagga Wagga St Vincent de Paul Society president, Peter Burgess, said that, along with the rise, there are residents who have never ever had to ask for help, yet they are now. That is sad. He said: In every aspect that we measure our business, it is increasing and I don't see an end to that. A lot of it comes from increasing costs of living … we're getting people coming in and saying, 'Last night, I slept in my car with my two kids.' That is just so sad. Under the policies of those opposite, who put ideology above practicality and above all else, we're seeing that our manufacturing businesses are going to be forced overseas. We are going to see cost-of-living pressures increase for Mr and Mrs Average—people out there who those people opposite should be helping, should be assisting, but they are ignoring the cries and pleas for help. Shame on all of you. 15:54 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair If those opposite thought this was a really important MPI, they'd be here in droves. The shadow minister is standing there. The member for Longman is leaving. There are three backbenchers and a person on duty. That's how concerned they are with mortgage costs and power bills. Where is the Leader of the Opposition, the bloke that tried to put in a $7 GP tax to try to cut $50 billion out of the health budget in 2014? He then put on a Medicare freeze, for year after year after year, to increase the cost of seeing a doctor. So don't come in here and give us lectures about the cost of living. The coalition left us a trillion dollars in debt. They had low wages, stagnant productivity and energy chaos. According to Malcolm Turnbull, the former Prime Minister, his own government's right wing sabotaged and caused energy chaos. He blamed the right wing in the Liberal Party. That's what he did. The National Energy Guarantee, the NEG, was one of 22 policies. It was dead, according to Prime Minister Morrison, the member for Cook. They couldn't get the policy right, but they went ring-a-ring-a-rosie, holding each other, clapping each other, cheering each other, for getting rid of a price on carbon, which would have meant cleaner, cheaper renewable energy to help people in terms of power costs. But these people over here, who couldn't land an energy policy when they were in government for nine years, presume to give us lectures about that. When they had a chance to help people with energy prices and cost of living last year, in December, with $1.5 billion of energy relief in the budget—and they'll get that again in the May budget—what did they do? They voted against it. So don't believe what they say; look at their actions. They have four people here and someone on duty. They're really concerned about mortgage costs and power bills, but they can't even bother turning up! It's their MPI. It's not ours. We're here in large numbers. It's their MPI. It's not ours. It's vain and false concern for people's cost-of-living pressures and their mortgage bills. It's vain and it's not real, because those opposite had a chance to do something about it. It's as if COVID never existed in terms of supply chain pressures. It's as if the war in Ukraine had never happened. But, if you go to Europe, if you speak to the leaders in Europe, the politicians there, they will tell you that the war in Ukraine is affecting their energy costs. They're having to be innovative and creative in relation to that. In terms of energy, those opposite think you can do anything. Nuclear seems to be their obsession now. I look forward to them campaigning for nuclear power plants on the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast, around Ipswich and up in Cairns and Townsville. I look forward to them campaigning on that policy at the next election, because that's not the answer. It's renewables. It's solar. It's wind. That's what they should have been doing. They should never, ever have got rid of the carbon price. They should never have done that. The Productivity Commission said that. When it comes to a policy that would make a difference in housing, the Housing Australia Future Fund, they say no. Like the Greens, they've said no. It would provide tens of thousands of extra social and community housing. And they presume to give us lectures. The member for Riverina, whom I actually like personally, presumes to give us a lecture on ideology. They have an ideological position that the Commonwealth government should not be involved in social and community housing, public housing, because that's a matter for the states. So they won't vote for it. That's why they won't support people. Veterans would get help. Single mothers would get help. Emergency workers, the heroes of the pandemic, would get help. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people would get help. People who need help would get it, in terms of cheaper housing, social and community housing. The coalition are worried about mortgage bills. There is an opportunity for them to vote to change things, to help people. When given an opportunity to address the supply chain issues with the National Reconstruction Fund, they voted against it. So everything they say is at odds with what they do and how they vote. Look at what they do, not what they say. If they were ever concerned about this issue at all, they'd be here on the front bench and the back bench in multitudes, but they're not. There are 57 of them who sit over there, and five of them are here now. So, to those opposite: don't give us a lecture, don't give us platitudes, about this issue at all. 15:59 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I think it's a bit rich of the member for Blair to come in and lecture us when our communities are some of the poorest communities across Australia. We're here representing them, and when he says that we don't have bums on seats in an MPI, I'd just ask him to think back to over 10 months ago, when Labor was putting MPIs on in here and it was very, very sparse. But I will talk to the MPI. I think it's very appropriate that it's brought on today because, just like my friend and colleague from Riverina, across my electorate I am seeing increasing numbers of people going to places like Vinnies and Lifeline and calls to Lifeline from people who are so distressed about the cost of living, the cost of electricity and the cost of their mortgages, and they don't know where to turn to. For all the smoke and mirrors that we've seen from Labor over the past 10 months, they keep going up. Now, I will give credit to where credit is due. There has been a decrease in the cost of medicine and there have been more childcare places—or, I should say, childcare fees. But not everybody has a child in child care; not everybody is on medicines. We need real, tangible policy to force down the cost of living—real, tangible policy to allow people some comforts of life. I spoke recently about pensioners—a couple in South West Rocks who wrote to me out of despair. Both of them are on the pension and noted they received a $44 a fortnight increase recently. Well, their power bill has just gone up by 44 per cent. That equates to half of what the increase in the pension was. On top of that, add the increases in the cost of fuel, the cost of groceries and the cost of almost everything. I'll give you some examples. We are now paying 12.2 per cent more for bread and cereal products, 8.5 per cent more for fruit and vegetables, a whopping 14.9 per cent more for dairy products and 8.2 per cent more for meat and seafood. What that is doing is forcing people away from fresh food to tinned food. They're not buying meat and they're going without. They're hurting out there, and what we are hearing from Labor is this rhetoric that, while the opposition are voting against everything—guess what?—nothing has worked. Nothing is working. Prices keep going up. Electricity prices keep going up. We know this because there's going to be another increase of another 25 per cent from Origin from 1 July. How are these people going to cope? Stop blaming us and start doing your job. Start implementing policies that actually work, rather than launching headlong into ideology and renewables that aren't there now. We are all for renewables, but they're not there now. This ideology of no more gas and no more coal is pushing everything through the roof. You look at us and you say, 'You don't care.' Well, we could say that about you. You don't care about the public. You're not implementing any solutions to ease that pain, to stop people having to go to Lifeline and to stop people having to go to Vinnies. Let me talk about the tax on the truckies. Where do you think that's going to flow to? That's right: the little people—those same people from South West Rocks, those same people from Dorrigo who can't pay their bills now. They can't pay their electricity bills. It's just going to flow on. It'll flow on to the consumer. It'll flow on to the customer. They will be the ones it will flow on to. It will be your constituents saying, 'Guess what? That tax that you imposed on the truckies is hurting us.' Do your job and help your constituents. 16:04 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I have to concur with my good friend and colleague the member for Blair. I was here for almost a decade in opposition, and I was involved in lots of MPIs. We turned up, we participated and we called on the then government to act. Look at what we've got. This is the opposition's MPI. None of them are here. They're not showing any effort. They're not supporting their speakers. They're the ones supposed to be providing quorum for this debate, and where are they? We used to turn up. But it doesn't stop at their willingness to turn up; it's also this question—haven't we debated this before? Hasn't this been here over and over again? I think I'm the last person on the government side to speak on this; it's been on the agenda so long. They just don't care. I think that's what they're demonstrating. They're not really interested in this parliament and the standing orders. They've demonstrated once again they don't understand the standing orders. They're just not here. Their inability to articulate this MPI is another example of how they just don't care. The previous speaker said, 'We represent the poorest electorates.' We know that. We spent 10 years asking, 'What are you doing for regional and rural Australia?' Your electorates are struggling. You implemented policies in government that deliberately attacked rural and regional electorates. Stage 3 tax cuts, one of their core principles, do nothing for rural and regional electorates, because people there don't earn a lot, yet they pursued it and pursued it. There are lots of examples where they failed in government to do something to help people in the regions. Now we are putting forward policies. I do find extraordinary as well that they say we're not doing anything on energy. Did they just not notice that they voted against our energy price relief plan? We all came back here in December. Once the states, the Prime Minister and the government had worked out a deal, we all came back. Just as we were getting ready to go to all of our Christmas functions, so urgent was it for our government to do something about energy price relief, we came back—and they were here. They did turn up, but maybe they mentally didn't turn up. They were physically sitting here. Maybe they didn't realise they'd actually voted no to the energy relief plan they are now trying to say we're not doing anything about. This government inherited a mess and is working hard to clean it up. It's not just in energy prices; we are doing our best to get inflation under control, where we can, as a government. We are also doing more to lower the cost of living in multiple different ways. We've talked about cheaper child care. That's going to help thousands and thousands of families who have little people in early childhood education. I do childcare pick up, I talk to the mums and dads at pickup and fees are hurting. Under the previous government they went up by over 40 per cent— An honourable member: 49. Ms CHESTERS 249710 49 per cent—that's how much childcare fees went up under the previous government. That is why one of our first acts as a government was to introduce cheaper child care. Free TAFE is making it affordable for people to go and get the skills that are going to help get our economy moving. When I talk to people in my regional electorate, they say one of the biggest barriers for them going to TAFE is the cost. Providing free TAFE in the areas where we need skills is giving an opportunity to people from backgrounds where they don't have the income to pay TAFE fees. We supported the minimum wage increase. That's something we campaigned on. They never, ever did—which would really help so many workers in regional communities, so many workers in their own electorates. They run away from pay rises. They don't want to see pay rises that help our lowest paid workers. We support it, and we again today have said we will support another wage increase that is similar to inflation. These are just some of the many ways our government is getting behind and helping to lower it. We know it is just the beginning. We know we're on a long journey in getting on top of inflation, helping households and relieving cost-of-living pressures. But you know what? The Australian people get that it's a tough ask, and they're with us. We are not just seeing that in the opinion polls; we are hearing that in our listening posts. We are hearing that when we go to community groups. We are hearing that when we are out in our electorates. People are saying: 'You are doing a good job. Keep going. I'm so relieved. And thank you, thank you, thank you.' That is what we are doing on this side. We are turning up. 16:09 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies Like yesterday, we hear complaints from the other side about why these MPIs keep coming. They keep coming because there are no solutions from the other side. As soon as there are solutions, these MPIs will change, and they might even stop, and the complaining can stop. What we're talking about are actual real people's lives. I want to single out a particular part of Melbourne—the seat of Aston, which has the suburbs of Rowville and Bayswater and areas that I know really well. It's important that we acknowledge that that part of Melbourne matters and is doing it tough. They're looking for solutions from this government, and they're not getting them. They will pass judgement on this government this Saturday, and we encourage them to do that. We are a big, wide, brown land, but 86 per cent in this country live in urban areas, and what we know as to urban areas is that the price of land is higher, and, when the price of land is higher, you pay more on your mortgage. So people who live in the seat of Aston pay more on their mortgage. When we look at the figures of an average mortgage— Mr WOLAHAN 235654 I'm glad you raise that. I'll take that interjection. The candidate, Roshena Campbell, lives in the seat of Aston, unlike your candidate. Your candidate does not live in the seat of Aston. And we'll hear this mistruth that is being peddled throughout this campaign. Government members interjecting— Mr WOLAHAN 235654 No. Roshena Campbell lives in Aston, unlike the Labor candidate. But I'm glad you've raised Roshena Campbell, because Roshena Campbell is someone that I've known personally for many years, someone who is a fighter and an advocate for people who are doing it tough throughout Melbourne. The reason that matters is that families in the seat of Aston— Government members interjecting— Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Now, Deputy Speaker— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm listening. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Well, it is hard to hear, with the interjections. They seem to be quite upset that Roshena Campbell lives in the seat of Aston. And it's important that that be clarified. Those with a mortgage of $750,000 now have to find an extra $20,000. That's $20,000 after tax. So, whether you're a single income family or a dual income family, you have to go and find that extra money. Now, we know that's not going to come from a pay rise, whether you're in the private sector or the public sector or self-employed. That's just not how this works. So that extra saving has to come from things that you cut, and it comes in many different ways. When you're standing in the checkout line at Woolworths or Coles or an IGA, there are things that you used to buy that you now put back. And we know that the things that cost most are fresh, quality food. So Australians are having to put quality food back on the shelves. That food's not just for the individual paying the bill; that is for the children in those families. There are real, daily consequences for people. We know that, when children come home and say: 'I'd like to go on a camp'—and those children include students from Melbourne and the seat of Aston, who would like to be here, on a camp, but those things cost money—again, parents are making choices and they're making sacrifices. They're making sacrifices for things like sport—for joining a soccer team. Soccer is one of the most expensive sports that you can play. It's not subsidised like AFL and other sports are. And it's so popular in Melbourne. It's a popular sport in the seat of Aston. Families are telling me, in my seat and in other seats, that they now have to pull back. They can't let their kids play the very sport that they want to play. So, when the voters of Aston go to the booths on Saturday, they will pass judgement on this government. I'm not someone who comes in here and blames every interest rate rise on you; I won't do that. But I will say that what you do in response is your responsibility, and you have been found wanting. You come in here and want to re-litigate the previous government, because that's the easy thing to do. It's easy to stand up and pretend you're still in opposition, to pretend you're here. And if you really wish to be over here, you're welcome to come over. You know that can happen. If what you want to do is re-litigate the previous government, then where you really want to be is in opposition. That's where you really want to be. That sounds like it's easier and it's more fun because it's easier to throw stones than to actually solve problems for people who are doing it tough. To the people of Aston—of Rowville, of Bayswater, of Upper Ferntree Gully: you get to pass judgement this Saturday. 16:14 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide This is an absolute joke. This motion that the opposition has put up is laughable. When you think of the last 10 years, when they were in government, it's like they've tried to whitewash history from 2013 through to 2022. It's like nothing existed before 21 May 2022, and they have forgotten that they were in government all those years and implemented nothing. Now, when you're in government, you have a duty to lay down the foundations for the future. And that's what they failed to do. They failed to do that with health, and we saw that the highest out-of-pocket costs for health were in their era. They froze the Medicare levy, which saw an increase in costs. They were in government when we had the lowest wages on record. And then, of course, we can't forget their bungled 22 policies for energy—not one or two but 22. Had they had a coherent policy in place we might have seen energy prices a bit lower in today's world. We know that the only way to bring energy prices down is to have more players in the market. If you're an energy producer, or in the market for selling energy, why would you have committed to anything in those last 10 years, without any certainty? If you look at the issues that we're going through today—yes, there are cost-of-living problems for families and there are interest rate rises—there was nothing put in place, for 10 years, to build some sort of foundation to protect the Australian public. To come in here today and move this matter of public importance is a laugh and a joke. You should be taking responsibility. What's happening today is due to your inactions of 10 years. As I said, we saw the lowest productivity rates and the lowest wage increases. And, when we tried to argue against low wages, we were told it would increase inflation. We were told we shouldn't interfere with the industrial commission. We were told that they weren't interested in seeing any wage increase to assist the Australian public. The cycle of rate rises began before the election. We saw the first rate rises way before the election. One of the things that keep mortgage rates at a lower level is the affordability of housing. Another is the ability to have stock in the market. So we've delivered a housing policy—and the opposition have voted against it—which will deliver 100,000 homes and take some pressure off that particular market. They voted against it. In December the Prime Minister brought parliament back to ensure that we could put some action in place that would assist with energy costs. What did the opposition do? They voted against it. And they come in here today, wanting to talk about the cost of living and the rising power bills et cetera. It's a joke. Look at the opposition benches. There are two people sitting on the backbench and one person sitting at the table. Even their own backbench has given up on their tactics committee. They're not in here. Whoever wrote this particular MPI today is an embarrassment. We are delivering on many fronts that they have opposed. We are delivering on cheaper child care, expanded paid parental leave and cheaper medicines. In my electorate alone, $300,000 was saved through cheaper medicines in January and February, when we lowered the PBS prices. That is incredible. We need more affordable housing and we're acting on that. We're delivering on energy bill relief and we're getting wages moving again, which is so important—and something they did not do for 10 years. In fact, they wanted to see lower wages; we remember their former finance minister arguing against any increase in wages, saying how great it was for the economy and that wages should be low. We're paying the price today for government inaction for the last 10 years. 16:20 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I find myself outnumbered here, but we'll have a go anyway! I will take up a point from the previous speaker, the member for Adelaide. Groom must be a very different place. We saw tremendous investment in our energy sector across coal, gas and solar. Just outside wind, we're energy agnostic; we'll take whatever works, and we get on with the job up there. I come to this place, as I'm sure many of my colleagues from all sides do, to make the world a better place and to hope the next generation have more opportunities and better quality of life than our generation experienced. Quite simply put, I want a better Australia. We're all here to do that. That's what our job is. This includes, for me, very much keeping the great Australian dream alive. The idea of being able to buy and own your own home—this is an important part of what you can do, why people come to our country, what makes us a special place, that that dream is still alive. And I want to keep it there. But right now, for so many young people, particularly in Groom, that dream is either unobtainable or, for those who have just got onto the property ladder, a weight that's almost too much to bear. Prior to the election the Prime Minister acknowledged this, and that's why he made his promise of cheaper mortgages. It was a very good promise to make; nowhere more so than in Groom was it a good promise to make, because prior to the election we were regularly reported as having the most financial stress amongst mortgage holders of anywhere in the nation. We've been growing. It's a place where people invest and get ahead; I made the analogy before with our energy markets. We want to get in and have a go. We take that risk. Unfortunately, with that has come stress. That was true before the election, when the Prime Minister made his promise of cheaper mortgages, and it is true after the election. Since then, the number of mortgage holders experiencing financial stress has gone from 40 per cent before the election to 73 per cent now. Things have gotten a lot worse, particularly for a lot of young people who are just in the property market or for people looking to get into the property market. Sadly, that great Australian dream of homeownership is slipping away. When the Prime Minister promised lower mortgages, Australians believed him and wanted him to succeed in that promise. I'm not giving up on that dream; I'm sad that the Prime Minister is. But, as parochial as I am for my great region, it's not just in Groom that this is being experienced. This is from a Roy Morgan report from yesterday: mortgage stress increased to its highest level since September 2011, with 25.3 per cent of mortgage holders now 'at risk'. It estimates 1.23 million mortgage holders were at risk of mortgage stress in the three months to February 2023. That number has increased by 514,000 over the last year. That's an extraordinary increase. It was a great promise to make. I think this is where we've come to. This is not a joke; this is a very important promise the Prime Minister has walked away from. Prior to the election this side of the House made the announcement of the Super Home Buyer Scheme, which would allow first home buyers to use their superannuation to purchase a property. That was a commitment we made because we recognised, like the Prime Minister, that mortgage stress was a huge issue and that the great Australian dream needed to be kept alive. We acknowledged that and made that commitment. I'm very proud to say that after the election we've kept the commitment; Peter Dutton has maintained that commitment we made before the election. I'm reminded of the great Seinfeld episode about the hire car—you took the booking but you didn't hold the booking. This is the thing with commitments: you've got to make them and then hold them on the other side of the election. Those opposite haven't held their commitment, and it's important that the Australian people understand that. To the young people of Groom, I will be very clear: I want you to own a home. I want you to get on the property ladder. I want that dream to be alive for you. And, unlike the Prime Minister, we will keep our commitment to work towards that dream. I think there's nothing more important in Australia right now than to see young people coming through and owning their own homes. This is not a joke. This is not a laughing matter. It's a very important issue for us to be talking about. We've been talking about it for a fair while now, and we're going to keep talking about it. Members opposite, I know you're going to hear this over and over again: these broken promises are hurting the Australian people. 16:25 M 157125 Pearce s ROBERTS () (): I rise to speak in response to the shadow minister's matter of public importance. Clearly, it's not very important. The shadow minister does not have the courtesy to remain in the chamber, and we have three members of the opposition here, which actually speaks volumes. This reflects, in my view, total contempt for those of us on this side of the chamber who are trying to fix the economy after a decade of neglect. My mum used to say, 'If you stuff up, step up and fix it.' If you stuff up, step up and fix it. Here we are, in March 2023, carefully working our way through a trillion dollars worth of debt that was clearly left by those opposite, who are taking no responsibility whatsoever—no responsibility for a decade of neglect. They are regularly on their feet blaming us, criticising us, for the mess that they created and that we are trying to fix. It's astonishing that they have such short memories. What's worse is that they regularly vote against the important initiatives that we are trying to implement to fix the mess that they left. Five minutes to articulate everything I would like to say is not enough. Five minutes is not enough. I could stand here for absolute hours. However, I will provide some examples. The Leader of the Opposition, on 27 March 2023, said on ABC Melbourne: I think we've been a constructive opposition. I think we have been responsible in the way in which we've entered debates. Unbelievable. The 'no-alition' is back. They said no to the Energy Price Relief Plan, no to the Housing Australia Future Fund, no to the National Reconstruction Fund, no to free TAFE, no to increasing the minimum wage, no to fair and sustainable superannuation, no to the secure jobs, better pay bill, no to electric vehicle discounts, no to a climate bill—a 43 per cent reduction by 2030? A big fat no. They said no to reforms of the safeguard mechanism, no to Rewiring the Nation, no to permanent visa pathways for existing temporary protection visa holders and no to the Jobs and Skills Summit. The priority of those opposite is to borrow more to fund tax breaks for people who already have tens of millions of dollars in superannuation. It is outrageous when, in stark contrast, our priority on this side of the House, when Australians are doing it tough, is targeted, costed relief in a responsible budget. The Albanese Labor government has a three-point plan for addressing the inflation challenge in the economy. It's about relief, repair and restraint—responsible cost-of-living relief and repairing supply-side constraints, and fee-free TAFE, cleaner and cheaper energy, the National Construction Fund and more affordable housing. It's about a responsible budget with spending restraint, returning almost all revenue upgrades to the bottom line and keeping spending essentially flat over the next four years to not add to inflation. We understand that the rising cost of living is hitting a lot of Australians hard, and inflation is the defining economic challenge of 2023, as it was in 2022. This is driven in large part by Russia's illegal war in Ukraine. We have spoken about that before, but it is a clear example. But also, in no small part, it's unquestionably a consequence of the wasted decade under the previous government. By voting against the energy relief bill, the National Reconstruction Fund and the Housing Australia Future Fund, they are voting for higher inflation for longer. Actions speak louder than words, without a doubt, and I would like to place on the record, in repetition for emphasis, what we on this side of the House are doing—what the Albanese Labor government are doing. We successfully argued for the Fair Work Commission's minimum wage increase, in line with inflation. We have introduced legislation that will drive investment in cleaner and cheaper energy, putting downward pressure on power prices. The May budget will include direct energy bill relief for households and businesses which the opposition tried to block and then criticised us. We are delivering cheaper child care. We are delivering cheaper medicines. We are delivering fee-free TAFE and more university places. We are expanding paid parental leave. We are building more affordable homes, including through the national housing accord. Pensions, allowances and rent assistance have increased in line with inflation. We have brought in a new pensioner work bond so more Australians can keep more of what they earn without it affecting their pension. By voting this way, we are recognising and understanding our communities. We know Australians are hurting and we are here to help them. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. COMMITTEES 78 COMMITTEES Treaties Joint Committee 78 Report 78 16:30 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle () (): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled: Report 208 International Labour Organization Convention Concerning the Elimination of Violence and Harassment in the World of Work No. 190. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 by leave—I am glad to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report entitled International Labour Organization Convention Concerning the Elimination of Violence and Harassment in the World of Work. Everyone has a right to participate in work free from violence and harassment, including, and especially ,gender based violence and harassment. In the last few years, Australia has faced a reckoning on how many people are denied that right. The milestone Respect@Work report exposed the full extent of the problem of sexual harassment in the Australian workplace, and I particularly acknowledge all those who have contributed their experiences to inform that work. This reckoning has been motivated by the dismay and resolve of the Australian people and has rightly moved the Australian government to act and to begin taking the necessary steps to eliminate violence and harassment in the world of work. One of those necessary steps is ratifying the convention concerning the elimination of violence and harassment in work. This was in fact a recommendation of the Jenkins report. The convention is a landmark international instrument offering an inclusive, integrated and gender-responsive solution to the complex, multilayered and, all too frequently, gender based problem of violence and harassment in the world of work. The convention establishes a world-first definition of violence and harassment, which includes a range of unacceptable behaviours and practices or threats of such conduct, whether a single occurrence or repeated behaviour, that aims to or results in or is likely to cause physical, psychological, sexual or economic harm, and includes gender based violence and harassment. What's more, the convention is comprehensive in its coverage of what we mean when we say 'the world of work', endeavouring to prevent violence and harassment in every possible configuration of a workplace. The convention recognises that a worker or other people in the world of work includes employees irrespective of their contractual status, persons in training, interns, apprentices, workers whose employment has been terminated, volunteers, jobseekers and job applicants. The convention covers all aspects of work, whether in private or public spaces, travelling to and from work, during rest breaks and during work related travel and training. Upon adoption, the convention would mean that the government's businesses and worker representatives are required to work together in developing an inclusive, integrated and gender-responsive approach for the prevention of violence and harassment in the world of work. The new approach draws the individual elements of the convention together, providing an opportunity to supersede traditional approaches which involved a patchwork of workplace health and safety, workplace relations, human rights, criminal laws and policies. In Australia, the Respect@Work report found that our patchwork of traditional laws and policies do contain inconsistencies in coverage and approach. The committee heard promising evidence that Australia tends to take advantage of the opportunity to address that, for example, a new body—the Respect at Work Council—has been established to consider how Australia's regulatory framework can be used to address workplace sexual harassment and violence. While the committee found that Australia is in compliance with the obligations of the convention, the proper measure of success in eliminating violence and harassment in the world of work will not be measured in the passage of laws or the prosecution of offenders, as significant as that might be; the measure of success will be a community wide recognition that mutual respect and dignity are an essential and crucial requirement in the world of work, with a corresponding normative shift that actually reduces the instances of violence and harassment in the workplace. I take this opportunity to thank all of the members of the JSCOT committee, including the deputy chair and, of course, the secretariat. The committee supports ratification of the convention. On behalf of the committee, I commend this report to the House. 16:34 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert by leave—I thank the House for the opportunity to make a brief statement on this report. I know all of us in this place agree that there is no place for violence or harassment of any kind in the workplace, and I know that's something all Australians would agree on. That's why it has been so important that the committee has given consideration to this convention and endorsed its ratification. The committee received evidence on the significant numbers of incidents of behaviour, all of which are unacceptable and are condemned in the strongest terms. That's why adopting this convention was one of the key actions of the former coalition government in response to the recommendations of the Jenkins report, which was commissioned by the then government, with all recommendations either accepted or noted before the last election. The former government and now opposition supports the International Labour Organization's moves to counter violence and harassment in the workplace. In fact, then minister Senator Cash attended the International Labour Organization's conference in Geneva in June 2019, and the government had an active role in the development of the convention. It is good that we in this place have already made moves to comply with our obligations under this convention, including providing funding of more than $70 million for the implementation of the Respect@Work Roadmap for Respect over the 2020, 2021 and 2022 budgets; passing the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Act 2021; establishing the Respect@Work Council, which is leading implementation of a number of key Respect@Work report recommendations; and substantially boosting legal assistance to provide for specialist lawyers with workplace and discrimination law expertise, with an additional $43.9 million in funding. As the report notes: … Australia is already compliant with the Convention's obligations, but the evidence also indicated that violence and harassment in the world of work is still an extensive problem … It also notes the committee's view: … that the Convention should be ratified, but that ratification should not be viewed as an end in itself. We must always be doing everything we can to eliminate violence and harassment in the workplace. This report also covers consideration of amendments to the Rotterdam Convention relating to two chemicals. We support that action. I thank the committee members; of course, the chair; the inquiry participants; and the secretariat, for their hard work on this report, and I commend it to the House. DELEGATION REPORTS 79 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Papua New Guinea 79 16:37 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Papua New Guinea from 4 to 10 December 2022, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Ms CLAYDON 248181 I would like to begin by acknowledging my colleagues who were part of this delegation to Papua New Guinea, some of whom are in the House at the moment. Firstly, the leader of our delegation was the President in the Senate, our dear friend and colleague the Hon. Sue Lines. I want to acknowledge the member for Macnamara, who joins us in the House today, who was present, along with Dr Scamps from Mackellar. We were also joined by those from the other place. In addition to the President, we had the Hon. Linda Reynolds and Senator Mehreen Faruqi, and we were ably accompanied by Mr Alan Raine, who was our delegation secretary. I thank them all for their good hearts and camaraderie over the time that we were in PNG. Of course, PNG is not just our closest neighbour but a very dear, deep friend of Australia's, and these delegations are a very important part of building on those existing relationships and being able to add to the deep commitment that both Australia and Papua New Guinea have to ensuring a stable, secure and peaceful region. During the delegation we were very well briefed and accompanied by the Australian High Commissioner in Port Moresby, His Excellency Jon Philp, and his staff, who assisted us tremendously throughout our visit. We greatly appreciated the effort made to accommodate both the needs of the delegation and the wishes of both nations in ensuring a very successful visit. A very big shout-out to someone who's become a very dear friend, I suspect, for the member for Macnamara, me and everybody else on the delegation, the Hon. Sasindran Muthuvel, the Governor of West New Britain. One of the terrific things that we were able to do was go and visit West New Britain, and we were joined by the Hon. Freddie Reu Kumai, the member for Talasea Open, whose district we were visiting. We travelled with both gentlemen throughout West New Britain, and their hospitality and generosity were really astonishing. We thank them deeply for that. Some of the matters that we were able to talk about in a very frank and robust way were issues around ending violence against women. We know this is a profoundly disturbing part of Papua New Guinean society—and Australian society. We were able to speak very frankly at round tables with the services that were providing terrific support and new programs for women and children who were experiencing family violence. The Australian delegation participated in that. We shared some of the tragic stories from our own communities and the efforts that we seek to make in Australia to end what is a national scourge in our communities. I also especially appreciated the UNICEF visit and briefing that we had, looking at education in Papua New Guinea. We got to meet amazing Papua New Guinean women who were trained in my home town at the University of Newcastle and who are now masters graduates and are doing outstanding work in terms of leading great education programs in their home communities in Papua New Guinea. I want to give enormous thanks to the team at UNICEF there for improving educational outcomes and the socioeconomic outcomes for children in PNG more broadly. We were very keen to look at what could be done and what was happening to help improve retention and completion rates of the students there. We also got to visit and see the new facilities at the University of Papua New Guinea, which were financed through an Australian government contribution to build some new infrastructure at the university. Of course, the University of Papua New Guinea has very deep ties with the Australian National University and has had for a long time. As a young anthropologist I was one of the beneficiaries of all of that training in Melanesia, which my teachers took me through. For a long time, the Australian National University has had a Pacific studies program, and, indeed, many of the gentleman who taught me as a young woman found their careers in Papua New Guinea. So there are some very deep ties to build on there. I would also like to add that, for many of us, it was very moving to see the Bomana War Cemetery in PNG. It's a very meaningful place for many Australians and, indeed, for many Papua New Guineans. It has been beautifully cared for and restored, and I want to assure all those families that the Australian War Graves people, in partnership with Papua New Guinea, are doing us the most tremendous service by maintaining the dignity of those who are buried in that war cemetery. Enormous thanks go to the people of Papua New Guinea for their warm hospitality. To their leadership: I really look forward, as I know the President and others on the delegation do, to working closely with our dear neighbours and working on some of those challenges about ensuring that more women are elected to places like this in PNG as well. I know that is a task that many women in PNG also wish for themselves. I present this report on behalf of all the delegation, and I certainly look forward to Papua New Guinea being able to return here with a delegation to the Australian parliament. I know that members in this House from all benches will absolutely want to be part of deepening those ties and relationships. We all want to see a stable, secure and peaceful region in the Pacific. Thank you very much. COMMITTEES 80 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 80 Report 80 16:45 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on item 250 of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr KHALIL 101351 by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present this report. It's a report that considers item 250 of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022, which was passed into law in December 2022. Item 250 amended paragraph 110A(1) of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, allowing the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the NACC, access to stored communications and telecommunications data. The committee made seven recommendations in relation to the reform of Australia's electronic surveillance framework, parliamentary privilege and security of information. The committee noted that item 250 gives a wide range of covert powers to the NACC and considered the effect of the use of these powers on parliamentary privilege. The committee recommended the government ensure the protection of parliamentary privilege in relation to the use of covert powers in its reform of Australia's electronic surveillance framework. Further, the committee considered that the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act should be expressly amended to ensure that the provisions of that act do not abrogate parliamentary privilege. In addition, the committee recommended that, given the sensitivity of information to be collected and stored by the NACC, it should be required to comply with the Essential Eight Maturity Model to maturity level 3, as recommended by the Australian Cyber Security Centre. Finally, the committee recommended that employees at the NACC hold a security clearance of at least negative vetting level 1, with increased requirements up to positive vetting depending on their access to sensitive information. On behalf of the committee, I extend my thanks to those who participated in the inquiry as witnesses and stakeholders and made submissions. For providing those submissions and appearing at public hearings, we thank them. I also thank the deputy chair and all the committee members for the hard work that they put in and, of course, as always, the secretariat for their work on this particular inquiry and this report. I commend this report to the House. Human Rights Joint Committee 81 Report 81 16:48 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 4 of 2023. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr BURNS 278522 I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Is leave granted? Mr Tehan 210911 Given the honourable way the member took his defeat on the golf course, leave is granted. Mr BURNS 278522 Tehan by name and teein' off by nature—there we go! I am pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' fourth scrutiny report of 2023. In this report, the committee has considered 13 new bills, and 102 legislative instruments. The committee has commented on one of these bills and four legislative instruments. In particular, the committee is seeking further information in relation to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 and two related legislative instruments, to assess the human rights compatibility of laws relating to income management. The committee is also seeking further information as to the human rights compatibility of two legislative instruments, one which redesignated Nauru as a regional processing country and another that sets out the rules for assessing whether a person meets the work related impairment levels for assessing eligibility for the disability support pension. The committee has also concluded its consideration of three legislative instruments. This includes consideration of the biosecurity determination that imposed entry requirements on passengers to provide proof of a negative COVID test prior to boarding a flight from China, Hong Kong or Macau. The measure was not time limited but was repealed shortly after the committee first reported on it. The committee considers that, as this determination was designed to prevent the spread of new COVID variants, it likely promoted and protected the rights to life and health. As such, and as the determination has now been repealed and had exemptions for individual circumstances, the committee considers any limit on human rights by this determination was likely reasonable and proportionate. However, the committee notes that such determinations are not required to be strictly time limited, other than sunsetting after 10 years. The committee is concerned that there is no legislative requirement to regularly review such determinations. This contrasts with earlier determinations made during the COVID pandemic (under different parts of the Biosecurity Act) which had to be remade every three months. The committee has therefore recommended that the Biosecurity Act be amended to provide that a determination made under these provisions must not be in force longer than the period that the health minister considers necessary and in any case, not longer than three months. The committee also concluded its consideration of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Regulations which continue the scheme of financial assistance for textile, clothing and footwear industry contract outworkers in situations where their employer has become insolvent. This promotes the right to just and favourable conditions of work for those eligible for financial assistance. However, the committee has concluded that, as only Australian citizens and permanent residents are eligible, there is a risk that this may not be a proportionate limit on the rights to equality, nondiscrimination and just and favourable conditions of work. The committee has recommended that the regulations be amended to give some discretion to provide the assistance for otherwise ineligible migrant workers based on consideration of their individual circumstances. Finally, I'm pleased to advise the House that the Attorney-General has referred a year-long inquiry to our committee to examine Australia's human rights framework. This is a timely review of our important human rights framework, and I am very pleased to be doing this work together with my committee colleagues. A significant part of this inquiry will be hearing evidence as to whether the Australian parliament should enact a human rights act and, if so, what elements it should include. The inquiry will also be examining the remit of our committee, the role of the Australian Human Rights Commission, and developments in Australian human rights law since 2010. Submissions are now open, and I look forward to updating the House on the progress of this important inquiry. As always, I thank the committee staff, who have done an extraordinary job and a huge amount of work not only for this report but also for the upcoming inquiry. With these comments, I commend the committee's Human rightsscrutiny report:report 4 of 2023 to the House. National Anti-Corruption Commission Joint Committee 82 Report 82 16:52 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, I present the committee's report entitled Report on proposed recommendations for appointments to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Dr HAINES 282335 by leave—I rise today as Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and I'm pleased today—very pleased indeed—to table this historic report, which confirms that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission has approved the recommendations for the inaugural appointments to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. These appointments are the Hon. Justice Paul Brereton AM RFD, as commissioner; Ms Nicole Rose PSM, as deputy commissioner; Dr Ben Gauntlett, as deputy commissioner; Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, as acting deputy commissioner; and Ms Gail Furness SC as inspector. In approving these recommendations for appointment, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission has fulfilled one of its important statutory roles. Under section 178(3)(b) of the act, the committee must approve or reject a recommendation from the Attorney-General for appointments to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Once the decision has been reached, the committee must report that decision to both houses of the parliament. I'm pleased to report that the committee unanimously approved these recommendations. To me, it's important to have achieved a consensus decision. The National Anti-Corruption Commission needs support from across the political spectrum, and I hope that our unanimous decision today will set the culture of the committee for years to come—a culture of working together from all sides of the political spectrum. Having said that, this committee is not and will not be a rubber stamp, and we have set that standard today. These appointments represent a very important step towards the much-anticipated commencement of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. When Australians from every corner of our nation called for integrity in politics, they called for a robust, independent and enduring institution that they can trust—an institution that takes its place as a pillar of our democratic and accountable system of government. These appointments are a crucial step to ensure we deliver that vision for the Australian people. In fulfilling that vision, I hope that this sets in train an improvement in the trust that the people of Australia have in their government and in public institutions. To deliver a powerful anticorruption commission, we must have the right people in the job—people who are experienced, courageous and completely independent of government, political parties and political interests. In fulfilling its responsibilities to approve these recommendations for appointment, the parliamentary joint committee carefully contemplated each proposed appointment on their merit. We scrutinised past experience and qualifications. We looked closely at the skills these people would bring to these important roles. With these appointments, I am confident that the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be strong and independent. I thank the appointees for putting their names forward to take on this momentous task. I wish to acknowledge my fellow committee members for the time, the effort and the diligence they've given to fulfilling their role on the committee and for approaching our task thoughtfully and cooperatively. I look forward to continuing to work together to provide oversight of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. I would especially like to thank the chair, Senator Linda White, for her leadership in bringing the committee together on this important decision. I commend this report to the House, and, in the spirit of genuine collaboration and cooperation, I would like to cede some time to the member for Menzies. 16:57 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies by leave—Thank you to the member for Indi, who informed me today that she would be doing that. I don't have notes for this because I don't think any of us need them. You have fought for this over many years, and you deserve credit and acclaim for that. It's a shame that the students who were there before have walked off; I would have told them that they were witnessing a bit of history. I'd like to think that this institution will be one we look back on and say, 'That's one that enhances our democracy; it doesn't take away from it.' We had a debate in the joint select committee and then in the parliament about getting the detail right. But there was goodwill from the coalition to pass this because, of all of the lessons that we learnt from the election, integrity was right up there—it really was. It certainly was in my seat in Victoria, where the member for Wannon is as well, and in New South Wales. Integrity comes in many forms and, certainly, this institution was a key part of that. This is what Australians told us they wanted. But it's also about the quality of the people who we send here and the quality of the people who we appoint to that institution. When you look at this act, or any act, there's enormous discretion in them. Most of the decisions will be made behind closed doors, beyond scrutiny. So when it comes to an integrity commission, the integrity of the people that we put there is probably more important than the wording of the act. When the names were read out, from the inspector, to the commissioner to the deputy commissioners, I had confidence that they have been well selected and well chosen—but we won't give them a blank cheque to do the right thing. From a personal perspective, integrity isn't just about winning elections and telling Australians that we heard the message. It's fundamental to our democracy, because in my personal experience deployed with the ADF to Afghanistan—and you might ask why I am raising Afghanistan—it was quite clear, from the earlier tours and through to the end, that corruption was undermining the mission. Corruption was something that people noticed. In the end I think it contributed to a democracy falling on our watch. We must never forget that it's fundamental to our democracy. Corruption is defined in the act. Again, I would've said to the children that it's pretty simple. It's about putting others first, it's about not being selfish and it's about putting others first when no-one is watching. Maybe there are some people in this place or in a department who might've thought to do something, but a little light will go off in their head that says, 'Oh, but the corruption commission,' and if those little lights are going off then this institution is doing its job. For the integrity of this parliament I think Australians wants us to be honest, they want us to be courageous. Being courageous sometimes means, in this place or in the media, saying, 'I don't know, but I'll get back to you. I made a mistake.' And sometimes it means saying, 'I'm sorry.' I think we could all do more of that in our democracy. I thank the member for Indi or giving me this chance. I thank the Australian people for letting us know that this really matters. I think the Australian people deserve credit for this institution. This committee, chaired by Senator White—and all of the members on the joint select committee and on this committee—is an important committee that, I think, will keep this institution on the right track and enhance our democracy. BILLS 83 BILLS Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023 83

Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023

Report from Federation Chamber 83 17:06 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the bill be read a second time. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 53517 As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Whoever is making noises shall cease interjecting immediately. As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division I declare this question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. Those names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 84 17:08 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023 84

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

Report from Federation Chamber 84 Third Reading 84 17:09 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 84

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023

Report from Federation Chamber 84 Third Reading 84 17:10 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 84 COMMITTEES National Anti-Corruption Commission Joint Committee 84 Membership 84 17:10 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House of changes in membership of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. COMMITTEES 84 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 84 Approval of Work 84 17:11 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Department of Defence—Cocos (Keeling) Islands Airfield Upgrade Project. The Department of Defence is seeking to upgrade the Cocos (Keeling) Islands airfield for use by heavy aircraft and to improve airfield safety for civilian and military aircraft. Proposed works include a permanent construction wharf; strengthening and widening the runway, taxiways and aprons; extending the runway; removing legacy waste; and enhancing airfield lighting, drainage and flood prevention infrastructure. The estimated cost of the work is $567.6 million, excluding GST. The project was referred to the Public Works Committee, ably chaired by the member for Moreton, on 24 November 2022. Following its inquiry, the committee has recommended the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out this project. The committee has also recommended that Defence provide the committee with a project midpoint briefing. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in mid-2023 and be completed by mid-2026. On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Approval of Work 85 17:13 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Australian High Commission Project Abuja, Nigeria. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is proposing to redevelop the Australian High Commission in Abuja, Nigeria. The proposed work will involve construction of a new permanent chancery compound on the current site and will include new chancery guardhouses, head-of-mission residence, and staff and services facilities. The estimated cost of the works is $38.3 million, excluding GST. The project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 24 November 2022. Following its inquiry, the committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out this project. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence late 2023 and be completed by 2025. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Moreton, for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. BILLS 85 BILLS Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 85

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

Second Reading 85 17:15 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm To pick up where I left off, I was reflecting on the fact that today we saw a report come out tracking national attitudes in our community to gendered violence. Unfortunately we see that one in three people who participated in that survey thought women made claims for vengeful reasons of sexual assault and that overall four in 10 people surveyed mistrust reports women make around sexual violence. This is despite the fact that research suggests that 87 per cent of victims-survivors do not tell police and that false allegations are extraordinarily rare. Clearly this is further evidence that we as a community need to do much more to ensure everyone in our community is treated with respect and that we need to work very hard and do all we can to ensure there is meaningful gender equality in workplaces, in communities and in homes right across the nation. This piece of legislation is one of a number of pieces of legislation that have been put forward by our government to do just that—to address the fact that we don't have gender equality in this country. This bill for the first time will mean the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, WGEA, will report gender pay gaps at an employer level, not just at an industry level. We know we have a lot of work to do in workplaces across the country. Of course, the Set the standard report detailed the ways in which this particular workplace, the Parliament of Australia, needs to improve. But so too before that did the Respect@Work report. I'm really proud to be in a government that made a commitment to implement every single one of the recommendations in the report to ensure women have the best chance of being safe at work. But there will always be more work for us to do, because culture is something we always need to be vigilant about, making sure the high standards Australians rightly expect and deserve are maintained. Through capturing more information at an employer level this bill will mean WGEA is able to give us more data that helps us get closer to closing the gender pay gap. We're at 13.3 per cent as of February this year, which is an improvement from where we were earlier, at 14.1 per cent. But at the current rate of progress, estimates indicate it could take as long as 26 years to close the gender pay gap, and that is simply not good enough. Improving workplace gender equality is absolutely critical. Everybody deserves fair and safe working conditions, and working women deserve equal opportunity and equal remuneration. I'm really proud to be part of a government that has ensured through reforms to industrial relations that feminised industries such as the care sector will finally be able to access the remuneration those workers so sorely deserve and so sorely need to keep up with the rising costs of living. There are some pretty stark statistics on Australia's track record here, and I think it's important to be honest about where we stand. I'm a big believer that sunlight is the best disinfectant, so airing this information can only be good for us in taking the necessary steps to address the problem of gender inequality we have in this country. We came 43rd on the World Economic Forum's global gender gap index, and we've gone backwards over the last 10 years, which is really shameful. The median undergraduate starting salary for women is 3.9 per cent lower than for men, despite the fact that women graduate in greater numbers from university courses. Something we should be able to celebrate is that we have the fourth-highest number of women graduates in the world coming through our university system, but what makes it difficult to celebrate is the fact that, once they go through the university system, they're already starting from behind in the workforce. As I said, they earn on average 3.9 per cent less than men. Women's super balances are 23.1 per cent lower than men's. Older women are the fastest-growing cohort of people who experience homelessness. And women over 60 are the lowest earning of all demographic groups nationally. Women's workforce participation consistently lags behind men's by eight to nine percentage points. We've put in some measures to address the workforce participation issue, such as making child care cheaper and ensuring that we have more flexible provisions for paid parental leave, but this is a serious problem in our communities. There are enormous economic costs, as well as the social costs, of gender inequality. Addressing gender based violence in Australia currently costs us $26 billion a year. I began this continuation of my speech by reflecting on the fact that the attitudes in the community are still below what I think Australian women deserve in terms of the problems that face us. Gendered financial abuse is estimated to cost $10.9 billion a year. Sexual harassment costs $3.8 billion a year. The gender pay gap represents $51.8 billion a year. These statistics were featured in the scorecard that our government put out on International Women's Day. They are a stark set of figures that remind us of the work we need to do. This bill represents the work that is being done by the Albanese Labor government, a government I'm very proud to be part of. I am one of the 52 per cent of women who sit in our government party room, which is a historic first. It's always difficult to speak on bills such as this because of course we want to celebrate the progress that we've made collectively as a nation in ensuring that women have opportunities. We want to acknowledge those who've come before us and laid the path that so many of us in this place have been able to tread—people like former prime minister Julia Gillard and former Speakers Joan Child and Anna Burke. We also need to reflect on the fact that we are still not as equal as we could be—that too many women live in poverty, that too many women experience gendered violence and that too many women are not listened to when they come forward with those claims. So this bill represents us doing the difficult work that needs to be done, as one of many steps that we are taking to bring about meaningful gender equality in homes and workplaces across the country. Our housing policy understands the fact that we need to have more crisis accommodation for women and children escaping gendered violence situations in the home. We understand that we need to do more to ensure that women are able to return to the workforce after perhaps taking time out to have children. This work is not easy—changing culture is not easy—but I'm proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is determined to do the work that this country needs to be done and to have a prime minister who is so supportive of the work that needs to be done. I am really proud to support this bill, which will mean that there are some practical things that will happen to both track the gender pay gap in this country and give us the information we need to take further action in the future so that the next generation of women to end up in this place don't have to make the same kinds of speeches that we've been hearing for years about this persistent gender pay gap. 17:24 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I am very sad to report to this House that the 2022 Global gender gap report ranked Australia 43rd in the world for gender equality. This is patently too low for a wealthy country that claims equality as an Australian virtue. I was also sad to hear just now from the member for Chisholm about the reports on unreconstructed gender attitudes here in Australia. It's just not good enough. The overall gender pay gap worsened during COVID. The figures, I understand, are at 22.8—a bit different from what you've said but still appalling. I guess it depends on how it's measured. It's not good enough. It's absolutely urgent that the gap closes rather than widens again. We Greens have called for a number of reforms towards achieving this, measures like extending coverage to public and private sector organisations with more than 50 employees; measuring, which means actually looking at whether existing policies are implemented and what impact they are really having; publishing employer data of pay levels rather than just general sector-by-sector reportage; requiring real action, making employers actually take action to close the gender pay gap, and making the employers who are not doing this ineligible for government grants and contracts; requiring reportage, making employers publish the number of sexual harassment complaints made and what action is taken in response; collecting intersectional data to identify hurdles for particular groups of women; and designing targeted approaches to addressing specific pay gaps. Some of these recommendations are being implemented in this bill and the revised minimum standards instruments. It's encouraging to see that the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 will require the WGEA to publish employer-level gender pay gap data, will require relevant employers to report to their governing bodies and will recognise sexual harassment and discrimination as gender equality indicators. It's also encouraging that the new minimum standards instruments provide for more detailed reporting to bridge the gap between policy and action. So it's great that we're taking these important steps towards transparency, accountability and reporting of the gender pay gap. As my colleague Senator Larissa Waters has noted, you cannot fix a problem you do not understand, and you cannot understand a problem without clear, consistent and meaningful data. Today I want to take this opportunity to talk about the bigger picture of what we urgently need to really address the gender pay gap and gender inequality in Australia. Firstly, we need real above-inflation wage rises in feminised industries like nursing and cleaning, not just lip-service to that. We need paid parental leave of 12 months, with super contributions and provision to ensure more equal sharing of care between partners. And we desperately need universal free child care for every family, not complex or overwrought, means-tested subsidised systems. We urgently need to build enough public housing and crisis accommodation so that every woman has a secure place to call home. I note that currently Labor's offer on housing is going to see more women in need of affordable housing by the end of that policy than currently. I think that that's just not good enough. We also need to raise income support above the poverty line, and we absolutely need to reverse the Gillard government's decision to cut parents off the single parent payment when their child turns eight and punt them onto the much lower JobSeeker payment. Single parents should remain eligible for this additional support until their youngest child is 16. All this would give all women the economic and social security and independence needed to live flourishing lives, to not have to choose between family and career, to be valued for the work they do, to escape situations of domestic violence. We welcome this bill as a positive step and urge the government to use its promised second tranche of reforms to implement the outstanding recommendations from the WGEA review and drive the change that all employees deserve. 17:28 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I stand and look around this place and I am proud of what I see. I am proud that I am part of history. I am proud that I am part of a majority female government. We are making lives better for women across Australia. The Albanese Labor government includes women. It listens to women. It represents women. And, most importantly, it respects women. This is why we are working to improve what women are paid, to correct a longstanding societal wrong, a situation that has seen women paid far less than men for decades, even for doing the same job. We are taking action to bring women's pay in line with their male colleagues through the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023. We have released Australia's first Status of Women Report Card, which reveals where progress on gender equality has sadly been lacking and which also highlights where we need more focus to spark improvements. The report card highlights the many challenges Australian women face. These challenges start young and have remained a burden throughout life. The report card reveals that through their youth and young adulthood, and continuing into their working lives, there are hurdles along the way. There are some fascinating statistics, although some of these may not be all that surprising to women. One in two women have been sexually harassed. That's compared to one in four men. Women do more unpaid housework than men, and that is even when they are the primary breadwinners. Women 55 and older are the fastest-growing group of people experiencing homelessness. Another statistic that is worth highlighting is that 30 per cent of Australian men do not believe that gender inequality exists. That is more than the world average of 21 per cent, and that belief is despite all the facts and all the research to support the cold, hard reality of the gender pay gap. We know gender inequality absolutely does exist, and that is why we are taking action to fix it, because workplace gender equality is good for Australia's economy. Supporting women is good for Australia's economy, and it's good for Australian families. The gender pay gap alone represents a cost of $51.8 billion a year. We know that current projections tell us that it will take roughly 26 years to close the gender pay gap. That is a very long time. But I am proud that we are taking this head-on for our daughters, for their daughters and for the generations of women who will continue to drive our nation's economy in all industries, including in the STEM sectors. Recently the United Nations announced that, at the current rate of progress, it will take almost 300 years to achieve gender equality worldwide. In order to make progress, we will legislate to publish the pay gaps of employers with 100 or more employees, which will, for want of a better expression, air the dirty gender pay gap laundry. Our government has also made gender equality an object of the Fair Work Act. We prohibited the use of pay secrecy clauses, which have been a stealth weapon to stop women finding out that they are being paid less than their male colleagues. Publishing pay gaps of employers is about transparency, and this transparency should and must prompt change. Research supports that publishing pay gaps does help spark change. Across the globe, in the United Kingdom, they have reported employer-level gender pay gaps for the past six years, since 2017. Evidence from the United Kingdom shows that publishing those pay gaps led to companies prioritising gender equality. It also led to a reduction in the gender pay gap. This is all about fairness and the need for fairness. Under these new measures, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency will publish the first set of private sector employer gender pay gaps early next year, which is 2024. Using data from the reporting period which ends on 31 March—the day after tomorrow, this Friday—employers won't be required to collect any new data for public reporting. Statistics will draw on data already provided to the agency by employers. They can, though, provide a statement to explain context related to their gender pay gap and any actions they are taking to fix it. This will all be published on the WGEA's website, along with gender pay gap information. The measures in this bill will have an additional benefit of strengthening WGEA's ability to support employers in their efforts to progress gender equality in their organisations. Publishing pay gaps is also about showcasing those employers who are doing well for women and who are paying women equally. This measure will bring women a step closer to being paid what they deserve. The cold hard facts are that women earn 87c for every dollar that men earn and that we earn $263 less a week than men. Gender pay equality is an important issue for the women in my electorate of Pearce. The current pay gap for women across Australia is 14.1 per cent. I stand here and say that we will not accept sitting back and doing nothing to right the historical wrongs of gender inequality, including gender pay inequality. Inequality is clearly evident in all industries and changing the record, changing for a better future for women and our economy, is something that the Albanese Labor government is making an absolute priority. This bill is a first step. This bill puts at the feet of employers that need for greater accountability in gender equality in their workforces. We want to look at how the Workforce Gender Equality Agency can help us, firstly, to understand and then to close the gender pay gap. The government is committed to these changes, which include the addition of a new gender equality standard. This will require employers with more than 500 employees to commit to and reach specific targets. Those employers will also be required to report their progress against these necessary targets directly to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. We are committed to this bill, and also committed to making sure that the changes are achieved through close consultation with businesses and stakeholders. Consultation, without doubt, is critical. This bill has been designed in close consultation with industry, business, the education sector, the not-for-profit sector, employee organisations, the women's sector, state and territory governments, and the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. We have also committed to reviewing these legislative amendments, and this is planned for five years after the amendments are passed. This will be an opportunity to probe robustly the effectiveness of these issues in achieving their objective to progress gender equality. The Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 seeks to address the fact that gender equality is, without doubt, a human right. This bill, in conjunction with our National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality, as well as the Secure Jobs, Better Pay legislation, the Respect@Work legislation, improvements for families and gender equality legislation passed by this government will help Australia on the path to being among the best countries in the world for equality. As well as those things, our Paid Parental Leave scheme, which has passed the Senate, gives more families access to payments and gives parents increased flexibility in how they take leave. It encourages parents to share care, which promotes gender equality. These changes support women's workforce participation and help more dads and partners to take time off work to be with their children: true equality. All these measures are being taken because the Albanese government values and respects women, and is working to ensure that they can contribute to keep the economy strong whilst receiving fair pay. 17:38 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay From the outset, I note my support for the count workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023, and that of the opposition. Put simply, the pay for men and women should be equal for those doing the same job with the same qualifications and experience. I didn't think that I would necessarily quote from President Obama, but I do note that way back in 2013-14, in his State of the Union speech, he declared that a woman deserves equal pay for equal work. It's quite extraordinary that even in those times such a declaration needed to be made. But, globally, we have made some progress since then, with women achieving the highest levels in all sorts of occupations. I can remember my first corporate job, probably more than 20 years ago. I was very ambitious and very young, working really hard. Then one day I was told by my boss that I was earning $20,000 a year less than my male counterpart. We were in the same role, and I have to say that it changed pretty quickly, but it took one boss to make that change. At that time it wasn't an organisational thing to do that. It shouldn't take one boss to stand up for a woman in the workplace; it should just be like that. I retain that work ethic to this day, and I'll continue to stand up and fight for this cause—and for those right across my community as well—when I meet fantastic women. But your position and your pay shouldn't have anything to do with your gender these days. It's quite extraordinary that we're in 2023 and we are still talking about this, because we've been talking about this for a very long time. When I was director of the United States Study Centre at the University of Sydney, I ran a women in leadership initiative. At the time, I'd written an op-ed for the ABC on gender equality issues, which might be surprising as well. I was looking back on some notes, and I had written at the time that the global gender pay gap was 23c in the dollar, and now, according to Forbes, it's 17c. At that time, the US government was appointing well-qualified women to top positions. When this occurs it sets a standard, and that standard sets earnings and positively impacts the gender pay gap and does reduce inequality. The Australian government's Workplace Gender Equality Agency says the national pay gap currently stands at 13.3 per cent. That figure is from November 2022. The average weekly pay for women was $1,653.60, compared to $1,907.10 for men. That's a $253.50 difference, equating to over $13,000 each year. That is an extraordinary amount. The gender pay gap had improved from the May 2022 to November 2022 period in every sector analysed by the agency except financial services—funnily enough, going back those 20 years, I was working in financial services —administrative services, construction, the arts, mining, utilities and waste services, and accommodation and food services. As a member in the previous parliament, I was keen to see the recommendations of the coalition government's review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act. The review was an initiative of the former government in 2021, and this bill implements in part or in full the recommendations of that review. I note that the coalition government did publicly agree to implement each of the recommendations and delivered over $18 million to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to support the implementation of that review. The review was released in March of last year and made a firm conclusion that Australia's gender pay gap was not closing at a fast enough rate. Unfortunately, through 2021 and 2022 there was a stalling of the gender pay gap. The review considered whether the Workplace Gender Equality Agency had the powers and instruments it needed to assist in making a positive difference to the lives of so many women across Australia by closing the gender pay gap. The review laid out 10 recommendations to ensure the rate at which the gender pay gap could be closed would happen more rapidly to reduce inequality and to reduce certain reporting mechanisms by businesses to the agency. Measures outlined in the bill seek to implement in part or in full the following recommendations from the review. Recommendation 2 was to publish organisation gender pay gaps to accelerate action to close them. I think that's a really good thing. Recommendation 3 was to bridge the 'action gap' with new gender equality standards. Recommendation 5 was to support Respect@Work implementation to prevent and address workplace sex-based harassment and discrimination. Recommendation 9 was to set WGEA up for future success to support employers to drive gender equality in Australian workplaces. I understand there's been some consultation by government on the bill with key groups, including employee organisations, the business sector, not-for-profit sectors, higher education providers, users of the agency's datasets and the Commonwealth, state and territory government agencies. I note collaboration on the bill with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Diversity Council of Australia, the Business Council of Australia, Business and Professional Women and the National Council of Women. The bill includes six amendments to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, including: requiring the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to publish the gender pay gap information of relevant employers of over 100 people for each reporting period; requiring relevant employers to provide an executive summary and industry benchmark reports to all members of the governing body; renaming the current 'minimum standards' as 'gender equality standards'; including sexual harassment and harassment on the ground of sex or discrimination as gender equality indicators; changing the title of 'director' of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to the 'chief executive officer'; and a technical amendment to the definition of the reporting period. I also note the legislation was sent to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for a short review. I thank my Liberal Party, Labor and Greens colleagues and the committee secretariat for their work on the report, which was recently presented. I acknowledge the work on this bill and policy by the Liberal Party's deputy leader and shadow minister for women, the honourable member for Farrer. I would also like to make a few comments about the former coalition government's work in the space of women's economic security, safety and health. The previous government led with the review which is informing the amendments in the bill, and previous ministers like Senator Marise Payne, Senator Anne Ruston, Senator Jane Hume and former senator Amanda Stoker were heavily involved. The coalition government, from 2013 to 2022, had a strong track record of jobs. Around 1.9 million were created, of which 60 per cent were taken up by women. Female workforce participation jumped by 3.5 per cent to a record high of 62.2 per cent, with a similar drop in the gender pay gap since the Rudd and Gillard governments. In the two previous budgets, there was an incredible $5.5 billion to drive women's leadership, safety, workforce participation and health outcomes. Also, let's not forget the almost 300,000 more children in child care, which assisted more women in being able to get back to work. We saw a near doubling of support for families accessing child care to $11 billion this financial year from $6.2 billion at the end of the second Rudd government. In the 2022 budget, the coalition committed to an additional $1.3 billion to tackle domestic and family violence. Just as a note on that—and I don't like highlighting it, but I also feel like every time I talk about domestic violence I should highlight it—Penrith in my community of Lindsay always, unfortunately, tops the list when it comes to domestic violence in the state of New South Wales. From community organisations to government, we all have a role to play in stopping this. It breaks my heart every time I think about the actual people behind these statistics and I vow that I will do everything I can while I'm in parliament to make a change. In the 2022 budget, we had that $1.3 billion and we also did some really good work on the mental health challenges that can impact women, particularly girls, very differently to men. We know the impact that social media has on young people. We have seen terrible reports recently about social media and violence to do with young people. I think we as members of parliament should be addressing this quite seriously. Just as before I wrap up I would like to say that, in the last women's budget statement, the coalition proudly led with further investment in breast screening and funding for outreach of breast cancer services. We also sought to invest in cervical screening and funding for work in reducing pre-term births. A lot of work was done in that time. I would like to acknowledge, again, that it is women that show leadership, like women in this place, and lead by example that inspire young women to take up careers in politics and other traditionally male dominated fields, such as the automotive industry or manufacturing. I know when I go out to my schools I feel really positive about the work that is in place now in schools that certainly wasn't there when I was at school to get more young girls into STEM and having aspirations and beliefs that they can absolutely achieve anything, including going to space. I feel strongly about ensuring we have strong manufacturing industries in this country when it comes to Australia's future in the space industry. I acknowledge that the administrator for NASA was here in Canberra just last week, inspiring a new generation. The final words I want to say are: we have come some way since the words that I wrote in 2014, but we have a long way to go. I sincerely hope this bill helps us get there. 17:50 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley I rise to speak on the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023. Closing the gender pay gap is important for women. It's important for women to be valued as equal, to be remunerated as equal, to be considered the equal of men. But closing the gender pay gap is about more than making sure women are paid and valued fairly; it's also about men, about businesses and about community. I'm the first woman to ever represent Dunkley in the federal parliament. Mrs McIntosh 281513 Hear, hear! Ms MURPHY 133646 Thank you very much, Member for Lindsay! It's something I'm very proud of. My electorate of Dunkley, as many people have heard me say before, is named after a woman called Louisa Dunkley, so I'm even prouder to be the first woman to represent an electorate named after a woman—a woman who was a worker, who was a feminist and who was a unionist, and who, at the turn of the last century, campaigned for equal pay for men and women in the Victorian post and telegraph office and then took that campaign national when Australia became a country after Federation, and campaigned for women and men in the brand new Commonwealth post and telegraph office to receive the same pay for the same work. It seems almost obvious to most of us in 2023 that two people sitting next to each other doing the same work with the same qualifications at the same standard should be paid the same. But that wasn't the case for much of Australia's history, and it certainly wasn't the case when Louisa Dunkley worked in the post and telegraph office. She was almost single-handedly responsible for the fact that the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902 had a provision in it for equal pay for men and women in the Commonwealth post and telegraph service. But Louisa didn't see equal pay as just about women; she saw it as about something more. In one of the few pieces of her writing, which was renowned as brilliant and insightful and which changed many people's minds on the subject of work and women and equality—one of the few remaining pieces of her writing that made it through a fire at the union headquarters in the early 1900s—she said: 'Though at first we only ask for equal pay as an act of justice to those women who had been doing the same work as men, we now advocate it as the only solution as to how to keep up the value of work and provide fair opportunities for employment of both men and women in the future.' Closing the gender pay gap is about fairly remunerating women and valuing the work of women, and providing women fair opportunities in the workplace, but it is also about valuing the work because the work itself isn't gendered and the gender of the person doing the work shouldn't dictate the value of it and how much people are paid for doing it. Like many of the women in this parliament who talk about the gender pay gap—perhaps some men, too, when they talk about the gender pay gap—I often get emails from constituents saying: 'What gender pay gap? That doesn't exist. It's unlawful to pay men and women differently in Australia.' They're right about one thing: it is unlawful to pay men and women differently in Australia based on their gender now. But they are very wrong when they say there is no gender pay gap. It's currently a gap of about 13.3 per cent, as reported by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency in February of this year. It was stuck at about 20 per cent for quite some time, and there has been a reduction. That is in part because of a long period of stagnation of wages and suppression of men's wages, particularly in higher paid industries such as mining, which closed the gender pay gap without actually increasing pay for women, and it is in part because of some of the reforms brought in by successive governments over the last two decades or so. So it is now down to 13.3 per cent. What that means in practice is that for every dollar a man earns a woman earns 87c. It's based on a calculation of average weekly ordinary earnings. Women's average weekly ordinary earnings, across all industries and occupations, is $1,653, and men's average ordinary full-time earnings across all industries is $1,907—a gap of $253.50 a week. That's the gender pay gap. That's women being valued less in the workplace, women getting fewer promotions, than men. What that calculation—average weekly ordinary full-time earnings—doesn't take into account is bonuses, overtime payments and superannuation. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency estimates that the gender pay gap is about five per cent worse if you take those things into account. What the gender pay gap also doesn't take into account is what happens when you look at part-time and casual workers, who often work in the lowest paid industries and who are often women. The other thing we know is that feminised industries are the lowest paid industries in this country and are almost exclusively, but not exclusively, care industries, where people are engaged in work—like caring for children, the elderly, the sick who can't work and people with disabilities—that traditionally was done at home, was done by women and was underpaid and undervalued. Now that that work is done in a professional sense, it remains predominantly carried out by women, and it remains underpaid and undervalued. This legislation is just one of the measures that are intended to encourage businesses to be conscious of the way they are paying their staff, the way they are deciding who gets a promotion and who doesn't, and the way bonuses and overtime are paid. Not all decisions which favour men over women are made consciously. Unconscious bias is something that we are all subjected to. It is human nature that people favour those who remind them of themselves, often subconsciously. In many workplaces, traditionally, and it remains the case today, when the upper executive are men, often men from one socioeconomic group—often white men, in this country—they choose to promote and to have join them in their ranks other men. They choose to employ men who remind them of themselves at a young age. They are not necessarily doing it in a conscious, sexist manner. Sometimes, probably, they are, and we've all lived through examples of that, but it's often because of this unconscious bias. If you never take account of the pay gap between men and women in your organisation, if you never do an audit of men and women at senior ranks and extend that to talk about men and women from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, or people with disability, then you often don't know that actually your workplace reflects only one group of people. Legislation like this, which asks businesses to consciously audit their pay across genders and report it, is a way to overcome both the conscious and unconscious bias, the systemic discrimination which still exists in this country—a country where a man in his early 20s has more chance of being a CEO of an ASX listed company than a woman in her 50s. What it does is help to send a signal from that business and to that business that equality is important and that women's work is as valuable as men's and women are as valuable as men. I'd like to think, in the vein of Louisa Dunkley, that it also sends a signal about the value of work. It's about valuing the people that do the work and it's about valuing the work. I want to finish by giving what I think is a very concrete example of the impact of the gender pay gap, feminised industries being lower paid and some of the structural barriers preventing women from being able to have children and continue to work, which we haven't yet quite worked out how to overcome with flexibility. Last week I was part of a forum held by Pink Hope, which is an organisation that provides support and assistance to women who have a high chance of having breast cancer and promotes assistance for women with rarer types of breast cancer. This forum was about women who have triple-negative breast cancer, which means that the type of cancer they have is not receptive to any type of hormone—it doesn't feed off a hormone—which makes it much harder to treat than hormone receptor-positive breast cancers. It's a particularly diabolical type of breast cancer, triple-negative breast cancer. Not only is it harder to treat; it occurs most frequently in women under the age of 40. The mortality rate for women with triple-negative breast cancer is astronomically higher than for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancers, and it's much more likely to be metastatic when it is found. The forum talked about treatment, because, with treatment for triple-negative breast cancer, we're at the stage where it needs to be very targeted. As I understand it—in my layperson's scientific understanding—the best targeted treatment at the moment hasn't been through our system in Australia and approved by PBAC, so it costs tens of thousands of dollars to be able to access it. It is being prescribed to women, particularly young women, with triple-negative breast cancers, and with some success, but they can only get it if they can afford to pay $20,000. What this forum really took the lid off was the fact that the inequality of financial resources was also impacting these women. It's bad enough that, in a country like Australia, if you're from a certain suburb or wealthy then you can afford $20,000 for treatment, but, if you come from a more working-class area and don't have access to funds, then you can't afford it, and so one person's life will be longer and somewhat better than another person's. Add to that being a woman around 40 or under the age of 40. It's a peak time, when they're probably just taking time out of the workforce to have children and when they haven't had the promotions that get them the money that men often get. Often they work in feminised industries, which are lower paid and have less superannuation to draw on. Then this medical issue becomes a gendered issue because women can't afford to pay for the medicine. It's a terrible situation, but it's an example that shows why it is so crucial that we close the gender pay gap, lift the pay for women in feminised industries and lift the ability of women to work and have families, as well as making sure that people can access the care that they need through our health system. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I give the call to the most honourable member for Monash. Mr Broadbent MT4 Does the member for Dunkley wish to have a bit more time to speak? That would be up to her, but I'm quite happy to move in that direction. Ms MURPHY 133646 Thank you very much. That is a very generous offer. I think I've said enough, but I appreciate that, member for Monash. 18:05 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Let me say that that was an excellent contribution from the member for Dunkley. It was considered. She canvassed many of the issues that are before the nation as a whole and have been for a long time. I'd like to associate myself with all of the remarks she made while I've been in the House listening to her. She obviously has a very clear understanding of the broader issues that we face as a nation in trying to get some equality for that cohort of people—women. Very clearly, we shouldn't forget the other stresses that are on women that are not on men. I think that was an excellent contribution to the debate. If anybody heard the member for Dunkley, they would be listening to someone who has actually canvassed the issues and is putting those issues out there for your consideration today. She didn't direct the traffic. She just said: 'Here are the issues. These are the issues we need to resolve.' She puts to the parliament that supporting the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 will go towards that. Nobody has said it will fix it, but it will go towards it. Towards the end of her address, the member for Dunkley talked about women making choices that men do not have to make, especially in regard to motherhood. In a minute, I will go to what is in my notes about what they call the 'parenthood penalty', but first I want to say that, when the member for Dunkley spoke about choices, it was very clear to me that women make sacrifices when they make the decision to have children. There are women who choose otherwise. Women have an absolute right to choose otherwise, and I often speak about people making choices about their own lives and how they lead them, until they are interrupted by life's journey. In particular, I read that women who enter the workforce and who don't have interruptions resulting from those choices actually do equally as well in many areas as men as they progress. There's no doubt about that. The member for Dunkley said: 'Look, what are you talking about? I've got women in my business, and they get the same pay as a man at the same level, depending on how they negotiate.' I think some women don't negotiate hard enough. They haven't been trained to negotiate hard enough, and they put themselves down. There needs to be that area of interaction expertise, but, more importantly it needs to be that, all the way through the system, women are equal with men in those businesses. But the member for Dunkley then made another point: a lot of the women who we're talking about are not in those executive areas and climbing the executive ladder like every other person. Most women who we're talking about here today are in carer jobs—the carer jobs that are so important to our community. Again, the member for Dunkley—I was very interested in her address—said, 'The things that we used to do at home we no longer do.' We used to care for our elderly at home and we no longer do that. We cared for our young children at home and we no longer do that. We care for our very young children, yes, but even they are going into child care. Then there's the care of the disabled who, sadly, 50 years ago were hidden in their homes in our communities. We didn't even know they were there in my community; they were on the farms and in their houses. We didn't even know they were there until we opened our own centre, which eventually I was head of. Then they came out of the woodwork. So caring responsibilities have changed in society dramatically, and government now has a very large role in those things—child care and disability care, through the sorts of care we give to people with disabilities. And there's care which we give in other areas. One of the cohorts that I am concerned about is the largest cohort of people becoming homeless in our community, and that's women over 50. That the growth area of homelessness. That's not even counting those women who are couch surfing, staying with a friend for a while or moving interstate for a bit of a rest. It's hidden homelessness. In every address which I have given over the past few months I have talked about the buck stopping here in the parliament—nobody else, it stops with us. We are responsible for the outcomes that happen in and throughout our communities. We have a responsibility to address those issues, and if they're staring us in the face, like unequal pay, then we need to find ways to address them, as people and as parliament. We are representatives of our people and I know that my community doesn't want to live with the fact that there are women who find themselves homeless through no fault of their own. In fact, I spoke to a woman recently, at a committee hearing. When parliamentarians do committee hearings, often other things come out of those hearings—interactions with the community that you wouldn't normally expect. This woman said to the committee, speaking to me directly: 'Russell, I was one of you not long ago. I was one of you! I was in a good relationship, I was in a beautiful home and everything was good. Then I had a health issue and then I had a relationship issue. I found myself without a home. It couldn't be me, because I was the one supporting the homeless only just a while ago.' Things can turn around extremely quickly in life, so I now want to talk about the actual issue that we're faced with this evening in the parliament. I especially want to talk about the parenthood penalty. This comes from three margins: employment, the hours of work and the hourly wage rate. Men's and women's earnings follows similar paths—this is what the report said—until parenthood, at which point their earnings begin to diverge. The arrival of children reduces women's earnings by an average of 55 per cent across the first five years of parenthood. Men's earnings are unaffected by entering parenthood. Moreover, the motherhood penalty remains persistent for at least a decade into parenthood, although there's a slight recovery in the latter years. It's not just from the first child; it's other children. What do we want in this nation? We do want people to have children. We do want women to have children. We do want this place to grow and thrive and have a high birthrate, or a higher birthrate than we have at the moment. So I put to you that where we need to address the issue is for those women who have made the choice to have a family. I know men have a greater involvement in the upbringing of the child than in the era when I came through with my children. But, importantly, we've been struggling since the Hawke years. I came here in 1990, and Brian Howe in the Hawke government was then the minister. He had what was called a family action plan, meant to address these issues. In the Howard government, John Howard had a family action plan of sorts, and that's where he got family tax benefit part A and part B. He tried to put money into households with children, to set them apart and increase the wellbeing of those households. The Howard-Costello government was one of the wealthiest governments in this nation's history since Federation. They actually had the money, and they were able to spend it on programs like that to make a difference to women and families in this country, and they did, and they were good times for families, and they were good times for the budget of this nation, not by our own doing but because of the fortunate place that Australia was in with its economy and the reforms that had been made by the governments of Hawke and Keating and then the Howard government. Those reforms put Australia in a very good position to do well, and the governments were able to funnel that money into families. We're far from that these days. So we need to be addressing that in some way, and everybody's tried to do it. Income splitting is one idea that always gets rejected as too dear—directing money. Another idea is giving mums work as soon as their youngest child turns eight. I was on a committee that recommended that it should be 12 years of age before they have to cease the parenting payment and go onto the unemployment benefit, which is a great loss to women in this country. It should never have happened. But it is about allowing them to go into work. One thing that comes to me all the time, though, is: why is policy around women always about getting women into work and not about enabling them, in any way they choose, to look after their children, for those who want to stay home and look after their children and want to be there for their kids as they grow, from when they are very young to the juvenile to the older person? They want to stay home, but to do that they have to have some wealth. There has to be enough to pay the mortgage and to pay for the car and the fuel, especially if you live in a regional area, where it's more difficult. So the direction has to be, 'Oh, we've got to have two incomes.' Why can't governments have a focus on looking after women who actually want to look after their children as well, not just on forcing women to go back into the workforce? I've just learned all about the ParentsNext program. I knew nothing about it before I went on the committee. A former committee that I was on had some very good support staff and made some very good recommendations about where the nation needed to be headed in regard to a certain cohort, especially women—some men, but especially women. I expect that those things need to be taken up in this time of more compassion and concern, because we have a responsibility not only to the women who have missed out over this time but also to their children, because they're the next generation. I don't want to be part of governments and oppositions that don't have their focus on our responsibility to the children as well. I think we do have a responsibility. It takes a country to look after its children. We're wealthy enough to look after our children through their parents. We're also wealthy enough to recognise that women play a greater role in the caring for and upbringing of their children than do most men. It's a fact. Don't walk away from it. They do a better job too. To all the men I've just offended out there: come and talk to me. In actual fact, their caring ability is something that's remarkable. I think that we need to find innovative ways to give women a greater choice in what they want to do and find ways to increase the benefit to them in a way that's not offensive to anybody else and recognises their special status in Australia. I've had to say that a few times lately—'recognising women's special status'—in organisations, political parties and other areas of life. Let's not ever lose that fact. 18:20 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Thank you to the member for Monash for your comments. It sounds like you would like to have a case about unpaid work at home. I welcome you to introduce a bill to the House if you would like to do that! I will also point out my family circumstances: I'm married, I have a husband and my husband is the lead parent. I have to say that I think that we are equally good parents; if anything, my husband's an excellent lead parent. I think the perception that women are the natural nurturers is something that needs to be challenged and I think that modern men are rising up to the challenge. We need to see more of that, and I am very grateful for the great work my husband is doing at home. Last year, Australians wanted to change the country, so they changed the government. There were a couple of key issues in some electorates, including integrity in government, action on climate change and women's rights. Under the coalition government, the rights of women were undermined, and I suspect this was because the coalition was run by a bunch of misogynists. Abbott thought the housewives of Australia were stuck at home ironing. Turnbull's attitudes were more modern, but he did need to implement the 'bonk ban'. And then we have the member for Cook, who, despite having a wife and daughter, didn't quite get it. In fact, I spoke to a woman who was previously a Liberal candidate, and she could not bring herself to vote for the Liberals in the last election. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government had a tin ear when it came to challenges that face women—and boy have there been some challenges. On International Women's Day this year, the status of women report card was released. Despite some minor progress, we are still seeing economic disparity between men and women, and that persists. And it's not for lack of effort either. Women do two more hours of work than men per week. That's 55 hours a week, and 34.7 of these hours are unpaid. Also, Australian women are well educated. Sixty-three per cent have postschool qualifications, and 35 per cent have bachelor degrees, which is fourth place in of the OECD countries. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Could I interrupt the contribution from the member for Swan? I see that the member for Forde is seeking the cal. Mr van Manen 188315 I ask that the member withdraw her earlier comment. I'm not going to repeat it, for the sake of the dignity of the House, but the member for Swan knows exactly what she just said. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 To assist the House, I think the opposition whip may be referring to one of the opening comments. For the sake of Hansard, I give the member for Swan the call. Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 I withdraw the comments. Yet women's average weekly ordinary earnings across all occupations are about $1,650. Men's average weekly ordinary earnings are about $1,900. That's about $250 less than men each week. The national pay gap on a base salary is about 13 per cent. It has been 54 years since the equal pay for equal work test case was lodged in the Conciliation and Arbitration commission. Selda Defano, a clerk with the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union, chained herself to the front doors of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with a sign saying 'No more male and female rates One rate only'. We only have one rate today, but the pay gap still persists. This struggle has taken too long, and each year we only see incremental changes. Our struggle only succeeds when we bring daylight to these issues. I will read a text message from a constituent of mine: 'On a project I spent a long time being paid less and doing more work than someone else on the team. We were supposed to be with the same title but there was the difference between our professional backgrounds. They were a tradesperson and I was a professional engineer, so I felt I should be paid as much as that man or, if not, more.' You find this stuff out by accident and you are not even supposed to talk about it openly. In one of my previous workplaces, two of my colleagues started dating and, in time, my female colleague discovered the pay gap compared to her partner's. Once she did, she negotiated a pay rise. Finally, I remember a conversation with another engineer at a famous bar in Western Australia called the Belgian Beer Cafe. This male and female engineer had met at university and decided to have kids. They talked about who would stay at home and do the parental duties. The decision was that the bloke earned more so, therefore, she would become the stay-at-home parent, which she did for at least 14 years. If there was no pay gap, I wonder what the decision would have been? There is research on how women and men approach selection criteria when they apply for jobs. If men don't meet all the selection criteria, there is a tendency for them to go, 'Whatever, I will go for it. I will be able to, you know, bluff my way through this.' Women, if they don't meet the selection criteria, are less likely to apply for the job and so don't necessarily get those opportunities to increase their salaries. Again, historical research on gender and negotiation skills has also shown that women are less comfortable asking for a pay rise. However, more recent research indicates that when women are asking for more pay, they are not receiving what they are asking for. The gender pay gap is about 19 per cent where there is an individually negotiated agreement compared to 13 per cent for those on awards and collective agreements. Pay transparency brings disparity to light and has been recommended by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency for quite some time. But that transparency shouldn't have to come through co-workers dating. When people see numbers, they can identify the problem and put measures in to overcome the disparity in negotiated pay. Women and men often find themselves in different types of work, and the nature of that work can often be very different, including the pay. Women make up 96 per cent of hours worked by child carers. About 87 per cent of hours worked by registered nurses are female. Again, women make up about 80 per cent of primary school teachers. The pay is not reflective of the essential nature of this work. Early childhood educators often have degrees but sometimes they leave and can make six-figure salaries driving trucks in mines. I have to say, the work that early childhood educators do is essential and I could not do this work in this place if it wasn't for the pattern of the carers who look after my children. I agree with the comments from the minister for industrial relations. As a government, we have a commitment to get wages moving again, particularly in low-paid, female-dominated sectors, like early childhood education. I was proud to have supported the secure jobs, better pay bill last year, and we have gender equity included as an objective of the Fair Work Act because it should not be a case of either/or. Pink collar workers deserve rates that are reflective of the work they do and that are more in line with the rates of with blue-collar workers, such as truck drivers, plumbers, carpenters and bricklayers because both are equally as important to our society. We also see pay gaps in leadership positions. In the ASX 200 there are only 14 female CEOs. Male CEOs earn almost $1 million more than female CEOs. Of the top 10 highest paid CEOs in Australia, only one is a woman, and she's at Macquarie Group. Across the country, the highest paid men are earning at least $162,000 more than the highest paid women, though it is worth noting that these workers are receiving wage increases nine times those of ordinary workers and they're earning 132 times more than the average Australian worker. Women in all industries across all classes are earning less than their male colleagues. When we shine a light on these issues, we know that it spurs organisations to act on the pay disparity and it empowers women to negotiate for better pay. In reflecting on this bill, I also thought about my friend who worked for a resources company. She wanted to have the confidence that her pay was comparable to that of her male colleagues. She said to the HR person: 'How do I know that I'm getting paid a fair salary?' The response was: 'Just trust us.' What this bill does is compel organisations to report data on pay based on gender. This bill creates a mechanism that shines a light on these issues, because we can't just rely upon trust; we need to fix the system. This bill also introduces new provisions requiring the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to publish gender pay gap information of employers with more than 100 people. If you don't measure it, you can't manage it. The Labor Party fundamentally understands this. Labor introduced quotas. The Labor Party brought targets into our rules in the 1990s. At that time, women represented 14 per cent of the federal Labor caucus. The first target set was 35 per cent, and then it was raised to 40 per cent in the early 2000s. Since the 2015 national conference, it has been lifted to 45 per cent. In 2025 it will be 50 per cent. But today 50 per cent of my colleagues are females. We did that because we put targets in place. This bill will also require relevant employers to circulate reports on their gender equality performance to their governing bodies. We can't bridge the divide on our own. We need organisations to be aware of the task ahead and to discuss it. This bill gives effect to the 2022 election commitment to closing the gender pay gap at work and to deliver pay equity. Also, by boosting transparency and encouraging action to close pay gaps, each iteration of the election commitments indicates that the reform will apply to employers of 250 people more and be phased in. Our policy involved a response to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency review and the commitment to bring in gender pay gap reporting for businesses of 100 people, and it was included as an outcome of the Jobs and Skills Summit. This will draw attention to the shortcomings of specific workplaces. This bill reports gender pay gaps at the employer level, not just the industry level. International experience shows that if we bring attention to these issues we will get wages moving. I'll also point out that this bill is part of a suite of policies. I know that some organisations want to continue to improve gender equality. At the beginning of this speech I explained how the coalition had a lack of understanding of all the issues facing women. Employers are thinking about how to have more inclusive workplaces. It's very competitive to get a graduate position as an engineer. I remember one of my a former bosses, John Ganser. He talked about this group exercise. He had this brilliant engineer, but when my boss saw the way in which he interacted with women in that team, he realised that that person was a misogynist and that he would not be appropriate for the workplace. He did not get the job, despite being academically brilliant. Behaviours are really important. One of the things I also note is we now have a positive requirement for workplaces to make sure workplaces are free from sexual harassment. I'd like the women of Australia to know that the Albanese Labor government wants women to achieve their full potential, and that includes their full earning potential. As my constituent told me, the cumulative effect of a lifetime of less pay is huge for women. Less savings and less compounding power magnifies the gap. For the maths lesson in the room, this is referring to compound interest. Compound interest has this wonderful effect of having an exponential increase, but what happens when you don't have the same income? The gap increases exponentially. I commend this bill to the House, and I am proud to be part of a government that is getting on with the job and bridging the gender pay gap. 18:35 Ms S 175696 Warringah TEGGALL () (): I rise to support the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023. The bill seeks to improve workplace gender equality by committing to closing the gender pay gap and implementing recommendations 2, 3, 5 and 9 of the 2021 review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. The effect is to improve data collection and reporting of the current state of the gender pay gap in Australia. We know that sunlight is the best disinfectant, so it's hoped that greater exposure and transparency of the gender pay gap issue will drive improved action to address it. But there are certainly further steps that can be taken. I have to say: it is deeply frustrating that here we are in 2023 still having a debate about gender pay equality, still in a situation where the gap is staying stubbornly wide. There is a lack of accountability, transparency and change. It is so frustrating that we are still so far from pay equality. This pay inequality is compounded over the years and the working life of a woman. We know the superannuation gap is not narrowing. We know women aged over 55 are the fastest-growing group facing homelessness due to their financial circumstances. We must start somewhere, and I commend this bill for approaching some aspects of it but there is a lot more to be done. Where are we at? Recent research from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows that the gender pay gap in Australia in 2023 is impacting women across every industry, in every occupation and at every age or life stage. The current overall national gender pay gap sits at 14.1 per cent; that is 0.3 per cent higher than six months ago. We're not heading in the right direction. Women, on average, earn $263.90 less per week than men. This difference, combined with cost-of-living pressures, is placing really significant stress on Australian households, particularly for single parents. KPMG estimates that the unequal distribution of household and child-rearing labour is responsible for some 39 per cent of the gap—something that a strong paid parental leave scheme can improve. It also means that everyone needs to lean in a little more. We need to make sure this is a whole-of-society issue to ensure we do better. Adding part-time workers' data widens the gender pay gap for all employees to 29.7 per cent. Some of the largest gaps are in professional, scientific and technical services, and healthcare and financial and insurance services—some of the biggest employment sectors in Warringah for my community. Perhaps most disappointing is that, despite all the talk and rhetoric and policy intervention, the gap has closed by only five per cent since 1983—so 40 years to reach five per cent. It is just unacceptable. This bill purports to implement, in part or in full, recommendations 2, 3, 5 and 9 of the review. In reality, however, it only addresses those recommendations in part. It is mystifying to me and to many why it does not address them in full; that really is a question for the government. Added to this, there are other recommendations of the review which could also have been included but aren't, in particular recommendation 7, which tightens up the reporting requirements and, importantly, recommends amending the act in line with ABS standards to collect data on non-binary people. Again, it's mystifying why the bill only does half the job, thereby wasting a valuable opportunity. Per recommendation 2, the bill requires the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to publish gender pay gap information of relevant employers for each reporting period whilst at the same time including provisions protecting confidential data relating to individuals. We have recommendation 3, titled, 'Bridge the "action gap" with new gender equality standards'. This contains two recommendations. Recommendation 3.2 has been implemented through this bill, requiring relevant employers to provide executive summary reports and industry benchmark reports to their board or governing body and report the date on which this is done. Recommendation 3.1, on the other hand, is only partly addressed. That is that the instrument be amended to do three things: a. add a new minimum standard to require relevant employers with 500 or more employees to commit to, achieve and report to WGEA on measurable genuine targets to improve gender equality in their workplace against three of the six gender equality indicators The bill doesn't address this, so I ask the minister and the government: why not? b. strengthen the existing minimum standards to require relevant employers with 500 or more employees to have policies or strategies that cover all six gender equality indicators … Again, this bill does not address these recommendations; why not? c. rename the minimum standards to be 'gender equality standards.' This, the least onerous recommendation, has been implemented, thereby allowing the government to proclaim it is implementing this recommendation. But, again, it's only in part. I don't understand why it's never quite the whole way when it comes to implementing the recommendations. The bill implements recommendation 5—to support the Respect@Work implementation to prevent and address workplace sex-based harassment and discrimination—but deals with this recommendation in a way which is different from the review, though the intent, I acknowledge, remains the same. There are some gaps, though, in this legislation. The bill does not address recommendation 7, which encourages intersectional data collection to reflect the true state of gender equality in the economy. It would paint a more holistic picture to understand how gender interacts with other factors to contribute to compounding the gender pay gap across certain groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, women living with disabilities, culturally and linguistically diverse women, young women and non-binary people. Another gap in the bill is that it does not include partnership data. However, this dataset is more complex to justify gender gaps in, as partners do not receive a salary and take on more financial risk. Their remuneration can often be drawn from the success of their practice and economic trends. The bill also does not address or seek to clarify the superannuation gap between men and women. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, women retire with one-third of the superannuation that men do, and the superannuation gap between men and women in some age groups is as high as 47.8 per cent. In summary, the government can be congratulated for implementing some of these recommendations, but it is in part. It goes a significant way towards implementing the recommendations of the review, but on a close analysis it is still half-hearted, and there are still so many more aspects of the recommendations that have been left on the table. Transparency is only part of the solution, of course, when we're talking about the gender pay gap. I welcome the commitments from the government to improve gender pay equity, including increased paid parental leave, improved affordability of child care and increased pay transparency in the Fair Work Act amendments. There is a strong economic case for these changes. For example, increasing the paid parental leave entitlements to 26 weeks will cost the government some $600 million per year, but it will add $900 million per year to GDP, as well as boosting a mother's lifetime earnings by $30,000. Australia has one of the least generous paid parental leave schemes in the world—highly gendered and discriminatory and considering only a woman's income in the calculation of eligibility. However, these improvements to parental leave policy really need to be implemented as soon as possible. We need to start seeing significant changes to workforce structures. The other key driver is improving childcare affordability and accessibility. The government has pledged some $4.5 billion to make child care more affordable. It will provide much-needed support for parents and help women increase their participation in the workforce. However, the sector has called on the government to address the critical worker shortage. There were already some 7,000 vacancies across the sector in September last year, and with the government's proposed changes that could increase to over 25,000 according to some in the sector. Wages increases are necessary to attract and retain an adequate workforce in this female dominated industry, but of course there needs to be better long-term planning. Finally—and I think this is a matter of priority for the government—a key issue that must be addressed in this budget in May, as a matter of urgency, is dealing with the single parent support payment. If the government is serious about addressing pay inequality between men and women, it must address the poorest women who are impacted, who are single mothers. The single parent support payment tells single mothers: 'We appreciate and value your role as mothers, raising the future generation, the future of our country, until they turn eight. After that, we will consider you unemployed and we will put you on a JobSeeker payment.' That is unacceptable. It leaves children and women in circumstances of having to choose, often in cases of domestic violence, to stay in dangerous situations. It is policy induced poverty. So many women have come to me and many of my colleagues to talk about how they have had to abandon hopes of education, of studying to improve their job prospects, just because of that pressure of making ends meet once their child has turned eight. So, if the government is fair dinkum and genuine in wanting to talk about pay on gender equality, we must address those who are the most vulnerable in the system, and they are single mothers. So we must, as a matter of urgency, change the legislation to ensure the single parent payment goes from changing when the youngest child reaches the age of eight to changing when the child reaches the age of 16. Let's get real. There is so much discrepancy here when it comes to how we, the government and our system deal with children. We don't consider them to be responsible enough to vote until they're 18. They can't drink alcohol till they're 18. They can't gamble till they're 18. They start to learn to drive when they are 16. But they can be criminally responsible when they're 10, and we say to parents, 'It's no longer a priority to parent them, and we won't support you in a parenting role for that child, from the age of eight.' So let's get real. Where are our priorities? We need to start genuinely addressing pay inequality, and that starts with very simple measures that the government can prioritise in this budget in May. 18:48 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I'm very proud to be supporting the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 in the parliament today. It's a good day for the parliament because it's a good day for women's equality. It's a good day for a fairer Australia too. In May 2022—the last figures I saw—women's average weekly ordinary full-time earnings across all industries and occupations were about $260 less than men's. That's not because women are less educated. In fact, we know that graduate pay already starts the lifetime of unequal pay for women. In fact, Australian women have high levels of educational attainment. The gender pay gap can start, nevertheless, as soon as a woman enters the workforce. In May 2021, half of all young women had a bachelor degree or above, compared with just over 36 per cent of young men. But, when you look at those graduate salaries and the graduate gender pay gap, men reported higher starting salaries than women in 15 of 19 fields of study in 2020. That includes science and maths graduates, for whom the full-time starting salary is $61,500 for women and $65,000 for men. It's not about education. It's not about men overtaking women in workplaces. The inequality starts from day one in the workforce. We've known that this is a problem for many years, and we've made many efforts to address it. We've been working at this for some time. We've made legislative changes, but never enough to actually reduce the gender pay gap. It has been a stubborn problem in Australian society for many, many years. In fact, Justice Mary Gaudron pointed this out after a 1998 pay equity case. She said, 'We won equal pay once'—she was talking about the 1975 case—'then we got it again, and then we got it again, and now we still don't have it.' That's why I'm so very pleased today to be supporting this legislation—because in 2023 the excuses are over. We're done. We've had it. It's time to fix this problem. We've made legislative changes over the years but with the very slow rate of change that we've seen—because of the laws and the institutions that we've changed—we would be at this for decades more. We need to get in and make the substantial changes that will permanently change the gender pay gap in Australia. When I had the women's portfolio in the Rudd years we had a look at what was then the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency. We made a number of reforms to the agency then. We introduced a number of transparency measures at the time. The review we did of the laws and the agency at that time told us—in what probably came as no surprise to any of us, I suspect—that female dominated industries had been historically undervalued. Well, that wasn't much of a surprise. It told us that women were less likely to be promoted into leadership positions and that women consistently earned less than men at work. We changed the remit of the agency at that time and changed the laws. We introduced new reporting frameworks for organisations, requiring large companies to report their progress against gender equality indicators. We provided tools to help large companies assess their own gender pay gap and see what they could do to better meet their aspirations to reduce gender pay gaps in their own organisations. At the time we did that it was considered world-leading. It was innovative, and the transparency measures were ahead of most other comparable nations—nations like us. But you have to say that what was right for 2012 isn't right for 2023. We need to continually update our laws and institutions, both because we haven't yet achieved gender equality and because we learn, by looking at other nations, that we need to keep pushing and updating what we're doing to get real results. During the last decade we've seen other countries overtake us on these transparency measures—they're doing better than we are—and the results have seen us, as a nation, tumbling down the global equality rankings between men and women. Under the time of the previous government we fell to 50th in the world for gender equality, and for economic participation for women we fell from the 12th most equal country in the world to the 70th most equal country in the world. It's embarrassing that Australia would be the 70th most equal country in the world for women's economic participation. It's a truly shocking decline. We made changes when we were last in government. The changes that we made had, at their heart, the same thing that is at the heart of the changes that we are debating today, and that is the phenomenal power of transparency to drive greater equality in Australian society. I think we probably all agree Australians are by their nature a country of people who pride themselves on the fair go. If we see inequality, if we see injustice, we want to call it out and we want to fix it. When you show we have a systemic inequality in Australia driven by institutional discrimination—sexism, in this case—Australians won't stand for it. They want to fix it. When we get companies to publish their gender pay gaps, there are a natural series of questions about why these gender pay gaps exist. Transparency was and always has been a great force for equality. The key change in this bill is we'll now publish gender pay gaps at an employer level for companies with more than a hundred employees. That is a fantastic change. The information will be published on the WGEA website in a searchable tool that is available to the public. That's great for academics who are studying this, of course; it's also terrific if you're thinking about applying for a job. We've got a race for talent, a competition for talent, in the Australian economy at the moment. If you're thinking about applying for a job, you've two companies you're choosing between—this one or this one—you see this one's got a five per cent gender pay gap and this one's got a 20 per cent gender pay gap, you're choosing between the two of them and you're a woman, I think you're probably going to make the sensible decision about the one with the lower gender pay gap. It's important for shareholders to see what the business they've got a stake in is doing terms of the gender pay gap. This information is valuable for potential employees and for people who've got an interest in the business. It's also so important to drive a change in business behaviour. If you are answering questions at shareholder meetings about why you have a bigger gender pay gap than the average for the industry or a big gender pay gap overall, answering your shareholders' questions about that pretty quickly focuses management on how to fix what is a systemic problem. And why we are fixing it? Is it just because it's the fair thing to do? That'd be lovely. It is the fair thing to do. But it's not just because it's the fair thing to do. The reason we have to fix this in the interests of business is that we know companies that have smaller gender pay gaps, that have higher levels of women in management positions, actually do better in business. It's because they've got different life experiences, different views, different perspectives sitting around the table when decisions are being made. It's been long-term Labor policy to work on reducing the gender pay gap. We've taken policies around reducing the gender pay gap to each election, and I am really so very pleased to say this bill comes as part of a history of work and activism in this area by a succession of Labor governments. Closing the gender pay gap is core business for the Australian Labor Party, because it's about fairness. It was Gough Whitlam who backed that 1975 equal pay test case. It was Susan Ryan who passed the Sex Discrimination Act. It was Bob Hawke and Susan Ryan who established the first Affirmative Action Agency. We've seen each Labor government make its contribution towards greater equality for women in the workplace. These changes are significant. They'll make a difference. I do particularly want to acknowledge the excellent work of the minister for industrial relations and the Minister for Women in prosecuting these changes and bringing forward this important legislation. I also think they, the two ministers, would be the first to acknowledge that this comes from a great deal of work, thought and activism from women and men in the great Australian trade union movement, including through pay cases for women in low-paid industries. It comes from the work of many, many branch members in branches right across Australia and them taking forward motions for closing the gender pay gap to our national conferences. Institutions and organisations like EMILY's List have campaigned so hard to make sure that we have solid policies on gender equality in the Labor Party. This is a real tribute to the hard work of those activists in the union movement and in the Labor Party over many years, indeed. It is also about the work of academics and others who have collected this information and built the evidence base for making these changes. They've examined what's worked around the world and they've asked, 'Why can't we have what's worked overseas work here in Australia?' I also want to mention previous ministers who have worked in these areas. When Brendan O'Connor had this portfolio, Peta Murphy worked with him. They did an enormous amount of work on issues around the gender pay gap. I pay tribute to their work. For Lauren Power, who works in the Prime Minister 's office, this has been the work of many years. I want to make sure that her efforts are acknowledged here. We will never have equality in society until we have equality at work, and we will never have equality at work until we have a more equal distribution of unpaid work as well as paid work. The gender pay gap shapes every aspect of people's lives—their ability to buy a home, to raise a family, to pursue their dreams, to save for a comfortable retirement, to leave a violent relationship and to have choice in their lives. That's why we are restoring Australian leadership on gender equality. We are supporting pay increases for low-paid workers, who we know are mostly women. We are making child care cheaper. We are expanding access to paid parental leave. We have our next national plan on violence against women and their children. We are passing legislation in response to Respect@Work. We are implementing gender responsive budgeting. We have passed our policy for 10 days paid domestic violence leave. We are ending pay secrecy clauses, which are so pernicious. We know that the industries with the greatest reliance on pay secrecy clauses—surprise, surprise!—have the greatest rates of gender pay inequality. Now there's this new addition: greater transparency, demanding that Australian companies disclose their gender pay gaps so we can close those gender pay gaps. I am proud to be part of a party that prioritises women's equality at work, and I'm proud to support this bill. 19:03 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise to speak in support of this important bill today, the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023, as a proud member of the first ever majority women Australian government. Ms Plibersek 83M I forgot to mention that in my speech—that's pretty good! Ms PA 144732 Yes! The Albanese government has a record number of women in cabinet and the ministry. I want to thank my ACT colleague and friend the Minister for Women, Senator Katy Gallagher, for her work in bringing this bill before the parliament. I recently had the pleasure of hosting a Canberra women's forum with Senator Gallagher and ACT Deputy Chief Minister Yvette Berry in the lead-up to International Women's Day. It was an inspiring evening, with many great questions and discussions about issues affecting women across Australia. We still have a long way to go to progress gender equality in this country. Luckily, under Senator Gallagher, Labor has put gender equality at the heart of policymaking in this government, a Labor government that doesn't just make announcements but follows through on its promises. It is a government that has worked hard to deliver for women since the election 10 months ago. It's a government investing over $7 billion to drive gender equality in our first budget. It's a government that has a national strategy to achieve gender equality. It's a government which will make gender equality an object of the Fair Work Act. It is delivering 10 days paid domestic violence leave, enhancing the Paid Parental Leave scheme and delivering cheaper child care for 1.2 million Australian families. And this is a government that has introduced legislation for the Housing Australia Future Fund, which includes a focus on older women and women escaping domestic violence. That bill is currently before this parliament, and I think it's disappointing that anyone in this parliament would want to vote against, or consider voting against, the delivery of affordable housing for those most in need of it at the moment. So we're making a lot of progress, but of course there's still more to do. That's why we've brought in the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023, which fulfils a key election commitment by this government to close the gender pay gap at work. Unfortunately, improvement in the gender pay gap has been stalling. In fact, in the previous financial year, under the last government, the gap actually increased by 0.3 per cent. In 2023 Australia's national gender pay gap sits at 13.3 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 $253.50 per week. That's not good enough: women should not be paid less than men and we must close this gap. The impact of this means that the average woman will pay a higher percentage of her earnings on bills than men, including essentials such as groceries, power bills and rent. This follows women into retirement, where they will have an average 23.4 per cent less super when they come to retirement age than men do. Not only is this morally unacceptable but it is a constraint on the Australian economy. The gender pay gap alone represents a cost of $51.8 billion a year. The gap is present in all industries, from the top end of town to the suburbs. In 2022 only 14 women achieved executive levels in the top 200 companies in this country. I was pleased today to see that the 2021 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey, which is conducted every four years, showed some improvements, with attitudes rejecting gender inequality increasing by five per cent. But it was disappointing to see the survey report that almost one in 10 of those surveyed still believe that men make more capable bosses than women in the workplace, and that one in 10 agree with the statement that men make better political leaders than women. This has to change. We know that the gender pay gap is especially prevalent in highly feminised industries, which can be attributed to outdated and discriminatory assumptions about the value of the work that we do. But the pandemic brought home to us just how important the care industries really are. The heroes of the pandemic were those such as early childhood educators, nurses, aged-care workers, cleaners and disability support workers, who look after our young, ageing, and Australians living with disability. I recently had the pleasure of meeting a number of these invaluable workers when I visited BaptistCare Carey Gardens aged-care home in Red Hill with our aged-care minister, Annika Wells. I also recently visited Goodstart Early Learning in Garran, and met some incredible and professional workers at both of those. I would like to thank the staff at both of these centres for their dedication, for sharing with me the challenges they face and their positive plans for the future. The highlight was meeting the happy residents and the children, which was a testament to the hard work of the staff in both these important sectors. I'm proud to be part of a government that's working to fix aged care, which supported a pay rise for aged-care workers and is increasing access to early childhood education. I'd also like to take this opportunity to mention a fantastic organisation in my electorate which I'm very honoured to be the patron of: WIC, or Women in ICT—information and communication technology. WIC is dedicated to championing women in tech through opportunities for networking, inspiring women to take their careers to the next level in the industry and supporting them to do so—increasing participation by women in this male-dominated industry. I want to acknowledge the current president, Tara Searle; vice president, Josephine Calabria; and the whole committee for the incredible work that they do, along with all the people who participate in WIC events. Whenever I've had the pleasure to go to their events, I'm really struck by the genuine warmth and the great spirit there from people who want to support women in this industry. Men come along as well, because that's a really important part of this. WIC supports women in tech right from the beginning, with girls studying STEM in high school, helping to provide them with an opportunity to talk about some of the things that they are facing and whether they are considering furthering their education in this area, including providing scholarships for women who go to uni to study in these areas. It's really important and so inspiring, in particular, to see these young women studying in areas that didn't even exist when I was in high school. By taking this on, they have such a supportive, inclusive, wonderful group of women in this area, and I really commend their work and wish them all the best in continuing. Again, I am so honoured to be their patron and hope to support them in every way that I can. This bill, like so much of the legislation the Albanese Labor government has passed to make Australia a better and fairer place, is being guided by evidence. We are a science and evidence based government, unlike the previous government. These reforms resulted from close consultation with stakeholders across Australia, including the business and not-for-profit sectors, employee organisations, higher education providers, users of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency data, Australian government and territory governments and, of course, WGEA itself. This bill also responds to a 2021 review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. The review made 10 recommendations to help accelerate progress towards workplace gender equality in Australia. Recommendation 2 of the review was to improve pay gap transparency, and this bill introduces new provisions allowing for WGEA to publish gender pay gaps of relevant employers for each reporting period. This will promote accountability and encourage accelerated action and change within organisations towards closing the gender pay gap. Recommendation 3.2(b) went to improving accountability for gender equality within organisations. For the first time, WGEA will report gender pay gaps at employer level, not just industry level. This will help encourage companies to priorities gender equality and work to close the gender pay gap. It will accelerate progress towards gender equality. This is what happened when the UK introduced similar legislation in 2017. This change draws on data that employers already provide to WGEA and will give us more information about gender pay gaps and put employees on notice to take action. To strengthen the focus on gender equality, the bill will amend the act to rename current minimum standards as 'gender equality standards' to reflect the increased ambitions of these measures to strengthen gender equality, improving outcomes for both women and men in the workplace. To support the implementation of the Respect@Work report, this bill also amends the act to include sexual harassment, harassment on the ground of sex or discrimination as gender equality indicators in the act. These reforms will drive employer action, transparency and accountability and will help speed up progress towards gender equality in the workplace while at the same time streamlining reporting for employers. Estimates indicate that, at the current rate of progress, it could take as long as 24 years to close the gender pay gap. Women have waited long enough. Improving workplace gender equality is critical. Australian women deserve fair and safe working conditions and they deserve equal opportunity and equal renumeration. This bill is getting on with the job of closing the gender pay gap for women in Australia. Labor has also committed to reviewing these legislative amendments five years after they have passed. This will allow critical evaluation of how effective these measures have been in achieving the objective of accelerating progress towards gender equality in Australian workplaces. It's my firm belief that, to truly achieve gender equality in the workplace, we do as the member for Sydney and the Minister for the Environment and Water just said: we do need to ensure that unpaid work is also equitably shared between genders. I think that, to achieve gender equity in the workplace, we really need to see a normalising of taking time out of the workplace to be part-time for both men and women in respect of taking care of children, because that is really where the rubber hits the road in terms of the disparities between men and women in the workplace. I'm really proud of the work that we have done on paid parental leave under the Minister for Social Services and her leadership on that. We are extending the Paid Parental Leave Scheme and making it more equally shared between both partners. Seeing this normalisation not only is important for people accessing that scheme but also sends a broader message to employers about providing this leave for mothers, fathers and partners after the birth of a child. We know that when parents are able to take more time at that really special time for families, particularly when fathers are able to take that time, it means they will take more time and have more involvement as their children grow up. I think that is critically important, because we still live in a society where the responsibility of this is taken on predominantly by women, but this means that men miss out. In the days where it was just seen that the dad would work and the mum would be with the kids, the dads missed out on a really special time in their children's lives. It's good to see some movement in this area. Government policy is a really important part of supporting people and families to make the choices that suit them the best and sending that message to employers. I remember that when I was working at Treasury some years ago we undertook a process of progressing women. In the time that that happened, we saw some real results around that. One of the things I remember having the most impact was some of the men—particularly senior men—going part-time. This was groundbreaking at the time, the idea that a senior person—let alone a man—could be part-time. To see the impact that this had for others and to see that people could do this was a really important step. Government policy of normalising that time out of the workforce to balance family and work is so important. I'm so proud of the work that we've done there, and I commend the minister on that as well. It's a great honour to follow the Minister for the Environment and Water, who talked about being a majority-women government for the first time. It is wonderful to work with so many great women in this Labor caucus, and I'm very thankful for that opportunity. I particularly acknowledge the minister for coming to my Canberra Environment Forum last night, which meant so much to my constituents. It was a fantastic discussion. 19:17 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I'm proud to rise in this chamber to speak on another signature Albanese Labor government election promise that this bill delivers. The Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 will implement the vast majority of the recommendations that stemmed from the 2021 review of the act. The bill will empower the Workplace Gender Equality Agency—the WGEA—with the ability to publish gender pay gaps of the relevant employers at each reporting period. This alone is a significant change, as it means that instead of data being published on the gender pay gap by industry it will now be specific pay gaps published per company. This change not only is necessary to fulfil our election promise to the Australian people but also critically serves to promote accountability in companies and encourage their speedy efforts to address any pay gap they may have. The first time we will see this new gender pay gap data will be in early 2024, based on the current reporting period of 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023. On top of providing this data per employer, companies will have the option of providing a statement to give further context as to why they have a gender pay gap and what actions they are taking to rectify this. This statement would also be public and published in an easy-to-find format alongside their gender pay gap data on WGEA's website. This change also benefits employees. They will now be empowered with the ability to search their company's gender pay gap at any time and see what the company is doing about it. If you're a prospective employee at a company, you can do some additional research before choosing to work for them or not. We know this change is an important step in tackling Australia's gender pay gap. As of 2022, this gap stood at a shocking 14.1 per cent. Practically speaking, this means that, as of May 2022, the average weekly full-time earnings of a woman in this country, taking into account all industries and occupations, was lower than the male equivalent by as much as $263.90 per week. We also know that women, on average, have 23.4 per cent less superannuation when they reach retirement age compared to men. Women are generally overrepresented in industries with lower wages and underrepresented in leadership positions. Women hold just 18 per cent of chair positions and 34 per cent of board member positions. Whilst gender discrimination, of course, does not just affect women, these statistics are quite stark. This gender pay gap alone costs the Australian economy $51.8 billion a year. This pay gap helps no-one, and it is in all our interests, workers and businesses alike, to fix it. Will this bill fix all of that overnight? Of course not. However, it is a very significant step in shining a light on the gender pay gap that may exist from company to company, and this information being public will have positive flow-on effects to address it. No employer wants to be at the bottom of this soon-to-be public ladder. We know this because similar reforms were initiated in the United Kingdom back in 2017. Since then, there has been a marked improvement across the board in the gender pay gap, particularly in companies towards the end of the spectrum. Further accountability and transparency changes in this bill include the WGEA requiring employers to provide their executive summary report and industry benchmark report to all members of their governing body. This ensures that, after receiving the report from the WGEA, everyone with a leadership role in a company is informed on progress they are making in addressing the gender pay gap or in starting that progress if it isn't already happening. Importantly, the bill also amends the act to rename the existing 'minimum standards' wording to 'gender equality standards', which reflects this bill's ambitious goal to drastically improve gender equality and economic outcomes for both men and women in the workplace. Other administrative changes include renaming the WGEA chair's role from 'director' to 'chief executive officer'. This implements recommendation 9.2 of the review, aligns the language of the act with the WGEA and avoids confusion with the company director's role. Further amendments to the act include adding 'sexual harassment', 'harassment on the ground of sex' and 'discrimination' as gender equality indicators in the act. These amendments address recommendation 5.1 of the review and support the implementation of the Respect@Work report. One of the best things about this bill is that it will not result in increased paperwork or red tape for businesses. We are simply drawing on the data that has already been provided and making it more accessible and transparent for all. In fact, the remade instruments that will action many of these changes make it easier for employers to report on their data. This will be actioned through research and consultation on the collection of additional diversity data about those with cultural and linguistic diversity, our First Nations Australians and those with a disability. The development of these gender equality targets requires close consultation with businesses and other important stakeholders. I know that the Minister for Women, Senator Katy Gallagher, is working very hard to develop a further legislative package that will include measures to give effect to outstanding legislative recommendations, such as requiring employers to achieve specific gender equality targets. This will be introduced at a later date. I am also pleased to see this bill before us. I know its implementation will do wonders to not only help businesses address their gender pay gaps and learn from each other but also help employees and prospective employees know what the current gender pay gap might be. I've always believed that shining a light on an issue always has positive effects. While this bill in itself does not solve the entire gender pay gap issue, it will go a long way in helping address it. I am proud of yet another Labor bill that honours an election commitment we made to the Australian people in last year's election. This shows yet again that Labor are getting things done, and we are not wasting a moment in seeking to improve the conditions of all Australians. I worked as a union organiser for many, many years, and I represented people who worked in retail, fast food and warehousing. I am so proud that the Albanese Labor government is standing up for all the women across this country. I strongly commend this bill to the House, and I hope to see everyone in this place voting in favour of such commonsense reforms. I thank the House. 19:26 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Women's economic development is core business to the Albanese government—and why wouldn't it be? For the first time in Commonwealth history we have record representation of women in the government, at 52 per cent. We are highly invested in the needs of women throughout this country. I started with women's economic development because central to progress for women is them actually reclaiming the economic narrative in this country, which for too long has been dominated by male voices and men—in boardrooms, in chairs, all over this country. Women, we know, hold up half the sky. The problem is that sky is getting heavier and heavier to hold up. We know that the Global gender gap report 2022 ranked Australia 43rd out of 146 countries. To put that into context, New Zealand was number four. And it would only take 130 years to close that gender pay gap—130 years; it's a few lifetimes. But it's not all bad news because, in Australia, WGEA put out their report, and it shows that it would only take 26 years to close the gender pay gap in Australia—26 years. The problem is that, with so many of the women on our side in government, we're pretty impatient, and we're not going to wait 26 years. We want to speed this whole process along, and this is why we are internally promoting structural reforms on multiple fronts: paid parental leave; child care; IR reform, to make workplaces safer and more fair for women; and promoting flexible workplaces. But that's not all. We need to shine a light on this dark, dirty secret in Australian workplaces that, when a man and a woman go for the same job, the chances are that the man is going to get paid a little bit more than the woman. The problem with this scenario is that the 14 per cent gender pay gap that we currently have in Australia has translated to about $263 per week on average. The problem with an average is that there's always more and there's always less. This has an outsized impact on a woman's life. If you start off with lower pay, it translates to fewer assets, less super and, finally, more vulnerability later in life. It's not a secret that women over the age of 55 are now the fastest-growing group of people ending up marooned and homeless, and that's simply because they do not have that financial buffer that men do, especially when they encounter the headwinds—or the storms, actually—of life: job loss, bereavement, relationship breakdown. These are the reasons why we are so invested in addressing this vexed problem on multiple fronts. And we don't pretend that it's going to close in the next few years, but we're certainly not prepared to wait 26 years. That's outrageous. As far as this legislation goes, what we are planning on doing is— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 104 ADJOURNMENT Australian Constitution 104 19:30 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies Mr Speaker, this is my first adjournment speech, so I'm glad you're in the chair. In the last two days, we heard the beginning of the proper debate about amending the Constitution. There were five questions put to the Prime Minister and one to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. What struck me and concerned me was the visceral reaction from the other side that those questions were dared to be put. There was a visceral reaction. I think that is a great shame, and I hope there's some reflection upon that, that there will be and should be more questions, not just from this side but from all Australians, because we're asking Australians to make a very serious decision this year. There's a little book about the Constitution that we give schoolchildren who visit this place and that we give them when we visit schools, and it isn't just the particular provisions of our Constitution; it also has an explanation at the front. It's a joint initiative of the Parliamentary Education Office and the Australian Government Solicitor, and we heard some questions about the Australian Government Solicitor. It says this, and it's important: 'Australia's Constitution contains little of the soaring rhetoric which is familiar in the constitutions of many other lands. That is one of its strengths. It is a practical, matter-of-fact, unpretentious but effective document. As such, it reflects the pragmatic, no-nonsense attitude which we like to think is among the most attractive features of the Australian character.' It goes on to say this: 'Although Australia may be a young nation, we are one of the world's oldest democracies.' It's easy to forget that—we are one of the world's oldest democracies. Further, it says, 'And unlike most nations which are now democracies, Australia has been a democracy from the moment we became a nation, as a federation.' The preamble to the Constitution says: … the Constitution is the fundamental law of Australia binding everybody including the Commonwealth Parliament— this place— and the Parliament of each State. Accordingly— and this is important, because it wasn't reflected in the answers in the last two days— even an Act passed by a Parliament is invalid if it is contrary to the Constitution. We saw the wording that has been proposed, and I must admit that when people asked me over the last 12 months what wording would come, I never thought it would be this radical. I really didn't. It's not modest. In the three provisions that are put forward, the second one is very important. It says: The … Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; 'Matters relating to'—there is broad agreement from all of those involved in the various working groups that that has broad application. It's not narrowed to the particular minister; it has broad application. And the Prime Minister and many commentators referred to the third part as being the bit that checks any justiciability of that. It says: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution— and that's the bit that's left out in all the answers— have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to … That, we are told, is what will protect the possibility, and I would submit the probability, that there will be, in a part 2, an implied obligation to consult. In administrative law, when you have a right to be heard, you don't have that right unless you know there is something to be heard about. So, in order to know that there's something to be heard about, there must be an obligation to consult. And then, if there's any check upon that implied constitutional obligation by this place, because it is subject to the Constitution, it will be ruled invalid. So, when the questions are put from this side—and, indeed, throughout this nation—about justiciability, they are serious questions that should be answered. It concerns me that they haven't been asked and answered on the side of the government. That will be an important task of the upcoming joint select committee. It will be an important task of this campaign. We were told weeks ago that the Calma Langton report had the answers. That said that non-justiciability is an essential feature—a view that, weeks later we were told, reeked of subconscious racism. It's time to answer questions. Tangney Electorate: Multiculturalism 105 19:35 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney Australia is a multicultural society. The contributions made by our multicultural communities shape our country for the better. It is the addition of colour, flavour, depth and dimension, in the form of culturally and linguistically diverse experiences, that enriches our way of life. But often—too often—the perception of our multicultural community is skewed by subliminal messaging or full-blown agitational remarks by our media. We must call this out. I refer to an article from ABC news earlier this month, with the headline: 'India: Narendra Modi calls on Albanese to combat Sikh attacks on Hindu temples in Australia'. This article was not only misleading but also so harmful to both the Sikh and Hindu communities in Australia. I have large communities of Sikhs and Hindus in my electorate of Tangney. Canning Vale is the home of the first Sikh gurdwara in Western Australia. Canning Vale is also the home of the Perth Hindu Temple. Whilst there are differences, both communities work tirelessly to advocate for their people, and both communities are benefiting from the election commitment made by our government to their place of worship. The recent incidents of violence highlighted in the article do not represent the Australian Sikh community. We must condemn any form of violence, but we must also ensure that we do not target an entire community. It is important to understand that the Sikhs follow the teachings of their gurus, which emphasise love, compassion and service to humanity. The recent incidents of violence do not reflect the values and the teachings encompassed by the Sikh faith. Around the same time as this article from the ABC, the Daily Mail published a story online implying that three Chinese men taking photographs at the Avalon air show in Melbourne were spies! This was absolutely outrageous! I'm sure many of you have heard of my own personal experience, when I was doing campaigning and doorknocking in the Tangney electorate, where I, too, was being told, 'Go back to China'—even though I was, in fact, born in Malaysia. We have all heard: 'Do not judge a book by its cover.' So why should the colour of my skin, the way I talk and the way I express myself be used against me as a weapon? The racial profiling in this article not only affected the victims but also caused profound discomfort and anxiety to many in the Chinese community and those of Asian heritage. It is unfair, unreasonable and unacceptable to suspect anyone with a camera at a public event—let alone anyone who looks Asian or to be of Chinese descent—of being a spy. The article has since been swiftly removed, after the Daily Mail received complaints and an open letter calling them out for their baseless accusations. As leaders, it is our responsibility to ensure that we do not propagate false narratives that can harm our communities and divide us. I say this because more than 160 nationalities live in my electorate of Tangney. It reflects modern Australia, where we represent a unique and diverse set of cultures. We must work towards building bridges between our multicultural communities to promote peace and harmony. Hindsight is a great thing. I say this to all media watching or listening: let us acknowledge and appreciate the significant contribution of our multicultural communities in Australia. Let us all work together to promote peace and harmony between all communities, because our words are powerful. They should be used for unity, not division. (Time expired) Albanese Government 105 19:40 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Around Australia, the broken promises of the Albanese Labor government are causing great difficulty. That is certainly true in my electorate of Bradfield, where broken promises in relation to superannuation, franking credits and power bills are troubling my constituents. Let's start with superannuation. Before last year's election, both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer promised us there would be no changes. On Melbourne radio on 31 January 2022, the now Prime Minister said, 'We have not planned for any changes on superannuation.' On Insiderson 27 March 2022, the now Treasurer said, 'Australians shouldn't expect major changes to superannuation, if the government changes hands.' Of course, you'd be a mug to believe that, because only a few weeks ago they announced that, in fact, they would be breaking that promise. There will now be an extra tax of 15 per cent on income earned on balances above a threshold. That threshold is not indexed. While Labor try to pretend this will only affect a few of the wealthiest Australians, their own modelling shows that in due course some 10 per cent of Australians will be affected. Of course, this will hit hardest those Australians who've worked and sacrificed for many years to build up superannuation savings for retirement. Australians have done the right thing. They've done exactly what governments asked them to do. But now the Treasurer wants to tax more of what those Australians have saved. It won’t just hurt those getting close to retirement; it will discourage those with many years of working life remaining from putting more into super. Since this policy has come out, over 200 of my constituents have raised with me their concerns about these changes, and I can say very clearly that the Liberal Party is opposed to these changes. Some other representatives in this place seem to be quite keen on their own constituents being hit with higher taxes. The member for Curtin said, 'I'm not against capping the super balance.' The member for Kooyong said, 'I'm very happy to examine any firm proposals from the government regarding potential reform of tax and super.' So it seems that the teals are happy to see higher taxes on superannuation. Certainly, the Liberal Party takes a very different view. Let's talk about franking credits. Before the last election—again, we see the same pattern—the Prime Minister and the Treasurer explicitly promised no changes to franking credits. On ABC radio on 30 March 2021, the now Prime Minister said, 'We won't have any changes to the franking credits regime which is there.' Of course, you'd be a mug to believe that promise too, because they've now introduced legislation that will increase the government's revenues by restricting the circumstances in which franking credits can be paid. This will capture some $600 million of revenue for the government. That's $600 million taken away from Australian taxpayers. Then, of course, there's Labor's broken promise of cheaper power bills. On 97 times before the election Mr Albanese, the now Prime Minister, promised a $275 price cut to Australians' power bills. You'd be a mug to believe that as well. Rather than the reduction in power prices that the now Prime Minister promised, we've seen the opposite. Energy bills are skyrocketing. In fact, it its budget last year, the government admitted that it expected electricity bills to be up by 56 per cent and gas bills by 40 per cent over the foreseeable future. So, on one hand, we have a promise made 97 times that energy bills would come down by $275, and, on the other hand, we have the grim reality of energy bills going up and up. In the last couple of weeks, we've seen the default market offer come out, which tells Australians what they can expect their bills to be in the future. Is now the time that the Prime Minister's promise of a $275 reduction is finally going to be delivered? It turns out that it is not. On the contrary, the default market offer around the country has seen new increases of up to 23.7 per cent for households, up to 25.7 per cent for small businesses. Households in my electorate of Bradfield under the proposed increases of the default market offer will be worse off by up to $564 per year. Of course, we were called back in December to be told there was an assistance package that would be finalised by March with support flowing from April. That has not happened either. They are broken promises. When it comes to superannuation, when it comes to franking credits, when it comes to power prices, it is a grim and distressing story. Transport Industry 106 18:45 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen This is the time to make real reform. That is what I and many other members heard today. We heard that today because we are seeing the transport industry united—united for workers, united for Australian businesses and united to keep the transport industry and the economy moving. I, along with many other members, have met and spoken with members of the TWU. I have been a member of the TWU for 20 years, so they know they can always come to me. I understand that because I have driven trucks, picked up trucks with tow trucks, worked on trucks, sold trucks, sold truck parts. It is something that gets in your blood and it stays there. It was great to see so many members today making time for them. We often hear from both sides of this House that trucks move our nation. Without trucks, the nation stops. But the other side like to pretend that they care about our transport workers and that they are for the transport industry. To be honest, I don't think one of them would know the difference between a Humphrey valve and Humphrey B Bear. Do you know what they did when they were in government? They ripped apart legislation and protection for workers in the transport business. They undid the reforms the last Labor government had put in place, reforms that protected workers' lives and advanced productivity within the sector. And what did they replace those reforms with? As usual, absolutely nothing. The laissez-faire attitude that those opposite had towards the transport industry was careless and naive at best, destructive and deadly at worst. In 2016, the former coalition government shut down the Road Safety Renumeration Tribunal. The member for Riverina got up in the MPI today and said he spoke for truckers—truckers not truckies—using an American term, as if he and the coalition cared so much about the industry. Why during nine years of government did they do nothing to protect the industry, the industry that got us through the pandemic and kept the country moving? Do you know what happened when they shut down the tribunal? There have been over a thousand truck crash deaths since the Road Safety Renumeration Tribunal was abolished. Unrealistic and shocking pressures from an unregulated industry has meant that 50 per cent of the workers feel wage theft, 40 per cent of owner drivers didn't raise safety concerns out of fear they would lose pay and jobs, 55 per cent of owners have delayed maintenance because they couldn't afford it and one-in-four workers have been involved in a crash while working. That is the legacy of the coalition government ignoring the industry for nearly a decade and that is why we are looking at major reforms to protect our workers and protect this industry. The meeting we had today was on the back of another tragedy. Last night, there was another truck related death reported—that is, 62 deaths this year alone. This is why we need to reform. The emergence and reliance on the gig economy has been a catalyst for the need for change. Listening to the work and pay conditions gig economy workers must endure just to make minimum wage is mortifying. The lack of regulations has allowed these gig giants to do whatever they want and make their workers work ridiculous hours that endangers them and others on the road. This Labor government will drive reforms needed to save the industry, and I look forward to working with the minister to ensure the improvement of working conditions by putting protections in place for our industry. We sat there and talked to a fellow today who talked about his nephew being killed as an Uber driver. The way that these vicious companies attack people and treat them so poorly is just unbelievable. Because he hadn't had a job, or had finished one job and was moving to the next in 15 minutes, they considered that he was not an employee. Two minutes after the fatal crash, they were sending him a job, asking him to do work but they refused to stand up and support this man and his family. It is absolutely appalling the way these people are being treated. Most people who drive trucks in this industry do it for the love, do it for their passion. They enjoy the freedom of being in a small business or of driving a truck and getting out there and making a living. The last thing we need is a continual drive down to the lowest common denominator for the industry. That's why it was so appalling as we watched, over the last decade, things slowly strip away as there was a race to a bottom to protect the profits of big multinational companies. Before I finish my speech, I want to highlight a visit that I had the honour of making last week. I visited BlueCross Willowmeade aged care in Kilmore, which I had visited earlier with Clare O'Neil and Senator Jana Stewart. The exciting bit was that we had an afternoon tea with a lovely lady named Lillian Biddick, who had a strong New Zealand accent. I had a chat to her about having been down to Invercargill, which is the coldest place on earth, and she told me that her family grew up there. I mentioned an Anthony Hopkins film called The World's Fastest Indian. She told me that she was Burt Munro's cousin and she had never seen the film. So it was a great pleasure to take her the DVD and sit there and watch Anthony's fantastic betrayal of her cousin. I wish her well. Gold Coast IMPACT Youth Summit 107 19:50 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I believe in the youth of our nation. They represent the future and they deserve our attention, our guidance and our support. As the shadow minister for youth, I want to deliver real and meaningful choice and opportunities for younger Australians. As a young person, I had an opportunity that transformed my life through Rotary International. The year abroad was truly inspirational and transformational for me as a young person from a disadvantaged background. So many young people today feel they don't have a choice or an opportunity to make something for themselves and for their future. Many feel they have no way to advance themselves, and many simply don't know how. So, as shadow minister for youth, I am doing something for my youth community, to pay forward the opportunities that I experienced as a teenager who wanted to make something of herself. I've been working with outstanding Gold Coaster Karen Phillips and our supporters and partners to deliver impactful opportunities for young Gold Coasters. On 17 and 18 March, as patron of the 2023 Gold Coast IMPACT Youth Summit, I was thrilled to host 189 young people from 23 schools and over 20 community groups, universities and businesses to deliver new opportunities for Gold Coast youth. For young people, magic happened at this inaugural event, the first of its kind on the Gold Coast, designed for youth, about youth. It was meaningful and life-changing for many who attended and participated in a range of activities that broadened their horizons, where they heard from inspirational speakers who recounted their experiences and their challenges. I can't mention all of them today, as it was a packed agenda, but some highlights were Shamus Evans, who was the MC and provided a great role model for those living with non-swearing Tourette syndrome. He has turned his adversity into a superpower. We heard from Tim Laser Beakman, a young man with a disability who defied doctors to even speak and has risen as a celebrated artist now throughout the world; Briony Benjamin, with her inspirational story of surviving and flourishing after non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; Dinesh Palipana OAM; Chang Po Ching; Marco Renai, with his 'Men of Business' MOB Academy's flexible independent school that 'builds better men'; and more. In some sessions, discussions were about the power of education, finding your why and then your how, how to support someone experiencing mental health challenges, and there was also a break-out for secondary teachers who attended. On the second day, the participants undertook activities including team building, which involved building a bike to give to the community. There was a Sea World environmental experience, with rescued marine animals and a creativity workshop. Young people known as Gen 1 IMPACTERS then left the two-day summit beaming with new-found inspiration and enthusiasm, filled with hope and opportunity. The IMPACT summit was funded completely by community philanthropy and the major partner, Sea World Foundation, and was delivered by well-known and outstanding Gold Coaster Karen Phillips. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank her for her dedication and to thank our many partners for the event. I thank the principal partner, the Sea World Foundation, for their generous support for Gold Coast youth, for the tremendous work they do for marine rescue, research and conversation and for being the good corporate citizen they are for the Gold Coast. I thank Mario Evangelo, his wife, Janelle, and daughters, Lauren and Georgia, for your philanthropic support through inspiring greatness, and Azra Kujovic, for assisting in that endeavour. I thank our Gold Coast partners, Village Roadshow Theme Parks, Griffith University, COVAX Australia and the Peerless Law Firm, and our program partners, Southern Cross University, Study Gold Coast, TAFE Queensland, Walsh Accounting, Cronin Miller Litigation and Ten Four media. I also thank our media partners, the Gold Coast Bulletin and the LiSTNR app; our community partners, Volunteering Gold Coast, Serving Our People, Gold Coast Corporate Rotary Club, Empowered Living Choices and St Vincent de Paul; and the Moncrieff youth cabinet members who worked with us to design many elements of the event, including the name. I look forward to our next meeting in a couple of weeks. To the 189 first-generation IMPACTERs: I'm so very proud of you all for attending and getting the most out of the summit. I'm proud of your achievements and the changes you're making for yourselves and in our community. State and federal governments need to better support our youth to learn how to be the best they can be, through offering more platforms for them to connect with their interests, abilities and passions in a way that is relevant and dynamic in today's world. There is a need for more of the flexible models that accommodate individuals from all cultures, all identities and all abilities and teach them how to work hard, to build a future and to make good choices for their lives that ultimately positively impact their families and their communities. Albanese Government 108 19:55 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby During last year's election campaign, I lost track of the number of people who raised three key issues with me: climate, integrity and treatment of women. That hasn't changed much. When I was out in Boothby over the weekend conducting mobile offices, I had people raise these same three issues with me. They told me how concerned they were about the future of our planet. I had an older man in tears over the future of his children and grandchildren after a decade of inaction on climate change. People told me about their concern that Australia's international reputation had been damaged by a drop of 12 points on the international anticorruption scale over the last decade. While Australia has had a five-point increase since the Albanese government was elected, they were keen to ensure that we keep going. And I heard about women facing the challenge of how to manage a career and a family and how to ensure that they have a secure financial future when the system is stacked against them. I was pleased to be able to say to these concerned constituents that the Albanese Labor government has heard them. We have taken action on each one of these key priorities, and there is more action yet to come. My electorate was so pleased when the Albanese government legislated the 43 per cent emissions reduction target last year. It was a concrete step in the right direction, and I said then, when I spoke to the people in Boothby, that this is just the first step. Earlier this week, Australia watched a powerful example of the Albanese government getting things done when we were able to reach agreement to pass our reforms to the safeguard mechanism. After setting the 43 per cent target, this is how we will reach that target. After 10 years of denial and delay by those opposite, we finally ended the climate wars. We have delivered real action that will drive down emissions. It is supported by business, it's supported by industry and it's supported by agriculture. They see the way forward as well. It will provide them with the certainty they have been calling for for years. We know that the failure to act is a threat to our health, our national security, our lives, our livelihoods and our communities. After a decade of denial and delay, Australia finally has a federal government committed to taking rapid action to turn this climate crisis around. We said we would establish a federal anticorruption commission, and last year we legislated one. Just this morning, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus announced the appointment of the first federal Anti-Corruption Commissioner, Justice Paul Brereton. The appointment represents the Labor government's delivery of its commitment to the Australian people—a return to integrity, honesty and accountability in government. By establishing a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission in our first term, our government is taking the vital first step and acting quickly to restore the kind of institutional accountability and transparency that Australians rightly expect of their elected representatives. Of course, this is not the end. The work of setting up the National Anti-Corruption Commission continues, and the Attorney-General is continuing the work on a judicial review body and a review of whistleblower protection legislation, amongst other things. This government is committed to integrity because integrity matters. The Albanese government is already moving on a range of issues relating to gender equality. The steps forward in this area are many: gender pay equity, gender equity as an objective of the Fair Work Commission, cheaper child care, the extension of paid parental leave, paid domestic violence leave, and the reinstatement of the women's budget statement, which considers the impact on women of each budget measure. While those opposite just oppose everything, vacating the negotiating table because they have nothing to offer, this government is getting on with the job. The actions we've taken so far are just the first steps—important steps, foundations for effective policy and actions that will build and transform our country into a modern powerhouse, a renewable energy superpower not held back by corruption or gender disadvantage. The Albanese Labor government is doing what we were sent here to do: we are delivering real action on climate change, restoring the integrity of our parliament and government and working to make gender inequality history. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 109 NOTICES Presentation 109

Wednesday, 29 March 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) took the chair at 09:30.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 112 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS People with Disability: Housing 112 09:30 Ms LE 295676 Fowler The simple act of jumping out of bed every morning and getting dressed is something we all take for granted. Earlier this month I had the opportunity to listen to people living with extreme physical disabilities about the challenges they face around their housing needs. Traditionally, these people have been lumped together into group homes because their families and loved ones simply cannot care for them. I was therefore delighted with to meet with the COO of Vertika Village, Karim Amin, of United for Care—at their newly acquired properties in Goulburn Street, Liverpool. They are leading the change and developing new, innovative solutions for individuals living with physical and mental disabilities. Vertika Village in Liverpool is a brand new build that incorporates physical support apartments that provide support to families and people living with severe physical disability. Each apartment is designed to encourage, enable and empower individuals to thrive in an independent setting, with access to a professional team who specialises in providing complex care needs in a wraparound model. During my visit I got to meet Roland, who suffered a stroke which left her permanently disabled on one side of her body. Traditionally, someone in Roland's situation would be required to go into a nursing home and live apart from her husband and children. However, United for Care were able to provide high physical support accommodation in Liverpool, which means Roland's husband can continue to go to work, knowing that his wife is being supported by qualified staff and that she has the wraparound support she needs. Can you imagine the psychological and physical improvement to this family's quality of life because of this incredibly innovative model of supported accommodation? United for Care has been operating for just over 2.5 years in the disability sector. Their focus is on independent-living accommodation developed using assistive technology and by a thoughtful combination of individual and shared communal spaces. We need to develop policies that support ability over disability and empowerment over disenchantment. I urge the government, in its Housing Australia Future Fund, to consider funding innovative housing solutions, which, if expanded, can alleviate the pressures on our hospitals while addressing needs in the areas of housing, disability, mental health, homelessness, domestic violence and potentially more. Together, we can change lives and make a difference. McEvoy, Mr Danny 112 09:32 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I rise to speak about the work of a local resident in my electorate of Pearce who has recently received an accolade for his longstanding and valuable community work. Danny McEvoy has accepted the honour in the Western Australia Multicultural Awards, which recognise the achievements of individuals and organisations who have contributed to multiculturalism in WA. Mr McEvoy was presented with the Sir Ronald Wilson Leadership Award for his unwavering dedication towards helping students from low socio backgrounds. I have known Danny for many years. He started the Achievers Club WA with the aim of educating, inspiring and empowering students to set and achieve academic goals. He started by helping a child from a single-parent family who had no role models; he's doing something good in the community. That early intervention quickly grew to include three of that little boy's friends. That was the start of the Achievers Club, which provides free educational support to students who are experiencing learning and/or adjustment difficulties. The Achievers Club is about empowerment, collaboration, perseverance and enjoyment. Ultimately, it is about the belief that all children and young people should have the opportunity to reach their potential. Danny did all this in his retirement because he wanted to give back. He said that it is a way to pay back society in return for the benefits he received from his own education and life experiences, and that it's also a way of keeping his mind sharp. The charity says it has five essential ingredients: sponsors, students, volunteers, parents and teachers. However, I think there's one more essential ingredient—a sense of humanity and care for others—that sets this organisation and its founder apart. The Achievers Club provides students with support and guidance to be the best people and students they can be, and gives them tools they can use throughout their lives. In Pearce we are proud to have a large population of residents who were born overseas—more than 40 per cent. We are a strong and vibrant multicultural community. This is something I champion wherever I have the opportunity. I am delighted that Danny McEvoy has been recognised in the WA Harmony Week Awards for his work with vulnerable children. Harmony Week is an opportunity to celebrate and showcase the multicultural fabric of Australian society. Our lives are better for having that wonderful diversity in our families, our schools, our sports clubs, our workplaces and our communities. I commend Mr McEvoy and the Achievers Club for their tireless efforts to make the lives and future of students better. Queensland: Youth Justice 113 09:35 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie There really is no place like home, but what happens when your home becomes less of a safe haven and more like a horror movie, where fear of the worst happening soon becomes a reality? This was the reality that met the late Emma Lovell and her husband, Lee, on 26 December 2022 in their North Lakes home. Emma and her family had returned home from Boxing Day celebrations with friends when, only hours later, she was awoken by two intruders, who fatally stabbed Emma and injured her husband, Lee, right in front of their two young daughters. The accused intruders were only 17 years old. One was released on bail only six hours before breaking into Emma's home and taking her life. And in 2020 our community was devastated when 14-year-old Angus Beaumont lost his life after being stabbed in the chest in a Redcliffe park by two 14-year-olds. The people of Petrie deserve to feel safe on the streets, in their community and in their own homes, but they are being failed by a dodgy Labor state government, who have weakened youth crime laws. The people of my community are paying the price. When the Palaszczuk government came to power in Queensland, they acted to remove breach of bail as an offence. This single act has resulted in young offenders who commit criminal acts repeatedly without consequence, and Queenslanders have had enough. I have no doubt that, if Yvette D'Ath, the member for Redcliffe, as Attorney-General at the time, hadn't weakened the youth justice laws, under the leadership of Annastacia Palaszczuk, Emma Lovell would most likely still be alive today, because one of the intruders would have been detained. After two years of campaigning for breach of bail to be amended in the Youth Justice Act, Queensland opposition leader David Crisafulli has delivered a win for Queenslanders, with the government finally accepting their policy for breach of bail as an offence. Craig Davies, a constituent from Bridgeman Downs, and a member of the local Neighbourhood Watch, reached out to me recently to discuss the increase of youth crime incidents in his area. From home invasions to car theft, vandalism to assault—all are on the rise under the state Labor government. I'm receiving the same feedback from the top of the electorate to the bottom and right through. The fight to curb the Labor government's out-of-control youth crime crisis is not over, and more needs to be done. Queenslanders want a Youth Justice Act that has consequences for action, where the rights of the victim are greater than the rights of the offender, where there is a standard of judiciary that doesn't leave detention as a last resort and there is early intervention before our youngest Queenslanders are lost to a life of crime. Annastacia Palaszczuk and Labor's broken laws should be repaired before more lives are lost. The only way to change things is to elect the Liberal National Party and David Crisafulli as Premier at the election next year. That's what it will take to get big improvements. Robertson Electorate: Long Jetty Festival 113 09:38 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Long Jetty Festival was recently held on the New South Wales Central Coast, with thousands of festival goers from the region and across the state attending the event. Long Jetty Festival took place along the beautiful foreshore of Tuggerah Lakes and included a range of unique stalls, delicious food options, exciting music performances and entertaining experiences. Altogether there were over 250 food and flea market stalls for people to enjoy. Events like Long Jetty Festival are so important to regions like the Central Coast because they provide small businesses and microbusinesses with the opportunity to showcase their products or services. Not only this but visitors that festivals of this scale bring to regions like the Central Coast have economic flow-on effects for existing businesses like cafes, restaurants, accommodation providers and so on. As well, live music acts and musicians benefit by performing to the festival's audiences, which helps to develop their talents, sharpen their stage presence and provide an income. I was impressed to see the musicians that performed at Long Jetty Festival, including the Rubens and Meg Mac, two excellent and powerful Australian live acts that I'm sure were able to get the audience singing and dancing, creating a real festival vibe. Festivals bring the community together, they foster pride and they provide so much more. It's pleasing to know that the Long Jetty Festival was such a giant success this year and has been a real highlight for the Central Coast so far. According to the festival organisers, the Long Jetty Festival brought upwards of 25,000 people to the coast, and this, I'm sure, was a welcome boost to business owners in the region. The Albanese Labor government understands the importance of culture to Australian communities, and this year the federal government announced its signature national cultural policy, Revive, which will provide much-needed funding for our culture and arts scene. Importantly, this policy will mean $286 million over the next four years and the creation of Creative Australia, the government's new principal arts investment and advisory body. Investments in this industry are integral for the 400,000 Australians working in the field, which contributes $17 billion to our nation's economy. I want to thank the Minister for the Arts, Tony Burke, and the Special Envoy for the Arts and member for Macquarie, Susan Templeman, for all their tireless work in this space. I look forward to supporting and attending the Long Jetty Festival over the coming years, and I want to thank all the organisers and all the businesses, stakeholders, musicians and other support staff who ensured that this year's festival was unforgettable—a truly memorable experience. Groom Electorate: Energy 114 09:41 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom Price caps simply do not work. This is a longstanding truism in politics and economics. It was true in recent times in South America, as it was true back in Roman times. The edict on maximum prices led to a period of chaos. It's true because it tries to defy the laws of supply and demand. You simply can't reduce supply, maintain demand and expect to see prices come down. The Treasurer may seek to rewrite capitalism, but he cannot rewrite the law of supply and demand. It's true in theory, it's true in practice and it's very true in the good area of Groom. I have a letter from my peak development body, the RDA, that points out exactly how much price caps have immediately impacted our area. For us, the energy sector is a huge component; 6.6 per cent per cent of our workforce come from it, and 31.8 per cent of our region's economic output comes from our energy sector. It's terribly important. Sadly—and I read from the RDA letter, referring to the price caps: … the impact of the recent announcement is already being borne negatively in our regional area. … many of the large multi-nationals have paused project pipelines and other capital investment, including Shell QGC, Origin and Senex. For our local contractors, the effect has been devastating. These multi-nationals can so easily make the decision to operate and invest somewhere else, however the contractors and workers in our region cannot. This is what happens with intervention of this sort. The big guys can move elsewhere; they're multinationals. They can move where there's a beneficial advantage to them. But local people cannot. Local workers cannot follow that cycle. It goes on: The CSG industry is very project driven and disruption to the project 'pipeline' such as the project pauses … by Senex and QGC … have an instant impact on business confidence across the whole of our region … I think the worst part in this correspondence is where it says this: Feedback received directly from businesses in our region indicates that it is incredibly difficult for small local businesses to future plan this industry and to implement such a change with limited notice. This includes flow on effecting to dependant tier 2/3/4 businesses right down to local jobs, housing and even sponsorship of kid's sporting teams. There's a reason I'm opposed to price caps. It's because they don't work. What they inevitably do is drive down investment, which drives down supply and only has one impact, which is raising long-term prices. That is the cycle that we have got ourselves caught in. This is a policy that is already negatively affecting regions like mine. It's a failed policy, and there's only one outcome we can be assured of, which is that prices will go up. To the people of Groom who have been affected by this policy: please be clear that I stand opposed to it and I will continue to oppose it. Brand Electorate: Defence 114 09:44 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand My electorate of Brand has a long and proud history of association with the Royal Australian Navy and Australia's submarine fleet. So I was delighted earlier this month to join Treasurer Jim Chalmers, Minister for Defence Personnel Matt Keogh and the WA Minister for Defence Industry, Paul Papalia, at the South Metropolitan TAFE in Rockingham to detail the major role that HMAS Stirling, on Garden Island, will have in the AUKUS agreement. The AUKUS agreement is the single biggest investment in our defence capability and the Rockingham and Kwinana community will be the great beneficiary of this very important investment. Over the next decade, the Australian government will invest up to $8 billion to expand HMAS Stirling, creating around 3,000 direct jobs for our local community. I will work with the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles to ensure the concerns of our community are addressed—particularly in relation to road infrastructure in the suburbs surrounding what is the largest naval base in our nation. The community of Rockingham and Kwinana also look forward to welcoming submarines to our shores when what's known as the SRF-West rotations begin in coming years, but also, over the immediate future, the visits of submarines from the Royal Navy and the US Navy. We always have welcomed these submarines to the shores of Rockingham and Garden Island, and we will continue to do so. The Brand community has a proud association with the Australian Defence Force, and so it was a real honour for me to host a Veterans' and Families' Hub consultation with the Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Matt Keogh, at the wonderful Port Kennedy RSL. Brand is home to more than 8,000 defence personnel and veterans, and HMAS Stirling is, as I've said often, the largest naval base in the country. The forum is part of an Albanese Labor government election commitment to provide a $5 million veterans' hub for the South Metropolitan Region. This hub will provide tailored services, including support for the all-important transition to civilian life; advocacy and mental health services; and a range of community activities. The Albanese government is delivering for Rockingham and Kwinana and the whole community in all of those suburbs, and I'm looking forward to the completion of the veterans' hub in mid-2025, with services to be offered before this time. I really want to thank the Port Kennedy RSL, for hosting this discussion and for your great hospitality, and all of the people—veterans and community members—who turned out on that day to participate in this really consultative and practical forum. I look forward to being at the Port Kennedy RSL for the Anzac Day dawn service coming up, nice and early; we know that they fire off the cannons there and it's always quite a morning, as we commemorate the service of Australian women and men in the defence forces of this nation, in the defence of this nation over so many years. So thanks once again to all the RSLs and to Port Kennedy RSL. Nicholls Electorate: Sport 115 09:47 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I rise to speak on the need to pick up the pace of funding facility upgrades for community sport. I've made it my mission during my first term to train with every football and netball club in my electorate. I've already visited many clubs and I am thoroughly enjoying the training. Country sporting clubs are a great way to connect with people. But you also see firsthand the ageing, outdated and—in the context of burgeoning female participation in the AFL—totally inadequate facilities. Example No.1 is where I started my football career: Murchison-Toolamba Football Netball Club. When the AFL audited 3,000 facilities in Victoria, Murchison-Toolamba Football Netball Club President Craig Thompson confirmed publicly that the club ranked in the bottom 10 per cent. He described it in one word: 'embarrassing'. The tiny female changing room has space for three players at a time and has one shower. This year, the club has 80 netballers in eight teams and 10 girls playing football at junior level. Despite the lack of facilities, the female participation rate has gone up, and that's a credit to the players and the club. Example No. 2 is Longwood Football Netball Club. Longwood has six netball sides but no dedicated female facilities. President Ricki Shiner told me on game day at Redlegs Stadium that there are 130 players, two toilets and no showers. Women change behind a curtain in a shed. We can't promote female participation and not provide facilities. Netball remains strong, and women's footy is growing rapidly. When the AFL Victoria's 'Heartland Strategy' for community facilities was originally released in 2014, there were a hundred women's teams in the state. Since then, the growth in AFL women's participation has been staggering. Growth and inclusion is outpacing antiquated facilities across many sports. AFL CEO Gill McLachlan, in an editorial published ahead of the 2023 season, said: The growth of our game has also created the need for new and upgraded facilities that are welcoming and inclusive, which is why we're aiming to build or develop an oval a week for five years. An estimated 1,040 venues in Victoria have gaps in their facilities, and too many have a lack of unisex changing rooms. Clubs can't fund upgrades alone. Local government has limited or no ability to redevelop grounds or build new ones. The Victorian government is taking up a little of the slack through the Country Football Netball Program, but it is the Australian federal government that needs to step up and invest in inclusive facilities that foster greater participation. The coalition had the Building Better Regions Fund and the Community Development Grants Program to fund these projects, and in the last terms of government many were funded. This government created its own regional grant streams in October, but nearly six months later it hasn't released guidelines or a single dollar. Please, get on with it. Show some respect to regional communities, and let's build the facilities that foster communities to be involved in community sport. Broadband 115 09:50 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston For many years I have been talking about the poor internet connections in my community. There was some reprieve from that between 2007 and 2013; we started to see action when it came to internet connection. As the NBN rolled out across southern suburbs, we started to see faster speeds. Of course, that all came to a screeching halt when the coalition was elected in 2013, which created a digital divide in my community: those that had fast fibre to their home, which enabled them to get good speeds for their businesses and their homes, versus those who got new copper laid to their homes. That included the suburbs of Hallett Cove, Sheidow Park and Trott Park. In the lead-up to the last election, Labor made a clear commitment that they would address this and would expand the proper NBN rollout to provide full-fibre access for an additional 1.5 million premises by 2025. I have to say, in my community, for those that had missed out on Labor's original full fibre, there was a lot of celebration. I was so pleased when the minister announced that the first tranche after Labor had been elected would cover 30,000 residents in my electorate getting new access to fibre NBN. This includes Flagstaff Hill, Christies Beach, Reynella and Port Noarlunga, and the list goes on. Residents have been celebrating this. I'd like to give a few quotes. Henk Rhee from Noarlunga Downs said, 'This will benefit a lot of people, and that's good for them and the nation going forward.' Gaelyne Gasson from Reynella said, 'I am really excited about fibre NBN and will definitely be following the link in the letter.' Our investment will help more Australians participate in the digital economy, whether that is working from home, staying connected to family and friends or supporting their business. One of the other areas that I'm particularly excited about is the upgrades coming to Morphett Vale. Not only will it affect so many people in my electorate; my electorate office has continually been plagued with difficult internet problems as a result of laying more copper. It is the Albanese Labor government that is looking to the future. While those opposite saw the future in more copper in the ground, our government has its eyes firmly fixed on the future, and that is a fibre future. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Passions of Paradise 116 09:53 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise today with pride as I congratulate two outstanding organisations in my local community on their remarkable achievements at the 34th National Banksia Sustainability Awards, held in Melbourne on 23 March. These prestigious awards have recognised innovation and leadership in sustainability for many years. This year, both the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, or the RRRC, and Passions of Paradise have demonstrated their commitment to making positive impacts in our world. First, I'd like to congratulate the RRRC for their incredible success in winning not one but two categories in this year's awards through their tireless efforts. RRRC took out the agriculture and regional development award as well as the biodiversity award. In the agriculture and regional development category, RRRC's Project 25 has made great strides in fostering sustainable change in farming practices by working closely with farmers, adopting a citizen science approach and monitoring water quality. In the biodiversity category, RRRC's groundbreaking work on the crown-of-thorns starfish control program has done a great deal to protect the Great Barrier Reef. Their integrated pest management approach has proven effective in controlling outbreaks and protecting high-value reefs. To Sheriden Morris and the entire RRRC team: your dedication in addressing complex ecological problems and translating scientific research into practical solutions is truly inspiring. Your work has contributed to our region through the creation of jobs and the protection of our finest natural wonder. Well done. I'd also like to extend my warmest congratulations to Passions of Paradise, a marine tourism company owned by Alan Wallish, a former RRRC board member and a good mate. Passions has been recognised with a sustainable tourism award from the Banksia Foundation for promoting citizen science to the Great Barrier Reef and getting tourists deeply engaged in the process of learning, creating lifelong lovers of our precious Great Barrier Reef. To Alan Wallish and the entire Passions of Paradise team: the recognition of your efforts by the Banksia Foundation is a testament to your commitment to sustainable business practices and your contribution to environmental conservation. Thank you for your dedication, for preserving our natural wonders and for inspiring others to join the cause. In closing, I would like to express my heartfelt congratulations to both RRRC and Passions of Paradise. Their outstanding achievements, hard work and commitment set a great example for us all, and I know that all of Far North Queensland is incredibly proud to have such innovative and dedicated organisations in our local community. Hawke Electorate: Avenue Bowling Club, Rehmat Sandhu Foundation 116 09:56 Mr R 300122 Hawke AE () (): Eight weeks ago I stepped onto the greens of the Avenue Bowling Club in Bacchus Marsh for the annual corporate challenge. This event has been running for some 25 years. Businesses, community and sporting groups, along with a very light sprinkling of politicians, enthusiastically descend on the greens for some seriously good fun. While the bowling is a little wayward and mastering the line and length is a little bit harder than it looks, there's definitely no shortage of laughs, and the occasional good bowl—very occasional good bowl—is met with cheers and applause from teammates, opposition and willing spectators alike. I want to congratulate the many volunteers who give up their time each and every week and turn up to do what's necessary to make this event one of the most popular community events every year. Whether it's setting up the greens, coordinating the games, working behind the bar, steaming the dim sims or selling raffle tickets, your work is invaluable. I'll take a moment to thank my teammates: Les Williams; Russell Bell; Councillor David Edwards; and my state counterparts, Steve McGhie, the MP for Melton, and Michaela Settle, the MP for Eureka. We all had a ball. I also want to give a shout-out to one of my staff, champion bowler and Bacchus Marsh legend Di McAuliffe, whose coaching was absolutely invaluable, if a little underwhelming in its outcome. The Avenue Bowling Club and the Bacchus Marsh Bowling Club have a very exciting couple of years ahead, as the two clubs merge over 150 years of history into one club and seek to move to a fantastic new facility under the banner of the new Bacchus Marsh Bowls Club, which is shortly going to begin development. I look forward to honing my skills—and there's a lot of honing to be done—and hitting the greens for the corporate challenge in 2024. On Sunday I was delighted to attend the annual Rehmat Sandhu Foundation Easter celebration hosted in Hannah Watts Park in Melton. This is a free community event, and it was a raging success, with over 2,000 locals coming down to enjoy a sausage sizzle, face painting, popcorn, ice cream and, of course, the annual Easter egg hunt. The Rehmat Sandhu Foundation is run by my friend and Melton local Ravinder Kaur, in loving memory of her son, who sadly passed away in 2014. The charity not only runs outstanding community events but also supports some of the most vulnerable people in our community. The foundation provides assistance to victims of domestic violence and those facing financial hardship, and it's also a registered NDIS provider. I would like to thank Ravinder for all that she does for people in our community and congratulate her on another very successful event. I look forward to next year, as do my kids. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 There being no further constituency statements by honourable members, the next item of business will be called on. BILLS 117 BILLS Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023 117

Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 117 09:59 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023 is so vitally important because we need and want and, indeed, deserve to have superyachts visiting our shores for all the reasons I set out last night, as well as the fact it just makes good economic sense. The former coalition government introduced the Special Recreational Vessels Bill in 2019. This allowed foreign owned superyachts to charter in Australia. Before that time, much of the money that would have been otherwise gained by this nation was lost to other nations. Don't just take my word for it; the Maritime Executive published an online article on 27 November 2019 that spelled out the benefits of having superyachts visit our shores. The article stated: The move is expected to unlock an estimated 11,800 jobs and A$1.64 billion— That's 1.64 thousand million dollars— in revenue to the Australian economy by 2021. I know that, between the passage of the bill in 2019 and now, we had the worldwide pandemic, and that caused mayhem, chaos, dysfunction and disruption to travelling, to tourism, to people going from one nation to another. Whether it was airlines—and I just had James Goodwin from the Australian Airports Association at a joint select committee, discussing the hardships that the aviation sector faced. I thanked him, as the transport minister at the time, for the efforts and advice and for the time and trouble he went to, as did the AAA, to ensure that we, as much as we could, worked together to keep airports functioning smoothly. Charter vessels make up more than half the world's superyacht fleet. As the Maritime Executive explained, there are currently more than 5,000 superyachts in the world. This number increases by an additional 150 new yachts annually: Previously these vessels could not operate commercially in Australia unless they fully imported the vessel, which was a major deterrent to foreign superyacht owners considering cruising Australian waters. That's what the Maritime Executive said at the time: Australians dominate the superyacht industry with over a quarter of the world's Captains and crew, over 14,000 people, hailing from the nation. This is what the Maritime Executive wrote. The CEO of Superyacht Australia, David Good, welcomed the news of the bill moving through the parliament and said, 'Now is the critical time to act.' He commended the government at the time for introducing the bill, and he wrote: Huge events in the Pacific over the next 18 months will mean large numbers of superyachts will be in our region. He wasn't to know then, as we know now, of the difficulties with COVID-19. But this is really interesting. This is what the article stated: The main industries that will benefit will be tradespeople and small businesses, says Superyacht Australia, as each vessel spends 10 to 12 percent of the vessel's value each year in maintenance, service and repairs. The likely change to legislation will allow Australia to catch up to our neighbors who all have booming superyacht economies, says Good. New Zealand, Fiji and Tahiti enjoy thriving marine industries, dominated by charter vessels. It's not, as the member for Ryan contended last night—no doubt she's back in the chamber to hear my continuation of this speech—just a playing area for billionaires. It is not. It is about tradespeople and small businesses. If there is one sector of the economy that we need to look after—and I appreciate Labor are on board with this legislation—it is small business, because they are the engine room of the economy. They are people who have put up with so much in recent years—fires, floods, droughts, COVID—yet they are so resilient. If we can help them through the passage of this legislation, I say well and good. I know the Greens will probably oppose it. They oppose everything, but that's the Greens' way. I'll just finish with these remarks from Peter John Lyne. Under an Australian flag, which is his little motto for comments that he puts on the Maritime Executive website, he said, in 2019: Not before time! Once the Bill is promulgated it will certainly encourage invigorating competition for all aspects of the yacht charter business provided the revenue gained does not go off shore. We don't want it to go offshore. That's why the passage of this bipartisan bill is so important, because it's keeping money onshore. It's actually attracting investment to Australia for tradespeople, as the Maritime Executive says, and, probably more importantly, for the small businesses of this nation. 10:05 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I want to start by thanking all members for their contributions to this debate and for their support of the Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023. I want to specifically acknowledge the members for Forde, Riverina and Ryan for their contributions to the debate to date. The Special Recreational Vessels Act 2019 is due to sunset on 30 June 2023. An extension of the repeal date is necessary to enable these vessels to continue to come to Australia and to offer charters. Put quite simply, it is a common-sense approach to deal with the necessity that we have in front of us. As the member for Riverina has said, so many of these superyachts provide tourism dollars—into our regions most specifically. They support small businesses along the coast and they allow people to come into our regions, as we want them to, and explore the parts of the country that we probably take for granted quite frequently. The bill supports charters continuing on the Australian coast until we deal with a long-term regulatory solution. Prior to the introduction of the Special Recreational Vessels Act in 2019, special recreational vessels visited our Pacific neighbours but would bypass Australia, which was not good for us and not good for tourism as a whole. The Australian government put the act in place to allow these special recreational vessels, known as superyachts, to charter in Australian waters and to realise the opportunities they bring for hospitality, for tourism providers, for suppliers and for our regional communities. Providing new possibilities for these businesses and communities is even more important now on the back of COVID-19, supply chain issues, droughts, floods and fires. The bill provides certainty for businesses, particularly in our regional coastal communities. They will continue to benefit from special recreational vessels that charter here, helping Australians to take advantage of the industry. I look forward to continuing to work with the owners of these superyachts as we move towards a longer-term regulatory solution. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188 the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill. Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023 118

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

Second Reading 118 10:09 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton The Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023 will assist in refining and improving our tax system going forward. There are five schedules in this bill, and I will go through them. Schedule 1 amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give the force of law to the tax treaty between Australia and Iceland, signed in October last year. The Icelandic people are not the most vocal group in my electorate, but good policy comes around to all eventually, and obviously double taxation never makes sense. The Albanese government plans to expand Australia's tax treaty network by negotiating 12 new tax treaties. This Icelandic tax treaty is the first in that line. It further strengthens the relationship between Australia and Iceland at people-to-people level and, obviously, at the level of sovereign state to sovereign state. Iceland, incidentally, is one of the world's richest countries on a per capita GDP basis. We want to reduce the taxation barriers to trade and investment between Australia and Iceland by lowering withholding tax rates on dividend, interest and royalty payments. This will make it cheaper for Australians to access capital and technology from Iceland and makes Australia a more attractive investment destination for Icelandic people. Iceland has many shared values with Australia, and this tax treaty provides more certainty and reduces compliance costs for individuals with cross-border dealings to facilitate labour mobility and strengthen our cultural ties. Lastly, this treaty will also support the government's plan to make multinationals pay their fair share of tax. We will do this through added integrity measures and mechanisms to facilitate greater cooperation and information sharing between tax authorities to detect and combat tax evasion. Schedule 2 also deals with income tax exemption and franking credit refunds for certain subsidiaries of the Future Fund board. This schedule amends the law to exempt wholly-owned Australian-incorporated subsidiaries of the Future Fund Board of Guardians from corporate income tax. Extending this exemption will remove unnecessary administrative and compliance burdens associated with the payment of tax by the subsidiaries and subsequent claiming of refunds. To make it clear, this legislation does not change the net position for either the Commonwealth and the Future Fund—that is that no income tax is collected by the Commonwealth from the Future Fund board. Schedule 3 changes the status of some deductible gift recipients. There are currently 52 general categories in which an organisation may be eligible for endorsement as a DGR. Currently, four of those DGR categories—environmental organisations, harm prevention charities, cultural organisations and overseas aid organisations—are administered by government departments other than the ATO. The respective government departments are responsible for assessing and advising their ministers on the eligibility of such organisations. That minister and the relevant Treasury minister may then direct the departmental secretary to add the eligible organisation to the register. This proposed change transfers practical responsibility for assessing DGRs from ministers to the Commissioner of Taxation. This will deliver a more consistent national approach, reflective of the other DGR categories. The amendments generally preserve the existing eligibility criteria and rules for entities seeking endorsement as a DGR. Obviously, current DGRs will continue to be endorsed as long as they meet the existing eligibility criteria. There are some transitional provisions to ensure that the Australian Taxation Office can assess applications currently on hand—good news for entities who are seeking a DGR for these four categories. It will deliver a more streamlined application process that is expected to reduce the time frame for DGR approvals from up to two years to, hopefully, around one month—quite ambitious. In anyone's language, that's a huge improvement and will mean so much to organisations that do that public benefit. The reform will also repeal provisions relating to maintenance of departmental registers and streamline reporting requirements for organisations with existing DGR endorsement, reducing red tape. Once upon a time, that would have been worthy of notice in a former parliament on red tape day. They were the good old days, when we had red tape day, weren't they? Schedule 4 deals with the alignment of excise reporting concerning indirect tax. This bill provides deregulatory benefits to small and medium businesses that engage with the fuel or alcohol excise system or import excise equivalent goods. Eligibility will be for those who pay fuel and alcohol excise or excise equivalent customs duty that have less than $50 million annual aggregated turnover in an income year. If the legislation is passed, from 1 July this year these businesses will have the opportunity to apply for permission to lodge and pay their duty quarterly, a benefit for most businesses. They can do this by applying to the Commissioner of Taxation or Comptroller-General of Customs to move to the new reporting schedule. Where additional ad valorem customs duties are payable on imported spirits—normally five per cent of customs value—this will also be moved onto the new reporting schedule. This new quarterly schedule will better align fuel and alcohol excise and customs duty with other indirect taxes, like the GST, on business activity statements. This will reduce admin burdens and help small and medium businesses with their cash flow. The last schedule deals with small-scale repackaging of beer into small containers—something that I've done much research on in my local electorate. This change will provide deregulatory benefits to retail and hospitality venues who repackage beer from bulk quantities into small containers for immediate retail sale—for those people who have Growlers and other containers on their property. From 1 July, this measure introduces a targeted exemption from alcohol excise licensing requirements. It will apply to the repackaging of the first 10,000 litres of beer from kegs into non-pressurised containers of no more than two litres capacity. This amendment will remove the disproportionate regulatory requirements on this practice created by the alcohol excise system. Currently businesses, such as breweries in my electorate—Slipstream and the like—who package duty-paid beer into these containers are required to hold a manufacturing licence for excise purposes and pay duty again—in effect, paying double duty. These licences carry significant obligations that are more appropriate to entities that are fermenting, brewing and repackaging beer on a commercial basis in order to protect the lower alcohol excise rate of keg beer. However, filling specified containers in retail settings does not pose an integrity risk. This will ensure larger businesses engaged in this practice in more significant commercial quantities remain appropriately regulated. The sale of takeaway alcohol in retail settings will remain the regulatory responsibility of the states and territories in terms of hours, checking ID and the like. These five changes include building a better and stronger relationship with Iceland, further reducing red tape for small businesses, streamlining processes for entities doing work in our communities and internationally, and helping the Australian economy. I recommend the bill to the House. 10:16 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The member for Moreton was right when he said that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023 would have been part of a red tape day in a previous iteration of this place. Indeed, red tape day did get through a lot of good things. I appreciate that at the time there might have been some things that seemed a little strange to those opposite, but indeed we all want to reduce red tape and we all want to make sure that businesses can flow and function as smoothly as possible. Having run a small business from the start for a number of years prior to entering parliament, I know that for small business owners it's so confronting, confusing and annoying when they are faced with so much red tape and bureaucracy. They just want to get on and produce things—goods and services. To be overburdened with red tape is something that they don't need. To have that pressure lifted from their shoulders is most desirable. Whilst the bill has measures the coalition can support, it does not make up for Labor's failure in other areas which are aligned with this portfolio area. Labor stands condemned for its broken promises on franking credits, on superannuation taxes and on taxing unrealised capital gains. I'll speak about more of that in a short while. This bill reintroduces measures progressed by the coalition. Quite frankly, these should have been introduced earlier. I appreciate that Labor has been in government for 10 months, but these things should have been implemented sooner by this government. The bill contains changes across five schedules. I'll just go through them. Schedule 1 amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give force of law to the tax treaty signed by Australia and Iceland on 12 October last year. This is important. Schedule 1 of the bill amends the agreements act to give force of law to the convention that we signed with Iceland. It's part of Australia's domestic procedures for implementing its tax treaties. Schedule 2 makes amendments to exempt wholly owned Australian incorporated subsidiaries of the Future Fund Board of Guardians from corporate income taxation. This fully implements the 'Future Fund—extending the income tax exemption to wholly owned Australian incorporated subsidiaries' measure announced in the 2022-23 March budget. On 14 December last year it was announced that the government would proceed with the measure. It amends the ITAA 1997 to extend the income tax treatment applying to the Future Fund Board to its 100 per cent subsidiaries incorporated in Australia. That means that the amendments exempt these subsidiaries from income tax and include them as entities eligible for the refund of a tax offset relating to a franked distribution. Schedule 3 partially implements the deductible gift recipient reform, and of course we all know how important DGR status is right across the board in the economy. It strengthens governance and integrity. It's a complexity-reducing measure from the 2017-18 MYEFO. This is vital—and schedule 3 mentions overseas aid DGRs—because I know the important part that overseas agencies play in getting humanitarian aid where it is most needed. If I could just single out the Save the Children fund, what an organisation that is. I travelled with Sarah Carter and Mat Tinkler to Kenya. I know the important work that they do that sometimes government agencies cannot do, and the places that they can go, the doors that they can open, and if we can in any way, shape or form assist them further—because they get to the nub of the problem; they get to the coalface, if you will, of the issue; and they are able to provide aid through ways and means and in forms that governments sometimes cannot. Schedule 4 allows small and medium businesses that engage in the fuel or alcohol excise system or that import excise-equivalent goods to apply for permission to lodge and pay their duty quarterly, boosting cash flow and reducing red tape. Again, if we can make it easier and more efficient for businesses and for industry by reducing red tape, then that has to be seen as a good thing. Schedule 4 to the bill, in part, puts across the Commonwealth's deregulation measure in the 2022-23 budget of the former government—and a good government we were. We worked hard for nine years to reduce red tape, because, if ever there were parties for small business in this place, it is the Liberal and National parties. They are the parties of business, and we understand— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I hear the member for Flynn say 'correct'. He knows what it's like to run a small business. He knows what it's like to take that risk to employ people, to open a business and to not know where the next contract is coming from, where the next amount of money is going to come from, to keep that small business running. But he knows, like I know, that you pay your workers first. You put your workers ahead of yourself. So many businesspeople throughout Australia pay their workers, put themselves out and actually take home less money when times get tough than do the workers. But they keep the doors open for business. I give a shout-out to all of those small businesses across Australia for keeping the doors open for business. Yes, they were helped through JobKeeper and other measures, but they did a power of good, a power of work, during COVID-19, the global pandemic, and they helped us in part to be ranked No. 2 on the John Hopkins research institute index for the way we handled and dealt with the global pandemic. Schedule 5 introduces a target exemption to alcohol excise for retail and hospitality venues which repackage beer from bulk quantities into smaller containers for immediate retail sale. I know this is going to be important to Stephen Ferguson and other industry advocates. I know that making sure that we get these sorts of measures through is important for that vital sector of the economy. On the one hand, the coalition supports this bill, which implements a number of measures of the former coalition government to streamline our tax system, reduces tax—and we're all for that—and decreases red tape on small businesses and charities, which we're also very much in favour of. However, whilst they are worthy initiatives, we do not see enough from this government on reducing tax and easing the burden on small business. Sadly, this bill is just another stark reminder that, whether it is working with franking credits or superannuation, you cannot trust Labor when it comes to tax. Labor has never seen a tax it wouldn't want to impose or increase, and the public is aware of that. Before the election, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer both ruled out changes to franking credits. That's what they said then, and unfortunately, what they do now is the complete opposite. They have been in government less than a year in government, and there are more broken promises. Don't believe what Labor says it's going to do; just observe and watch what Labor does. All of the big fixes that Labor talked about and all of the measures that Labor said that were going to implement to improve Australia are now on their head. Shore to shore on mainland Australia, it is red. It is Labor, so it is Labor who are required to fix all of the problems and issues that they say are wrong with the country. Fixing things doesn't mean saying, 'Oh, yes, but we inherited this problem or that problem.' Labor inherited a very good national economy. The books that Labor inherited for economic growth, development and a low unemployment rate were very, very strong and very, very solid. Don't shake your head, member for Hawke. It is true. Our economy, despite the global pandemic, was going very nicely and very strongly under the coalition government. It's always hard to win a fourth term. We found that out. New South Wales found that out on Saturday, and congratulations and good luck to Labor, because they now have the great privilege and honour of leading this nation at state and territory level right across mainland Australia and, indeed, here in Canberra. Labor haven't done themselves great favour or credit with Australian people with the changes that they've already flagged on franking credits. I can well remember the 2019 election campaign. I was in the Northern Rivers area, and I had pensioners walking across the road to talk to me. I was campaigning at the time in the Tweed and the Northern Rivers with some very good coalition and Nationals candidates, and people were coming across the road to talk to me about their concerns about the franking credits. That was one of the decisive factors in that particular election because pensioners were worried about what Labor was going to do. I know that the member for Maribyrnong went to the election with a very large agenda, and at least he was upfront and honest enough to put that agenda out there. The Australian public didn't accept it. This time, Labor went to the election and said that they weren't going to change franking credits and, in fact, they have. So I give the member for Maribyrnong some credit in that regard. Many small businesses will be captured by Labor's super changes and unrealised capital gains taxes. When I say 'small businesses' here, I'm particularly referring to farmers. How can Labor and the member for Whitlam, who is the Assistant Treasurer, possibly think that a farmer should receive a bill because his or her property has increased in price due to economic fluctuations? If it increases in price, they're going to get a bill. It is, quite frankly, beyond me. I have two brothers-in-law who are on farms. My father owned a farm. The price of land goes up and down according to seasons. It goes up and down according to the economic fluctuations of the time. At the moment, the price of land is very high. It's almost unrealistically high. Why should a farmer go to his or her mailbox, open it up and then get a surprising adjustment of their capital gains, their superannuation, their landholdings, that they're now going to have to pay somehow? Whilst they sit on a huge asset, the price of that asset can go up or down depending on the seasons. If the price of land is high and they're copping a bill, yet the rain isn't falling out of the sky, it makes it so difficult for farmers. Already they can't produce the food and fibre they otherwise would, and yet here, through yet another Labor broken promise, they're going to cop it in the neck for something that they can't control or determine. All they're doing is trying their best, for and on behalf of Australians, for and on behalf of our exports, and they're copping a whack from Labor because Labor's keen on taxing unrealised capital gains. It just doesn't make sense. But don't just take my word for it, and don't just take the farmers' word for it; ask any accountant. They are scratching their heads and wondering, too, how this is going to work. The member for Whitlam couldn't explain it in question time, day after day—nor would he be able to; nor should he be able to. The member for Rankin, the Treasurer, should explain why this change has to take place and explain why this broken promise has occurred. Of course, many charities will lose out through Labor's broken promise on franking credits. I mentioned them before. Charities do wonderful things for our people, and not only our people here in Australia but people in so many countries overseas who are doing it tough at the moment. The war in Ukraine is not helping. We support this bill. We just don't support Labor's broken promises. 10:32 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt As the previous speaker indicated, we in the coalition support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023, with its five measures within the standard, regular TLAB process that we go through in this chamber to continually update a variety of legislative measures, as is necessary. I would like to focus my comments on the element of this which relates to alcohol excise. It is an opportunity to highlight a broad issue that I have with the alcohol tax regime we have in this country. The history is important and interesting. We tax alcohol in different ways, depending on what type it is and what its attributes are. That really goes back to the protectionist days of having higher taxes on the types of alcohol that were more likely to be imported into the country, rather than produced here. Whilst I'm a very passionate free trade supporter, I understand why, in a different era, that was government policy. Frankly, it was the reality of global markets. Before the World Trade Organization frameworks provided pathways to lowering tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade, all nations engaged in that sort of protectionism. We have an alcohol excise tax regime in this country that was very much designed in a different era, for fundamentally different purposes to today. The reason I'm very engaged and passionate about this is that I represent an electorate that is very proudly engaged in the production and manufacture of all the various significant categories of alcohol. I've got the Penfolds Magill Estate winery, the most famous winery in Australia, at least, which very regularly wins significant international competitions. Of course, it is the home of Grange Cottage, where the most famous Australian wine—now Grange Shiraz but formerly known as Grange Hermitage—is produced, originally by the great Max Schubert. My electorate is also home to Coopers Brewery. Coopers now manufacture just outside of my electorate, but the Coopers Brewery was very much an institution of the eastern suburbs of Adelaide, located in Leabrook, until about 20 years ago. They have relocated to Regency Park, but Coopers as a business and the Cooper family are very much ingrained, still, in my electorate of Sturt. I now also have a very exciting and growing distillery community. A number of producers are engaged in the distillation of gins and vodkas and even whiskies. So it is a different era now in the Australian alcohol industry. My electorate has been engaged in all of them and many other members will have at least one producer but probably multiple producers of alcohol in their electorates. I'll use this opportunity, in talking on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023, which does have a measure related to alcohol excise, to call for a complete re-engineering of the way in which we undertake the taxation of alcohol. As I say, as to the way certain types of alcohol—particularly spirits that weren't produced in large proportions in this nation—were taxed, and are still taxed effectively that same way, they pay a much higher amount of alcohol excise than other types of alcohol. Now, as a free market capitalist, I very much believe in fairness in our tax system. Let tax be as broad as possible and as low as possible. Of course we want to live in a society where alcohol consumption is responsible. I'm not advocating that we encourage excessive consumption of alcohol. But consumption of alcohol, in a responsible way, is very much part of our society. It's also an enormous economic contributor to this nation. So, in the days of alcohol taxation favouring beer and wine and brandy in particular, I don't want to see those rates go up at all; I'd like to see those rates come down. But I would also very much like to see us recognise that the taxation of spirits is disproportionate and not fair. In this bill, we have a particular reduction in the excise levied on a type of sale of beer. We welcome that. We're supporting the bill, including that reduction. But I think this is an opportunity to reinforce to the government that we need a broader review looking at the way in which we are taxing this industry and asking: Is it equitable? Is it fair? And do we want to look at it in a holistic way? I was very pleased that, in the last term, we looked at this and undertook a reduction in excise for small breweries, those in small production, by introducing something that had some elements of the wine equalisation tax principle to it, which is that the first portion of your production is taxed at a lower rate. I really like the fact that we give, for the initial quantity of certain alcohol manufacture, a lower rate than we give at higher quantities, which allows small producers to have that little bit of an extra opportunity in the market. There's been an explosion of small producers and small breweries. I've got Little Bang Brewing in my electorate, which I'm really proud of. I've had Little Juniper Distilling, who are producing fantastic gins; I visited them a few months ago. Regrettably, they are moving out of my electorate into the member for Mayo's electorate. She has a blossoming array of spirits distillation businesses and also smaller wine producers. Being a South Australian, I'm very passionate about those small producers. There's the wine equalisation tax framework. We have those measures in place. But I really want to see all elements of the alcohol industry have the same opportunity to continue to grow and thrive. What we're seeing in my home state of South Australia right now is also that, in this sector, it's not just about production and sale. It's also about destination, and we've had that for a very long time in the great wine regions of South Australia. My electorate goes into the foothills of the Adelaide Hills region. Of course, the most famous winery, Penfolds, is in my electorate. Most of their activity, I concede, is in the other wineries that they operate—particularly in the Barossa and, frankly, all across South Australia—but their home is in my electorate. There's the broader Adelaide Hills region, which is in the member for Mayo's electorate. There's the Barossa and McLaren Vale and the Clare Valley. There's the Coonawarra region and the Limestone Coast. And we've got newer regions that are coming online on a regular basis. There's wine now being produced over in Port Lincoln on the Eyre Peninsula. These businesses are not only producing; they're also being established as destinations, and they're contributing to the tourism economy in a very significant way. For decades now that's been the case in the wine industry. But what's now happening is we're also seeing that in the brewing sector; we are seeing small brewers established who are not only producing for packaged liquor sale but also operating as a destination in their own right. The Little Bang brewery I've got in my electorate—not only can you buy their product in all good liquor distribution outlets; you can actually go to the brewery itself. You can have a few of their lovely craft beers and get some food as well, and have that as a hospitality experience in and of itself. That's now also happening with distillation. We are seeing, interestingly and helpfully, it's very complementary to a lot of the wine regions. Down in McLaren Vale, up in the Adelaide Hills, in all the wine regions, we're seeing distilleries being established. At times they are in partnership with existing wineries. Never Never is a good example in McLaren Vale; they are established with Chalk Hill, a very significant winery in McLaren Vale. Many other distilleries are establishing themselves in these wine regions and supplementing and enhancing the tourism offer, which is in and of itself contributing an enormous amount to those regions. I should have mentioned the Riverland; I regret omitting them. They're another great example as a wine region that has had distillation come on board, again enhancing that tourism offer. That is creating amazing economies of scale for further tourism infrastructure investment. It means you're seeing a lot of really good accommodation offerings being developed and being invested in, in those regions, and you're seeing the general food and beverage offer expanding greatly. All these destinations are within very close proximity to Adelaide, so Adelaide as a city gets the benefit from the tourism outcome of the satellite wine regions that are all very easy to access from Adelaide, as a day trip or a weekend stay or whatever. As locals in Adelaide we love the opportunity ourselves to enjoy these businesses and what they're offering, but we particularly appreciate the fact it is contributing in such a substantial way to the tourism economy in South Australia. So that's what's already happening, but I very firmly believe that we need reform in the excise regime for alcohol because there are some ridiculous circumstances that particularly the spirits producers face. It shouldn't be the case that there are certain spirits produced in Australia that are cheaper to purchase at a liquor store in the United States than they are at a liquor store down the road from where the distillery is located. That is absolutely ridiculous. It is the case that some of the ways in which we levy taxation in that area—which, as I've indicated, is from a previous era where a lot of these spirits categories were exclusively imported from somewhere else; it was an economic decision, in a different protectionist time, to advantage locally produced alcohol against imported alcohol. I don't criticise that era and that approach to government policy, but, as I've just outlined, that is simply not the case anymore. If you go into any liquor store in the nation now you'll see a lot of fantastic, locally produced spirits, and those businesses deserve to have an excise regime that is fair and equitable. We don't want to see this become something that's competitive between the different categories of alcohol and spirits—as I've outlined, the beer manufacturers in my electorate, the wine manufacturers and the spirits manufacturers. The broader amount of domestic manufacturing, the better. I think it's the case that, when it comes to responsible purchasing and consumption of alcohol, you can have any taste met by a locally produced product. I think the export opportunity is only going to be enhanced for those producers as well. They're doing an excellent job and winning awards all over the place. I've got a business in my electorate which started out making Adelaide gin with distillation in my electorate in Stepney. That business has also been distilling gins and vodkas in the other capital cities and, in fact, in Geelong. The owner of that business is a very passionate Geelong Cats fan, and he has a Geelong gin. He is winning awards all around the world for a fantastic product that has established itself, from my electorate. This is a sector I think and hope we all want to back. I think we've got to review the way in which spirits taxation has worked historically, which was very much from a different era regarding local manufacturing and local production. I don't want to see taxes increase on any alcohol excise, but I would like to see us look at ways in which the whole industry can be supported. I don't think the industry is competing with itself. Like I indicate, a lot of wine producers are also going into spirit distillation, and there are a lot of companies that own business across all the different components of alcohol manufacture and production. So I use my speech on this bill to outline that desire. I hope there's some consideration of some bipartisanship around it. I think it could benefit from an inquiry being undertaken by a parliamentary committee, with an open-minded approach to reviewing how we can get that right so that we're backing these businesses and these manufacturers to be able to grow and be as big as they possibly can be. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 124

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 124 10:47 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Engraved in the centre of the sanctuary in the heart of Melbourne's Shrine of Remembrance are the words, 'Greater love hath no man.' Once a year at 11.00 am on Remembrance Day, a ray of sunlight shines upon the word 'love'. Although brief, this inscription captures the immensity of the contribution made by Australian service men and women in times of war and peace. Indeed, there can be no greater sacrifice, no greater love, than to knowingly put yourself in harm's way for your country, for your family and for the ideals and values which underpin our way of life. My electorate of Hawke is home to a strong and proud veterans community. They are greatly served by the Melton, Sunbury, Ballan and Bacchus Marsh RSLs and the Vietnam vets organisation in Melton. It is one of the great privileges of my job to spend time with these veterans, hear their stories and be part of the great camaraderie they share for one another, regardless of who they are or when and where they served. I know they and so many of our active duty and returned service personnel see their contribution to our country in such a humble light. For them, it's about getting a job done, getting it done right, and doing it because it is the right thing to do. But, as we stand here in this place, where government is burdened with the solemn power to send Australian men and women into danger abroad, we cannot lose sight of the heft of our veterans' sacrifice. We cannot forget the personal cost of their great love, and our commemoration of them cannot end with the purchase of a poppy or attendance at a dawn service. The test of the truly grateful nation is how we support our service men and women when the battles are over and the parades have ended. It is about assisting them in their transition to life after their military service. It is about providing comprehensive and accessible care for those who have returned with scars, seen and unseen. It is about how we support the families of our defence personnel, whose challenges can be unique and complex. It is about putting veterans and those who love them at the centre of the systems we build to support them. This bill makes minor and technical amendments to existing veterans affairs legislation. These measures will address anomalies and make improvements to the operation of the legislation to better support veterans and their families. The bill comprises amendments in five key areas. One, it will require the Repatriation Medical Authority to provide an annual report for tabling in parliament. This legislates an existing practice to ensure accountability beyond convention. I'm pleased that the Repatriation Medical Authority have been consulted and they support this measure. Two, it makes amendments to section 330 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and section 58 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-Related Claims) Act to use language which better reflects the actual and existing practice of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission when handling incomplete applications. This change is greatly important in reassuring veterans and their families who are navigating claims with the MRCC that their claims are being deferred, rather than rejected, when the commission requires more information to be provided. Words that the government uses matter, particularly when dealing with the sensitive claims managed by the MRCC. This amendment will ensure no veteran or their family is left distressed by inaccurately being led to believe that their claim has been rejected because of the language previously used. Three, it will fix incorrect references in the Veterans' Entitlements Act to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act. Four, it will amend the Defence Service Homes Act to clarify the determination, revocation, replacement, variation and content of the statement of conditions—a type of product disclosure statement. Five, it will align the private vehicle allowance rate in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to the MRCA and the DRCA. This will create ongoing administrative efficiency and provide consistency and certainty for veterans, their families and the department through a legislated and transparent set rate. These changes are technical and minor, but this government is in the business of improving and supporting veterans, no matter the size of the change. Our duty to our returned service men and women requires a whole-of-government commitment to fixing errors in legislation and process where we see them. Indeed, it speaks to the Albanese government's commitment to delivering for veterans and their families, as we said we would at the election. In a year when we commemorate 50 years since the end of Australia's involvement in the war in Vietnam and 20 years since the beginning of our involvement in the war in Iraq, our humble offering to serving and former defence personnel must be to answer the call of the royal commission and continue our support for them. This bill will legislate small but important changes to improve the lives of our service men and women, our veterans and their families. I yield the rest of the time to the honourable member for Menzies and, in doing so, I note his great service to our country. 10:53 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies That was a wonderful contribution from the member for Hawke. I particularly liked his reminder that at that particular time of day the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne does shine brightly on the word 'love'. That should never be forgotten when we remember with love and affection. The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 is not controversial at all. I won't be using my full time either—just fair warning for my friends. It's important we stand here on the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. Not long ago in the Members Hall there was a bipartisan, multiparty and independent gathering of members from the House and senators. It's a credit to the Australian people and the people they send here that now we fairly accept that we can honour and look after our veterans and still have all of the debates about the merits of wars. I think there was a time when Australia wasn't very good at doing that. Full credit to Simon Crean, who, at the time, had a different view on the Iraq war—and hindsight has been kind to that view. At that time it wasn't a popular or easy thing to do, but he still showed up to farewell the troops and sailors who were deploying. I think that was an admirable statement by him, when he said we can separate those two things. When I was watching the Prime Minister hand out those medallions to the Vietnam veterans, I looked around and it wasn't a particular party that was represented there; it was all of us; there were members of the Greens and Independents; and that was a really nice thing. I think we've come a long way as a nation. Today, 29 March, is the 50th anniversary of the US withdrawal from Vietnam. Who can forget that image of the Chinook helicopter on the top of the US Embassy in Vietnam? It's an iconic picture, which, sadly, was also replicated at the end of the Afghanistan War; they were very similar images. There's no easy way to end a conflict like that. The Prime Minister quite rightly read out the numbers of Australian servicemen and women who went to Vietnam and were killed, and those who were left with many scars from that war. We also have another anniversary this year, the 70th anniversary of the end of the Korean War. It's a particularly important year for us in acknowledging those events. But I'll come back to the Vietnam War. It changed so many lives, including that of a young man called Trung Luu, who got on a boat as a refugee from Vietnam and took that perilous journey with his family to come to Australia, Victoria and Melbourne. For me, as a Liberal, but also as a Victorian and an Australian, it was with a sense of pride that I saw him deliver his first speech as a member of the Legislative Council in the Victorian parliament. That says so much about our nation—that someone could get on a boat in Vietnam as a refugee, and then stand there proudly representing our country. And that wasn't the only time he has represented us. He was a longstanding, multi-decade member of the Victorian police force and a member of the Army Reserve as well. He has served this country so many times, and we thank him for his service. I'm sure he'll have a wonderful contribution to make in the Victorian parliament. I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the RSLs in my electorate: the Box Hill RSL, Templestowe RSL, Doncaster RSL and Warrandyte RSL. RSLs are important organisations not just for the members who go there and socialise but also for their connection to our community. We rely on the RSLs to do the Remembrance Day services, the Anzac Day services and the catafalque parties, and to write to members of the House and senators to get them to come and give speeches, which we all appreciate and take very seriously. There are individuals in my electorate, and, in particular, I think of the Vietnam veterans like Bob Slater and Paul Beraldo. The member for Solomon's father is a Vietnam veteran and lives in my electorate. I love chatting with him. We have friendly banter, and he chest pokes me about why I'm in my party and not his, and I return the favour. There's nothing controversial about this bill. It fixes up some things that we can all agree on, and that happens from time to time. But these are often useful occasions to acknowledge the people who have come before us and sacrificed—not just them but their families—and we do appreciate it in this place. It has multipartisan support, and this nation has come a long way in making that distinction. 10:59 Mr ROB M M3E McEwen ITCHELL () (): Today I rise proudly to support the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023. It's this kind of work we do on this kind of bill that goes across party lines, and it goes to the spirit and the strength of what makes our democracy great. When it comes to our veterans and our current serving and former ADF personnel, we do take the time to reflect and remember, particularly as we head into what is, hopefully, the second-last sitting day before our Anzac Day services. To me, without a doubt, the most important event on the Australian calendar is the Anzac Day service. This year, I'm going to have the absolute honour of being with probably our last World War II veteran. He has now reached triple figures. He has great pride in taking part in the marches. What he has done with communities is just absolutely amazing. We know that there are a lot of members in this parliament and, when we look back, in previous parliaments who have been members of the ADF and who have served their country. One of great things that we do have in this parliament, of course, is the ADF program. The member for Riverina and I have made a few trips right across the globe, and we've seen and done a few things, but the most important thing that we've done together is to sit down and talk to personnel directly, with no fanfare and with no suits and ties. I remember sitting and drinking that terrible 'near beer' in Afghanistan. It's so bad you could kill paspalum with it. It was important to sit there and listen to their stories about what they're hearing, what they feel and what they go through. It's a story replicated by anyone who has been in the ADF and been in the theatre of war. As both previous speakers have said, there's no greater love for your country than putting your life on the line. As we come to the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War, we think about the 62,100 men and women that went there. One of the great achievements that I've been able to be involved in was building the commemorative walk in Seymour. Five veterans sat with me in a lounge room and said, 'We want to do this,' and at the time, my predecessor said it was not possible. I was desperate to win that I said: 'Yes, let's do it. Let's get going.' Anyone who has had the chance to go to the Vietnam Veterans Commemorative Walk will see that it's not a memorial; it's a commemorative walk. We fought tooth and nail to get a huge wall built with the name of every person that went, including a separate wall for the 522 Australians who lost their lives in the Vietnam conflict. It was a long process. What they wanted for this commemorative wall was to have artefacts from the Vietnam War, including a 'Huey' helicopter, which is the symbol of the Vietnam War. The painting that depicts the dust-off from the Vietnam War proudly hangs in my office, and I treasure that. We took on the challenges to get that 'Huey' helicopter there and put it up on a pole, so it looks like it's flying around past a scaled-down version of the Luscombe Bowl, which was, of course, the site of the famous concert on the night of the start of the Battle of Long Tan. Further up, we have an armoured personnel carrier. I remember going out to the armoured car workshops at Puckapunyal and seeing an APC that was used in the Long Tan battle, and I thought, 'How good would it be to get that sitting on the commemorative area?' That area has all the rubber trees and everything in it, including the Long Tan cross that was made by one of the original sculptors who did the one in Vietnam, so it's a very special place. I thought, 'It would be really great if we can get hold of this,' and Major Peter Branagan, who the workshops are named after, bellowed across the chamber: 'You're not getting your filthy hands on that. That's ours!' So the compromise was that the armour plate on the front of the APC is actually from one in Vietnam. But, to me, that spoke to how important it was for them that that piece of artillery stay at Puckapunyal, where they are. They guard that with every breath they have. When I hear these sorts of stories and speak to veterans, I think of the nashos. Ian Goss, in the member for Hawke's electorate, came to me and said, 'Let's start a dawn service.' We did that with the nashos. We look back at what our veterans have done and what they've faced—and at the ones who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I've often spoken in this place of VX39234. That's my grandfather, who served in Tobruk and then in Papua New Guinea as an anti-aircraft gunner. When he left the Army at the end of 1945, he was discharged with shell shock, which we now know is actually PTSD. If you're an anti-aircraft gunner, those things are loud and persistent, particularly when you're somewhere like Tobruk, and back in those days there was no hearing protection. Those guys stood in the desert, day in, day out, in a pair of shorts. That really got to him. Our veterans from Vietnam and from the Middle East go through a lot of problems, and it's incumbent on us to do everything we can to support them and to help them because there are many scars that we don't see, there are many memories that we don't see and there are many things that they've seen that we don't want to see. But we have an obligation to work together to make sure that we look after them. I'm not going to have a crack at the former government, but one thing that has really annoyed me for a long time is the time it takes for veterans to get their claims heard and assessed. It has been woeful. I think of one veteran who had to wait a thousand days just to get his claim heard. That's absolutely wrong. It's painful when you see someone sitting there, and they're just in this limbo and they don't know what has to happen. Before the election, we said we would increase DVA staffing. It has been unanimous across the board that everyone has had issues with the way the DVA has operated. I want to particularly thank Minister Keogh. I rang him, and, in my gentle tones and calm voice, I spoke to him bluntly about the need to have this addressed. An honourable member interjecting— Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E Yes—we couldn't say a lot of those words in this place. But the thing is that Minister Keogh then took that straight on board, and, in 24 hours, the claim was not only assessed but approved. We can't do that for everyone, but what we need to do is to make sure that we put in place measures that help veterans to get things done sooner and quicker, and that's what this bill is about. It's about making sure that we, as a parliament and as a government, do the right thing by our veterans. Sometimes that means we've got to go the extra mile or we've got to change things, but we've got to do things collaboratively and accept that none of us come here with the perfect solution. We've got to work to make sure that we do things better. We don't want to see people return from theatres of war to be told that they've got shell shock and, 'Here's your pay cheque. See you later.' If we, as a country, want to send our men and women into a place of harm, we need to take that responsibility to look after them when they get back—and that varies. There are so many different people who go through many different experiences that are just horrific. As I said, the member for Riverina and I have been to spots. I've travelled through Long Tan. The one place I'm desperate to get to is Tobruk, but we're not allowed to go there at the moment. When you go through those fields and you get the feel and the smell of what they go through in peacetime, you can only imagine what it's like in times of conflict. When you get to spend time with people who put themselves on the line and are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, then our obligation goes beyond just our moral values; it goes to our national values and what we believe in and what we stand by. This bill and these measures—they're not huge measures—tidy things up. They make things just that step easier. I think the important bit is that we make the time, the energy and the effort to look after veterans. As the member for Menzies pointed out, it's the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. Anyone who has looked at the Vietnam War and Australia's position on the Vietnam War knows that there were many varied views about the war and what we should have done. But I think the consistent view, at the end of the day, is that we made the decision as a country to send people over there, and we owed them respect when they got back. That change happened. Prime Minister Bob Hawke really brought that to national attention when he created Vietnam Veterans' Day, or Long Tan day. I think it's been growing steadily ever since—the importance of it and the importance of what those people did. I've never done it and I don't think I'd like to do it, but I have the utmost respect for those that do. I don't think that's a unique perspective; I think that's a perspective shared by everyone in this place. The question is how we do that. How do we put that into practical measures? Increasing the staff in DVA to help speed up the claims process, getting those claims through and heard and done, with support, is something that we need to do. It's important that we walk the walk when we talk the talk. I think that this government has been very focused on what we learnt from the royal commission. We can talk about that another time, but we know that that's been a horrific process for a lot of people. We've just got to keep working together as a parliament and as a nation to make sure that we give people the respect that they've earnt and the ability to have the best possible lives. With that, I wish this bill a very, very speedy passage. 11:11 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank other members who have spoken on this important bill, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023, this non-controversial bill insofar as it has bipartisan support—and so it should. Veterans are important. As previous members have noted, today is the 50th anniversary of America's withdrawal from Vietnam, a conflict which claimed the lives of 523 Australians. They are honoured on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial, just down the way—523 Australians, many of whom are buried back in their home communities. There are 70,000 Australians from the two world wars who are not buried in their home communities. They're buried in foreign fields. Their service is remembered on 11 November and on 25 April, but their service should be remembered each and every day of the year because we shouldn't just say 'lest we forget' on those important, significant national days; we should say it every day. I'm thankful in my electorate—it's very much a military focused electorate, Wagga Wagga being the only inland regional centre in all of Australia with all three arms of the Defence Force. There's the Army training centre at Kapooka, where every single soldier does his or her basic training for 13 or so weeks. There's the Royal Australian Air Force at Forest Hill. If you spend any time in the Air Force, you may well end up serving at Wagga Wagga. And we have an important strategic Navy base, which does a lot of work with HMAS Albatross and the rest of the Navy family. The purpose of this bill is to deliver minor and uncontroversial amendments to ensure that consistency of veterans compensation for medical travel across the various acts facilitates an annual report from the Repatriation Medical Authority. It modernises some language within acts, it updates references to some superseded acts and it clarifies powers of the minister in relation to the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme. Generally speaking, it tidies up miscellaneous measures, and that is why we need to pass it and that is why we will pass it. Whilst I'm on my feet I would like to again—and with the minister in the chamber—express the view that the $5 million that was committed by the coalition, the previous government, for a wellbeing centre, a wellness centre, in Wagga Wagga should be honoured in the May budget. It's so important. There's a lot of work going on in Wagga Wagga at the moment with RSL LifeCare's Riverina Veteran Wellbeing Centre but also with the community driven Pro Patria Centre, the chair of which is Lyle Salmon, former RAAF personnel. There are very committed members, including Jason Frost, ex-Army. These members want to see a wellbeing centre for veterans. The coalition government invested more than $11½ billion each year to support the wellbeing of around 340,000 veterans and, just as importantly, their families. There can be no more noble and worthy people. The coalition instituted the ongoing Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, which conducted several days of hearings in Wagga Wagga. I'm not making a political point. The member for McEwen made a point about the management of the veterans' affairs portfolio and the delays or lags for veterans. I note that, for 500 additional veterans, there's a claims backlog since the change of government in May last year. I'd also say to any veteran who may be reading this or who may even be listening, if you do need help, please seek help. If you haven't had a good experience with the Department of Veterans' Affairs, please try again. There are people there who are willing, able and eager to help. That assistance is available, and I urge those veterans to take up that help. The member for McEwen mentioned Minister Matt Keogh. I would like to see this portfolio be included in cabinet. I'm a former veterans' affairs minister, and I know that it is a difficult, complex portfolio area. It's a very important portfolio area, and it needs to be around the big table. If it's good enough for those opposite to be pushing the Voice for outcomes for improving the lives and the lot of Aboriginal people, surely our veterans deserve to have someone around the decision-making cabinet table. This should happen. The veterans' affairs minister, whether it's Minister Keogh or someone else in the future, needs to be around the cabinet table to have the ear of the Prime Minister and the other cabinet ministers. Veterans deserve at least that much. I commend this legislation to the House. 11:17 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023, which I support. At the outset, I acknowledge and thank all of our current serving veterans, as well as those who have left the military. Thank you for your service. My electorate of Hughes is proud to house the Holsworthy military barracks. It is one of the Australian Army's major footprints within New South Wales and includes many Army and tri-service training institutions, as well as various regular and reserve Army units. It includes a special operations engineers regiment, as well as the 1st and 2nd special ops commando regiments. I was very honoured to witness the Green Berets passing-out parade in November last year. Holsworthy Barracks is also the staging location for domestic operations in New South Wales and covers almost 20,000 hectares of land. The 2021 census identified that over 3,640 people who live in my electorate of Hughes have either current or former ADF service. Again, I thank them, as well as all of our other serving ADF members. The measures in this bill are largely uncontroversial. There are minor amendments that will ensure, for example, consistency of veteran compensation for medical travel and the preparation of an annual report on the Repatriation Medical Authority. The bill modernises some of the language that is in older acts and updates references to some superseded acts. I commend the bill to the House. I do mention that the coalition government did invest over $11.5 billion each year to support the wellbeing of around 340,000 veterans and their families, and I would ask that the current Labor government continue to provide that support to our veterans. We haven't always done it well in this country—acknowledging veterans returning, particularly those who returned from the Vietnam War. The coalition also instigated the ongoing Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and I know the government has started to enact some of those recommendations that have come out of that report. However, under the Labor government, veterans have lost their voice around the cabinet table. I commend the member for Riverina, who was a former veterans' affairs minister, and the comments he made about the importance of the veterans' affairs portfolio being within cabinet. I think we owe that to our veterans, to ensure they are being provided with adequate support and advocacy at the highest level of government. The bill includes largely uncontroversial amendments but will assist to ensure we are providing ongoing support to our returned veterans, particularly when they are seeking medical assistance. This year marks the 50-year anniversary since the end of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War. As a nation, we have not done enough to acknowledge the service given by our veterans in Vietnam—many of whom were not volunteers. Today it was wonderful to be part of a parliamentary event where we met former Vietnam veterans and their families to thank them for their service and to provide them with the acknowledgement they so deserve. In my electorate, I've been honoured to meet with many returned Vietnam veterans and their families, and to present them with a certificate of appreciation from the Australian government that's signed by the current Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Matt Keogh. I take this opportunity to mention just some of those to whom I've presented a certificate recently. First of all, I will mention some who served in World War II; some of them are posthumous. I mention Cecil Eric Doyle, Michael James Foley, Frederick Maurice Doyle and William Andrew Doyle; they all served in World War II. Serving in Vietnam were George Edward; Kenneth Wood; Mervyn Douglas Nann; Terence Michael Doyle; Leonard Spencer Vine; and Steven John Tovey, who served in both Vietnam and Malaysia. To conclude, I commend this bill to the House. I thank all our currently serving ADF members, as well as those who have returned, for their service. 11:22 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise in support of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023. I do so noting that this bill is uncontroversial, but I never miss an opportunity to jump up when I can and speak about veterans and veterans' welfare. The Sunshine Coast, which I am one of the proud federal members for, has one of the largest veteran populations in the country. Why wouldn't you retire to the Sunshine Coast? Why wouldn't you want to start a new life, after your discharge from the military, on the Sunshine Coast? Who could blame them for that? I want to send a huge shout-out to the various ex-service organisations that do such fantastic work in my electorate in particular. We've got the Caloundra RSL sub-branch, the Kawana Waters RSL sub-branch, the Maleny RSL sub-branch and the Glasshouse RSL sub-branch. We have great organisations like SMEAC, who I've had quite a bit to do with recently. SMEAC are trying to develop a veterans' wellbeing centre on the Sunshine Coast. If I get a chance I'll come back and talk a little bit about the veterans' wellbeing centres—now that the minister has just walked into the room! We have organisations like Wandering Warriors, Soldier On and Young Veterans—and many more, no doubt. Diggers Rest is another example. When you join the military, you join because you want to serve your country and your fellow Australians. And that life of service doesn't stop when you eventually pull off that uniform and don't put it back on again. That sense of pride and of service to your country follows on, and that's very clear from the explosion, if I can use that term, of ESOs that we have in this country. I congratulate all the many men and women who are involved in the ESOs, but I know—and I'm keen to hear what the Minister for Veterans' Affairs says about this—that it makes it very difficult for governments of either persuasion when they are dealing with so many different ESOs. So, if you're sitting at home right now and thinking, 'I've got a really good idea: I want to work with or provide a service to a particular cohort of veterans,' my plea to you is, rather than start a new charity or a new foundation, to try and find one that already exists, because there is only so much money, at the end of the day, that governments are able to provide, albeit very, very significant sums of money. When the coalition were last in government, we spent $11½ billion a year on our veterans through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It is a lot of money, and it becomes very, very difficult for governments of the day to provide those sorts of services when they are dealing with so many different ex-service organisations. I want to give a big shout-out to all of the executive holders on all the various organisations that serve veterans on the Sunshine Coast. Thank you for your continued service to your friends and comrades. There are a couple of other things I want to take this opportunity to raise, particularly whilst the minister is here. I want to talk about the GI bill. This is something that I've been fighting for since I came into this place. Admittedly, I have been unsuccessful to date, but that doesn't mean that I will sit down. I think that we have an obligation in this place to further our veterans' education whilst they are still in the services and afterwards. Clearly, we wouldn't call it the GI bill because 'GI' is an American term. If the minister's interested, I have some suggestions, like the 'digger bill' or something like that. But the GI bill emanates from the United States post-World War II, where servicemen—because that's what they were in World War II: servicemen—were provided the opportunity to undertake tertiary education on Uncle Sam's tick once they had been deployed on active duty and served in World War II. This is a policy which I think we should pick up in this place. We know that many veterans, when they are actually serving, are flying, sailing and driving multimillion dollar, sometimes multibillion dollar, equipment. They are someone. They have purpose. They have a sense of mission. They belong to a tribe. And, when they discharge, many of them struggle with the loss of all of those things. Whilst the ADF has made some inroads, through being a registered training organisation, into recognition of prior learning of what personnel learn whilst they're in the services, many of them struggle to have those qualifications recognised in the civilian world. It is so important for men and women, no matter whether they're in the services or not, to feel like they are contributing to their society. But, particularly for men and women who have served, who have contributed to their nation, when they lose that sense of purpose afterwards, we have an obligation as governments to ensure that we equip them in the best way that we can—retrain them, reskill them, remissionise them, retribalise them—to help them reintegrate into civilian life. It's very different, I accept, but my life has some analogies, in that I was able to retrain and retribalise when I left the construction sector, as a carpenter and joiner, and became a lawyer. I had to study for four years, as a mature age student, with three kids running around the place, but I was fortunate that I was in a position to be able to do that. Many of our veterans aren't. Minister, I think we really need to have a close look at a digger bill. Yes, it will cost a lot of money, but this is an opportunity for us. We know that the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is undertaking its work as we speak. One suicide is too many. I think of the many veterans and families that I've dealt with. I was very worried about a particular constituent of mine. He was getting the run-around from DVA. I rang the minister and, to his credit, the issue was resolved inside of 24 hours. I thank him for his willingness to take that call. I have had similar experiences with previous veterans' affairs ministers when I have picked up the phone and said: 'We have got a problem here, and, if we don't fix it, I'll be very concerned about this person's welfare.' It's not a partisan thing. The people who sit in your seat, Minister, in your particular role, are required to be a particular type of individual. If I may be so bold, I think the veterans are being short-changed by you not being in cabinet. I think you should be in cabinet. The role is so important that you need to be sitting around the cabinet table, where the decisions are made. Eleven and a half billion dollars is a lot of coin to be handing out, and those decisions need to be made at the cabinet table. I think you should be there. I want to send a big shout-out to the Thompson Institute, an organisation that is attached to the University of the Sunshine Coast, or UniSC, as it's now called. When we were in government, we provided $8 million for the building of Australia's first PTSD centre, at the Thompson Institute on the Sunshine Coast—and the first residential eating disorder facility was also established on the Sunshine Coast. This institute is a brain and mind research centre which will be looking at and researching into PTSD for veterans and emergency service workers. This is a tremendous opportunity for the Sunshine Coast to be able to provide services to veterans and first responders—and veteran first responders—who struggle with life as a result of what they have dealt with in their careers. We as civilians will never know or really comprehend the sort of carnage that veterans will have experienced in conflict and the sort of carnage that our emergency service workers see on a daily basis. Just last night I was speaking with Helen Bartlett, Vice-Chancellor of UniSC, about the Thompson Institute and its future. I was very pleased to hear that its future is bright. I thank Professor Jim Lagopoulos for his service as the director of Thompson Institute since it started. Jim has recently departed from the TI. Jim, thank you for your leadership, for your service and for what you did and are continuing to do for veterans and for people who are struggling from poor mental health. Today we recognise—and we previously held a service at Parliament House—50 years since the end of the Vietnam War. As many of us would know, how we treated our veterans from the Vietnam War is not our crowning glory. When our veterans returned from Vietnam, many of them were exposed to despicable and disgraceful conduct by people. They were spat on and called baby killers. The men and women who served this country with distinction deserve our respect. Many of them went under nasho, under national service. They didn't choose to go. They were required to go. It's very difficult for these men and women who have served in conflict. Most civilians would have absolutely no comprehension of the experiences they endured. I also want to give a bit of a shout-out to the men from Rifle Company Butterworth. It's good for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to be here for this discussion. I've been working closely with Graeme Mickelberg, who is a retired colonel of the Australian Army and a Rifle Company Butterworth veteran. These men are not looking for anything other than recognition for their warlike service. These men went to Malaysia under difficult conditions. I know it's an issue that is being currently investigated by an inquiry, thanks to Andrew Gee, the previous minister. Minister, I encourage you to look closely at that report when it's handed down and to give it your full consideration. 11:38 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I rise to sum up the debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023. It's an auspicious day to be doing so, because, as alluded to by some of the previous speakers, today we launched the commemorative medallions and certificates for our Vietnam veterans as part of this year's commemorations for the 50th anniversary of the end of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War. It was an absolute pleasure and indeed honour to be joined by 10 of our Vietnam veterans, who received the first of those medallions. They were handed to them by the Prime Minister, and I thank him very much for being part of that event. I thank all members of parliament across all parties who were involved and came to participate in that event. That showed that this is not about politics; it's about recognising the service of our veterans who were not properly recognised at the time of their service. I recognise and thank all members who have contributed to the debate on this bill and acknowledge the continuing tradition of non-partisan support for our veteran community, as we've seen in the speeches made on the bill before us at the moment. In particular I also thank all the members who spoke on this bill for their ongoing support for my role as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the work we are doing to support our veterans. I know that there was some discussion by members about the backlog of claims that currently confronts the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That is a serious issue. It's why, at the last election, we made a commitment to get through that backlog as quickly as we could by employing 500 additional staff in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We've now employed 275 of those additional staff. We've seen those numbers continue to grow since we came into government. We have now, from July, turned a corner on that and are eating into the backlog of claims that we inherited from the previous government. It's not only the resourcing of the department which is important. It is also important to reform the legislation that underpins the entitlement system for compensation and rehabilitation for our veterans. That's why we are proceeding with our Veterans' Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway, to make sure that we are engaging around the opportunities that we have committed to. We are responding to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and harmonising and simplifying the legislation that supports our veterans so it's easier and faster for veterans to bring claims and have them processed by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I'm grateful for the support that the government has received from all sides of the parliament in the endeavour of working through this process of reform. I'm also grateful for the support that we've received from the veterans community and veterans' families for this endeavour, and the support for the proposal we have put forward as a concept to reform the legislation. I know members also discussed the important initiative of rolling out 10 new Veterans' and Families' Hubs across the country. Hubs will be located in areas that our census demonstrates have the highest concentration of veterans across the country. It is a very important initiative. I was very happy to join the member for Corangamite in a forum—one of many that I have been holding around the country—consulting with local veteran and family communities about their needs for these hubs, because they can't be cookie cutters. The needs of veterans are different in communities around Australia. They have different service make-ups, different age demographics and different needs for a variety of reasons. We want to make sure that the hubs in each of these locations—including in Corangamite and in Caboolture, which will be able to service the Sunshine Coast as well—are designed to service the veterans' needs in those communities. We've been working through that from late last year to the beginning of this year. We're currently receiving expressions of interest from organisations with proposals to run those hubs. We look forward to assessing those and making announcements soon about the proponents and locations for these 10 Veterans' and Families' Hubs that we are rolling out across the country to support our veterans. I thank the member for Fisher for raising the GI bill idea. It is a concept that was borne out, as he said, of the United States during the Second World War. It's quite similar to our Second World War response of providing returned servicemen with the option of either a free university education—at a time when university education in Australia, as it still is in the United States, was a very expensive and exclusive opportunity—or access to farmland so that they could take up land, be productive and grow a business for themselves and their families. My great uncle did that. That farm is still in the family, and I'm very conscious of how that land came to be part of our family through that program. In Australia, we've seen tertiary education evolve considerably since that time. We went through a period where there was free and open access to university education. We now have a HECS regime, which still provides great accessibility to tertiary education in terms of the financial impost on those wishing to participate. But the underlining tenet is about making sure that we encourage our veterans to engage in education so that, when they transition out of the Defence Force for whatever reason—whether it's because of injury or medical reasons or because they've made the decision, early or later in their career, that it's time for them to take on the next stage of their life in the civilian world—they are ready. There are a whole range of things that we are doing and, frankly, we need to improve upon, when it comes to the transition of our Defence Force personnel leaving defence. That's why, at the last election, we committed to, and are rolling out, our $24 million veterans employment package, part of which is about doing more work to recognise prior learning in defence to assist those who wish to go on to university study. Another part of that is about recognising the prior learning of those in defence and how that relates to vocational education opportunities—whether they can be recognised as having the equivalent certificate or diploma through vocational training—and working out what that gap is so that they can make sure they get that qualification for when they go out into the civilian world. That's just part of our employment package, which is, of course, also about making sure that all Australians but especially employers recognise the great capability that our veterans have to offer our business community. They're great at leading teams. They're great at being members of a team. They're agile, they work well under pressure and they've got great time management. With all of these soft skills, it doesn't matter what role they go into; they are the important skills that employers are looking for, and our Defence Force personnel have them in spades. Unfortunately, though, one of the things that we have found has not been as successful as we would have liked and hoped, across the board, has been encouraging people to go into further study by providing them with greater income assistance. That has been very helpful for people who have received it, but it hasn't resulted in more people coming through to undertake tertiary study or any full-time study as part of their rehabilitation. Certainly, some do, and that's good, but it doesn't seem to be a driver encouraging people to do that. That's why we're looking at these other modes as part of the Veterans' Employment Program. I know there are other things the member for Fisher has suggested we should look at, and all I will say to him at this point is: don't feel that those issues are falling on deaf ears. I'll leave it at that for this point. The member for Fisher also raised the issue of medallic recognition for our veterans, an issue very important for our veterans and our serving personnel. It's why a previous Labor government established the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. I know the matter he has raised is before the tribunal. I, like many, look forward to receiving the report of that tribunal, and I thank the member for raising it. I will turn to this bill in particular. I'm very grateful for the broad support that this has received. It's support for the Albanese Labor government's commitment to the task of saving lives and delivering a better future for our veterans community. When an Australian signs up to our Defence Force, they make a solemn vow to defend Australia, to defend our nation and to operate in support of our national interests. They do so knowing that they may find themselves in harm's way and could end up making the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. That is why, as a government and as a nation, we have a solemn obligation to look after our Defence Force personnel, veterans and families and to make sure for those who find themselves injured or needing support that it is readily available. The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 introduces a number of measures that will improve the way we support families and veterans, address some technical anomalies and make some minor technical improvements to the operation of veterans legislation. The amendments contained in this bill, a number of which are long overdue, demonstrate the government's ongoing commitment to implementing practical measures to better support defence personnel, veterans and families. All the while, in parallel, we're undertaking a more significant venture in looking at how we can reform to simplify the overarching veterans support legislation. Schedule 1 of this bill will require that the Repatriation Medical Authority provide an annual report for tabling in parliament. Schedule 2 amends the language contained in section 330 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 and in section 58 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988; that language change is to better reflect what actual processes occur. Schedule 3 fixes incorrect references in the Veterans' Entitlements Act to a provision in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999. Schedule 4 amends the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 to clarify the determination, revocation, replacement, variation and content of the statement of conditions made under section 38A of that act. Schedule 5 will automate the alignment of the private vehicle allowance rate in the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act to continue to align with that of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. This bill is just one of the many ways that the Albanese Labor government is working to better support veterans. We came to government with a commitment to invest in a better future for defence personnel, veterans and families, and we've been delivering, both on our commitments in the federal budget and in responding to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. This government is committed to implementing practical support measures to better support defence personnel, veterans and families. The amendments contained in this bill, while modest, demonstrate our government's ongoing commitment, while we also work on the consultation pathway for our veterans legislation reform. We want our service personnel, veterans and veteran families to know that they will get the support that they not only need but deserve. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:51