2023-03-30 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 30 March 2023

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

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 1

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:02 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia and as the traditional owners of this land for over 60,000 years. I also acknowledge and pay my respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, on whose ancestral lands we meet. I would like to extend that respect to the First Nations people in the chamber, in the galleries and watching and listening today. I also acknowledge the traditional owners in my electorate of Isaacs, the Bunurong people. On 21 May 2022, the Australian people elected the Albanese government—a government committed to holding a referendum to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution. With the introduction of this bill, the government is taking the first formal step to honour this commitment—a commitment we made not just to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, but to all Australians. The Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 is a powerful marker of our respect for the First Nations peoples of Australia, their cultures and their elders past and present. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have occupied the Australian continent for over 60,000 years and represent the oldest continuous living cultures in human history. They have maintained a relationship with Australia's land, waters and sky since time immemorial. Yet Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are not recognised in our Constitution. This bill is to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. It is the first formal step towards holding a referendum by the end of this year. It is a form of constitutional recognition that is practical and substantive—and it is the form of constitutional recognition supported by the overwhelming majority of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates who gathered from all points under the southern sky in May 2017, on the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, to endorse the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The constitutional amendment in this bill will rectify over 120 years of explicit exclusion in provisions of Australia's founding legal document. The Constitution never recognised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this country. They were not represented in the constitutional conventions leading to federation. Constitutional recognition is an opportunity to acknowledge our history and come together for a more reconciled future. As Noel Pearson said in his Boyer lecture last year, 'Australia doesn't make sense without recognition'. He went on to say that, until the First Peoples are recognised in the Constitution, 'we are a nation missing its most vital heart'. My colleague Senator Patrick Dodson, the father of reconciliation, said recently that a referendum on the constitutional amendment in This bill 'will be a moment of liberation for all of us'. He said: The moment the referendum is declared we will feel the shackles of the past fall from us. We will all stand with a clean heart and a clean conscience and we will know our country is on the path to a better direction. We the Australian people will make that decision on that day when we cast our vote. Together we can make this happen. The cultures of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and their relationships with lands, waters and sky have endured. The dispossession of their lands, languages and cultures, and top-down government policies have inflicted deep and continuing wounds on generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their cultures. Many suffer intergenerational trauma as a result of this history. Our nation as a whole has been diminished. In 1967 more than 90 per cent of Australians voted to count Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in certain population counts, and allow the Commonwealth to make special laws about them. That overwhelming result would not have been achieved without the concerted efforts of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, activists and communities across the country. In 1992 the Mabodecision overturned the legal fiction that Australia was terra nullius, territory belonging to no-one. It recognised, in law, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' relationship to country. In 2008 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the Stolen Generations, their descendants and their families for the profound grief, suffering and loss caused by their mistreatment. This was followed by successive national agreements on Closing the Gap. However, despite the best intentions of successive governments, efforts to date have been insufficient. New Closing the Gap data highlights that significant work needs to be done. Eleven of the 15 Closing the Gap targets are not on track. We are failing. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples still face significant gaps in life expectancy and educational attainment. Despite commitments to reduce the representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the criminal justice system, they are still proportionally the most incarcerated peoples on the planet. On our current trajectory, the gap will not be closed by 2030. On our current trajectory, it will not close in our lifetimes. It is time for a different approach. It is time to open a new chapter. It is time to listen. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a long history of advocating for parliamentary representation, land rights, civic freedoms, constitutional recognition, and to have a say on the laws and policies that will work best for their communities. Too many times those calls have not been heard—or they have been ignored. For decades there have been calls for an enduring representative body. A long line of reports stress the importance of such a body for improving the development and implementation of laws, policies and programs that impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. However, votes in this parliament or the stroke of a minister's pen have seen previous bodies abolished or defunded, and there is currently no independent, nationally representative body with the purpose of providing informed advice to the parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth. Years of hard work and calls for a better solution led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, issued in 2017 to the Australian people. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, activists and communities have led the way in getting us to this point, supported by constitutional experts, parliamentary committees and innumerable others. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was supported by over 250 delegates, following consultation with 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were involved in the referendum council-led Uluru dialogues. The resounding message from the dialogues is reflected in the call from the Uluru Statement from the Heart: voice, treaty and truth. This bill responds to the call for a voice for First Nations peoples enshrined in the Constitution. The government is also working towards a makarrata commission, to respond to the calls for agreement-making and truth-telling. This work will continue beyond the referendum. This bill is about recognising and listening. It recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this land. It is about creating a voice, and it is up to the parliament and the executive to listen. This is an important reform. But it is modest. It complements the existing structures of Australia's democratic system and enhances the normal functioning of government and the law. It creates an independent institution that speaks to the parliament and the executive government, but does not replace, direct or impede the actions of either. Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our founding legal document and listening to their views on laws and policies that matter to them will make a difference. When past solutions have been top-down and disempowering, and have not taken into account the experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, they have failed. We know outcomes are better when we partner with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The evidence is there: the Indigenous Ranger programs; the many Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations; and justice reinvestment. These all demonstrate strong and improved outcomes when communities are involved in decision-making. Those examples, spanning many aspects of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's lives, are proof that genuine partnership and community ownership of policy is the way towards a better future. Our system of government has served most Australians well since 1901. It is time to ensure the system works for the First Peoples of Australia too. The Constitution sets out the principles that define the way our democracy operates and provides the framework for our federation. Consistently with the rest of the Constitution, the proposed new provisions will provide the broad outline of the Voice and allow the parliament to legislate for its day-to-day operation. Reflecting the intention to begin a new chapter in Australia's relationship with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the bill proposes to insert a new Chapter 9 [IX], entitled 'Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples'. If approved at the referendum, the new Chapter 9 [IX] will contain a new section 129. The introductory words recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia. They reflect the fact that establishing the Voice is an act of recognition, in the manner the delegates at Uluru sought in 2017. Subsection (i) provides for the establishment of the Voice. This provision will ensure the Voice is an enduring institution allowing it to be independent from government and effectively represent views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at the national level. The Voice will be an independent representative body. The intention is that its members will be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples based on the wishes of local communities. Subsection (ii) sets out the primary function of the Voice: making representations to the parliament and the executive government about matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would include: matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and matters relevant to the Australian community, including general laws or measures, but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community. The Voice will not be required to make a representation on every law, policy or program. The Voice will determine when to make representations by managing its own priorities and allocating its resources in accordance with the priorities of First Nations peoples. Critically, the Voice will be proactive. It will not have to wait for the parliament or the executive to seek its views before it can provide them. But nor will the constitutional amendment oblige the parliament or the executive government to consult the Voice before taking action. The Voice will provide a path for the executive government and the parliament to consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Voice will create a critical link between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the parliament and the executive government. Nothing in the provision will hinder the ordinary functioning of our democratic system. While the constitutional nature of the body and its expertise in matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would give weight to the representations of the Voice, those representations would be advisory in nature. It will be a matter for the parliament to determine whether the executive government is under any obligation in relation to representations made by the Voice. There will be no requirement for the parliament or the executive government to follow the Voice's representations. The constitutional amendment confers no power on the Voice to prevent, delay or veto decisions of the parliament or the executive government. The parliament and the executive government will retain final decision-making power over all laws and policies. The Voice will enhance our democracy and our democratic institutions. Its representations will ensure the laws, policies and programs from the parliament and the executive are better targeted and more successful. Subsection (iii) provides the parliament with a broad power to make laws about matters relating to the Voice. This provision will ensure the Voice can evolve to meet the future needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and Australia as a whole. The matters on which the parliament will have power to make laws include: processes to select Voice members; the way the Voice performs its representation-making functions and its potential future functions; the powers it needs to carry out those functions; and its procedures, including the mechanics of its relationships with the parliament and the executive government such as how the parliament and the executive government would receive representations from the Voice. After the referendum, the final details of how the Voice will operate will be settled, and legislation will be debated in this parliament. To develop this legislation, the government will seek views on the Voice model from the Australian community. Consistent with the concept of a Voice, this consultation will include a strong focus on engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as well as the broader community. This bill embodies the hard work by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to achieve constitutional recognition and an effective representative body. Recognition through a Voice is neither the beginning nor the end of this story, but it is an important new chapter. In addition to acknowledging the efforts of countless First Nations leaders, activists and communities that led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the government sincerely thanks members of the referendum working group, the referendum engagement group and the constitutional expert group. Their counsel in developing this bill and guiding the conduct of the referendum has been both wise and invaluable, and provides a solid foundation on which to continue on the path towards recognition. The government, the parliament and the nation are indebted to the Minister for Indigenous Australians for her commitment, her strength and her leadership. The government also thanks members of the broader Australian community for their engagement throughout this process. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was issued to the people of Australia, not to the government. It is now time for the Australian people to decide whether to accept that offer when they vote in this referendum. I trust the Australian people to understand this is an opportunity for a better future, not just for the First Peoples of Australia, but for all Australians. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is set out in full in the explanatory memorandum for this bill. In the words of that historic statement: 'In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future'. It is now 2023. It is time to accept the generous invitation in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It is time to listen. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 4 COMMITTEES Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum 4 Appointment 4 09:22 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That: (1) a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum, be appointed to inquire into and report on the provisions of the bill introduced by the Government to be submitted to a referendum on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; (2) the committee consist of 13 members, four members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Member of the House of Representatives nominated by any minority group or independent Member, three Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate; (3) every nomination of a member be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (4) in the event that a House is not sitting and is not expected to meet for at least two weeks, the relevant whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, minority groups or independent Senators may nominate any appointment or discharge of a member of the committee in writing to the relevant Presiding Officer. The change in membership shall take effect from the time the Presiding Officer received the written nomination. At the next sitting, the Presiding Officer shall report the change to the relevant House and the House shall resolve that membership of the committee; (5) the persons appointed for the time being to serve on the committee shall constitute the committee notwithstanding any failure by the Senate or the House of Representatives to appoint the full number of Senators or Members referred to in this resolution; (6) the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's report; (7) the committee present its report no later than 15 May 2023; (8) the committee elect a Government member as its chair; (9) the committee elect a non-Government member as its deputy chair to act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee; (10) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting; (11) the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event votes are equally divided, a casting vote; (12) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House; (13) the committee have power to appoint subcommittees, consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; (14) the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a deliberative vote but no casting vote, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting; (15) the quorum of a subcommittee be two members of that subcommittee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House; (16) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum; (17) the committee or any subcommittee has power to: (a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced; (b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit; (c) sit in public or in private; (d) report from time to time; and (e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate or the House of Representatives; and (18) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 5 BUSINESS Rearrangement 5 09:23 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That notice No. 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 5 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 5 Report 5 09:24 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present Report 494: Inquiry into the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's crisis management arrangements, incorporating additional comments. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HILL 86256 by leave—Continuing the bipartisan tradition of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, this report has been unanimously adopted. The report, entitled Inquiry into the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s crisis management arrangements, is perhaps known in common parlance as 'Stranded Australians'. Through this inquiry the committee has reviewed the Auditor-General's report on the effectiveness of DFAT's crisis management arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic. DFAT coordinated and facilitated the return of Australians who were stranded overseas due to travel restrictions and border closures. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit warmly commends the officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for their dedicated work to assist Australians across the globe, including those stranded offshore during the pandemic and every day since. One of the most impressive things through this inquiry was the committee visiting DFAT's crisis management centre and talking with the dedicated public servants—there 24 hours a day, 365 days a year—who take calls from Australians right across the world in all manner of situations, many of them incredibly distressing, having suffered crimes, assaults and other kinds of devastating losses. It is important, though, that the Australian Public Service, including DFAT, learn from the unprecedented global crisis that COVID-19 posed so that the Australian government will be better prepared to respond in future to assist our most vulnerable citizens during future crises. One of the things which struck us through this inquiry is that DFAT has a great track record of responding to isolated or regional crises that might affect a particular place in the world or a few countries or an event, but this crisis in the modern era was really unprecedented, and it was the global nature of the crisis, in particular, that tested the systems and preparation and frameworks that were in place and revealed flaws. The committee supports the areas identified for improvement by the Audit Office, but we did find it peculiar that DFAT disagreed with two of the recommendations due to the framing of the recs but nevertheless appeared to act on them anyway, which was welcome. We focused in this report on matters relating to DFAT's data capability, response coordination, assistance for vulnerable Australians and procurement practices under the government's crisis management framework, and also in relation to repatriation flights. The committee did pay attention, however—and we received evidence, and it was a matter covered in the audit report—to the confusing and misleading public messaging to stranded Australians in 2020 and 2021. The committee clearly notes in the report—unanimously—its deep concern regarding DFAT's evidence that no advice was provided to inform public statements made by ministers in the previous government, including the Prime Minister. Remember the famous promise that stranded Australians would be home by Christmas, which was then repeated, despite a lack of advice and subsequently by advice that it actually couldn't be delivered. The committee's observation that 'government ministers have a responsibility to be as fully informed by sensible and evidence based advice from public servants as possible before making public commitments in such sensitive areas' really should not have been necessary. It's kind of stating the bleeding obvious but, nevertheless, here we are. The committee also acknowledges that one of the key constraints on the ability of DFAT to return stranded Australians was the availability of quarantine places through much of 2020 and 2021. The committee considers, however—again, this is a key finding—that more could and should have been done by the Commonwealth later in the pandemic regarding the lack of adequate quarantine facilities, which, as I said, was one of the key constraints. A response to the 2021 Halton review of hotel quarantine was never provided by the previous government, and so the committee makes several recommendations to strengthen the Australian government's future crisis response. I'll outline three of those recommendations. The first is: the Australian Government formally respond to the 2021 Halton review into hotel quarantine arrangements Some of that review's recommendations are largely irrelevant with the passage of time, but others do still require and warrant a response to prepare for future crises and learn the lessons of the pandemic. The second recommendation is: the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet incorporate human rights considerations into the Australian Government Crisis Management Framework … In particular, that means we need to learn from the previous government's decision to block Australian citizens from returning from India. One of the observations made through the inquiry, I think from the Human Rights Commission, was that the crisis management framework, which governments work under, is silent on the issue of human rights considerations. Ultimately, of course, the government will make the judgement, and they may choose in future crises to still make the same decision, but we're saying that decision-making needs to take into account the human rights of Australian citizens stranded overseas and not just be guided by one aspect of policy advice. The final recommendation is: The Committee recommends that the Auditor-General consider undertaking a performance audit of the Australian Government Crisis Management Framework and include within the audit scope whether the updated framework adequately reflects lessons learned from COVID-19. I thank all of the contributors to this inquiry, as I said, particularly the DFAT officers who appeared at the public hearings and facilitated the committee's site inspection of the department's facilities. I thank committee members who participated, continuing the bipartisan tradition of the public accounts and audit committee. Finally, I thank the dedicated committee secretariat, sitting over there in the box, for their support and professional excellence throughout this inquiry. They have the blessing and the burden of supporting one of the more arcane but voluminous and busy committees of parliament, so thank you to the secretariat. Mr Burns 278522 And the chair! Mr HILL 86256 And the chair, yes. Thank you, member for Macnamara: I'll thank myself! That's a burden and a blessing, isn't it? Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 7 09:31 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce This is the really exciting bit: this is going to rock the House! By leave—I present executive minutes on report Nos 481, 484 and 492 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. You'll be pleased to know I'm not going to make a short statement; executive minutes are an arcane tradition. They're effectively the administrative response to our recommendations where they don't directly concern government policy. National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee 7 Report 7 09:31 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the committee's report entitled Capability and culture of the NIDA interim report. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Ms COKER 263547 by leave—I'm pleased to present the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme's interim report for its inquiry into the capability and culture of the National Disability Insurance Agency. In presenting this report, I acknowledge that many Australians have described the scheme, when it works well, as life-changing. However, in our committee hearings, we've heard the anxiety, frustration and exhaustion of many participants, their families, carers and advocates, and the evidence was not easy to hear. The committee now calls on the government and the NDIA to learn from these experiences, and to take actions to improve the NDIS for all participants, their families and carers. This unanimous report makes recommendations to government to improve the capability and culture of the NDIA, and provides an overview of the key issues about which submitters and witnesses have given evidence. The report covers issues such as the administrative burdens of engaging with the NDIS; the NDIA's methods of communication with participants, carers and service providers; and the NDIA's observance of model litigant rules. It is also responsive, and importantly so, to participants' experiences. At a hearing in Geelong, we heard from a participant who spoke of the burden of repeatedly having to prove their disability. She said: Like many other older parents I cannot continue to live under the shadow of a forthcoming Annual Planning Review. These reviews have become Funding Reviews more than Planning Reviews. The prospect of having to prove [my son's] level of disability every year is too much for me. It also imposes a huge burden on his main provider whose team has to get all kinds of internal and external reports and assessments in place to satisfy NDIA. She said: This is so frustrating and I ask the question: Who benefits? Another participant at that hearing suggested NDIA staff should consult closely and regularly with participants to generally understand individuals' disabilities and needs. She said: Ask the participant how their plan is working for them and what changes, if any, need to be made. Involve us in the process as it's our lives. NDIA needs to return to a person centred approach. Treat us like humans. If you are not sure what supports should be in place, come to my home and meet me. I will help you to understand my disability and how these supports help me. The committee acknowledges these heartfelt words, and they are reflected in the sentiments attached to the five recommendations. The committee also acknowledges the actions that have already been taken by the NDIA and the Australian government to address the recommendations previously made by this committee. The committee also recognises that there is a new federal government, which is currently undertaking a review of the NDIS, including its operations. The committee urges the government to consider and respond to the recommendations contained in this report. The committee will closely monitor any ongoing work which addresses recommendations made by this committee and will remain interested in any forthcoming government responses. The committee will also continue to hold public meetings and investigate the issues raised throughout this inquiry, with a view to providing a final report with further recommendations later in the 47th Parliament. The committee thanks everyone who has contributed to this inquiry by making submissions, expressing views through correspondence or providing testimony, often heartfelt, at our public hearings. In particular, the committee thanks NDIS participants who shared their experiences. The testimony of people with lived experience is crucial to identifying NDIS issues and to improving the operations of the scheme. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues on the NDIS committee, and the secretariat, headed by Bonnie Allan. I wish Bonnie all the best for the future, as she's finishing up with the committee very shortly. On that note, I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 8 09:37 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Report 8 09:37 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present a corrigendum to the committee's report entitled General issues 2021. BILLS 8 BILLS Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 8

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

Second Reading 8 09:38 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Can I thank very much all of the speakers who have contributed to the debate on the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023. Of course, we know that when the minister in the other place, the Minister for Women, introduced this bill projections showed that it would take another 26 years to close the gender gay pap. Women have waited long enough for the pay gap to close and they should not have to wait another quarter of a century to see their work equally valued. Today, with the passing of this bill, we are taking action to actually start to close that gap. This bill will be a key driver for employer action and transparency and accountability, and it will help to speed up progress towards gender equality in the workplace. It will do this by, for the first time, allowing the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to publish gender pay gaps at employer level, not just at industry level. The bill responds to the review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. I am pleased to see the broad support for the review's recommendations and for the steps we're taking through this bill to progress implementation of those recommendations. Again, I would like to thank all of those who took the time to put in a submission. It was heartening to see that there was an overwhelmingly positive response, and it showed a commitment, particularly by businesses, to making progress to close the gender pay gap. Government has an important role to play in advancing gender equality, but government cannot do this work alone. We need to work with employers, unions and the community. We can see that willingness to work together in the response to this bill and to the committee inquiry on it. We will keep working, because the bill is just the first step. There are further reforms to come, especially in collecting diversity data and lifting the standards for larger employers. The Office for Women and the agency will continue to work to identify the best pathway for us to legislate those important changes. The agency will also work with employers to ensure they are supported and able to step up to the plate. This bill is a critical step towards achieving women's economic equality because it is getting on with the job of closing the gender pay gap for women in Australia so they don't have to wait for another quarter of a century. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 9 09:41 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023, Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 9

Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023

Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 9 09:42 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer The aged-care sector delivers fundamental support to older Australians and it is critical that we are also supporting the sector to deliver their services so that Australians have access to the best care possible as they age. The coalition will support this legislation to permanently establish the Inspector-General of Aged Care and the associated statutory office because it is through this establishment that reform, innovative ideas and problems can and should be explored and change embraced. The establishment of an inspector-general follows recommendation 12 of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. It is important to note that it was the former coalition government who called for the royal commission, provided a detailed response to the royal commission's final report and committed almost $19 billion to support the aged-care sector and deliver respect, care and dignity to our older Australians. The Inspector-General of Aged Care will monitor and investigate the Commonwealth's administration and regulation of the aged-care system and report their findings and recommendations to the parliament and to the public. This will instil greater accountability, transparency and understanding of the work that occurs across our aged-care sector. With an ageing population, we know the needs of older Australians continue to evolve in this country. That is why we must address some of the fundamental challenges that the aged-care sector is currently facing—so that we can better respond to and implement reforms to properly address those needs. We know that the most prominent and urgent issue currently facing the sector right now is workforce. It is critical that in the upcoming budget the government outlines the implementation of a whole-of-care-sector workforce plan. This plan must be realistic and focus on both immediate and long-term solutions to ensure the prosperity of the aged-care system. We are yet to see such a plan from this minister. There are some immediate levers the government could pull, including reviewing visa processing times for care workers, and, most critically, supporting the sector to value and upskill enrolled nurses to become registered nurses and remain in the sector. Just last week we saw Prime Minister Anthony Albanese break his headline promise to older Australians. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that every aged-care home would have a nurse on site at all times by July this year. But now, the Albanese Labor government has finally conceded that the promise can't be delivered, because the workforce just isn't there. We on this side have been warning the government about this for months and months. We knew that their one-size-fits-all approach to aged care failed to consider the significant workforce challenges before the sector. These shortages are most critically felt by small, regional, rural and remote providers. But instead of listening, the Labor government has caused serious distress and uncertainty for aged-care providers and the older Australians they care for. And we are at a loss to understand if the government will respond to the pleas from the aged-care sector by amending and expanding the exemption criteria. Of course, the coalition unequivocally supports older Australians receiving the best care possible, but bringing forward the royal commission's time lines and imposing rigid constraints on the aged-care sector is both reckless and damaging. The coalition hopes that by establishing an Inspector-General of Aged Care, the independent oversight this would provide would assist the government to better support the sector as a whole. The coalition supports the independence of the inspector-general and endorses the separation of the inspector-general from the Department of Health and Aged Care, as well as other government bodies responsible for administering and regulating aged care. This is an important safeguard and guarantees the impartiality required to monitor, investigate and report on systemic issues across the aged-care sector. I note the number of submissions from a range of stakeholders during the consultation on this legislation and I anticipate the Senate Community Affairs inquiry into the bills, which ensures that every provider, consumer and peak body has the ability to further participate in the legislative process. The royal commission recommended that the governance of the aged-care system be subject to such ongoing scrutiny and that is why it is so important the inspector-general is empowered to review these government agencies to oversee their performance and decisions. As a country member of parliament, I am lucky enough to regularly drop in and witness the amazing dedication to care from both staff and management of our local residential facilities. What they do not need is an added burden in finding and employing nurses, carers and admin staff just to tick unnecessary boxes. The inspector-general will have an opportunity to readily identify the unique challenges that we face in rural aged care, to make recommendations and, I hope, find a government ready to quickly adapt to those needs. When I travel to aged-care homes right across the country I am consistently told of the complexities of the current aged-care system, especially around the complaints mechanism. The coalition is pleased to see that within the explanatory memorandum of the legislation, the inspector-general will also focus their attention on reviewing existing complaints mechanisms. The inspector-general will also consider how complaints, both from consumers and providers, are currently handled and provide recommendations to ensure systems are continuously improving and operating fairly and effectively. In summation, the coalition will support the establishment of an Inspector-General into Aged Care, just like we supported it when we responded to the royal commission's findings. It would be remiss not to note the wonderful work of the current interim inspector-general, Ian Yates, who has a critically important understanding of the current landscape of the aged-care sector. I commend my remarks on the bill to the House. 09:49 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm Today I would like to address the significance and timeliness of this Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023. It is a fact that if we are fortunate enough in life we get to age. It is really vital, though, that everyone in our community, no matter what their age, is able to receive care with respect, compassion and dignity. I'm really proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, which is doing what should have been done by the former government in taking the necessary steps to ensure that our aged-care sector is transparent and accountable to the public. In my community of Chisholm in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, I hear—unfortunately, too often—stories of neglect that people have witnessed through family members or have experienced themselves in aged care. It is a shame that this has happened in a country like Australia, and it is time that this kind of neglect occurs no longer. As we know, the Royal Commission in Aged Care Quality and Safety was established in 2018 in response to community concerns about the quality of care being provided in aged-care homes across the country. I acknowledge everyone who contributed to that royal commission, who shared their—often very difficult—stories which revealed some things that I think have been very hard to accept occur in a country like Australia. But accept them we must, and make change we must. The findings of the royal commission ranged from disturbing to chilling, and highlighted the need for urgent reforms in the aged-care sector. One of the key recommendations of the royal commission was the establishment of an independent Inspector-General of Aged Care to monitor and investigate the Commonwealth's administration and regulation of the aged-care system. The inspector-general's oversight will drive accountability and transparency across the aged-care system, shining a light on uncomfortable, systemic issues and investigating their root causes. This bill is a vital piece of legislation that will significantly improve outcomes for older Australians by ensuring greater accountability and transparency across the aged-care system. We know that the Royal Commission on Aged Care Quality and Safety identified significant shortcomings in the current aged-care system. This bill will establish an independent Inspector-General of Aged Care who will monitor and investigate the Commonwealth's administration and regulation of the aged-care system. The inspector-general will report their findings and recommendations to the government, to parliament and to the public. This will instil greater accountability and transparency across the aged-care system and help facilitate positive change for older Australians and their families—something we in this place should all agree is a necessary and appropriate measure. A measure like this helps to assure the public of Australia that this is a government that wants to be transparent and wants to be accountable, and this goes some way to restoring faith in government and institutions like the parliament. The Inspector General of Aged Care Bill is a key part of our government's commitment to be open and transparent. It is a significant step towards restoring the public's trust in how our most vulnerable Australians are being cared for. This bill establishes an Inspector-General of Aged Care and a statutory office to support them in the performance of their functions. It's important to note that the inspector-general will be separate from other entities within the aged-care system—such as the Department of Health and Aged Care—to ensure they can provide effective, impartial and transparent oversight of the system. To inform their functions, the inspector-general will have coercive information-gathering powers. These powers will be balanced by appropriate protections to ensure that those assisting the inspector-general will respond with full and frank disclosure. This bill sets out a legislative framework within which the inspector-general will conduct reviews and publish reports. It is important to note that the reviews will not relate to individual complaints or actions; rather, the inspector-general's independent oversight will bring an impartial perspective to considering the complex issues into the aged-care system and allow them to make recommendations for improvement. This piece of legislation gives relevant parties, particularly those subject to a proposed adverse finding, an opportunity to respond to any proposed finding before a review report is finalised. The inspector-general will prepare a final review, to be tabled by the minister in parliament within 28 days of their findings. The inspector-general may also compel a government body to respond to the recommendations in the final review report and publish their response in conjunction with that report. The consequential and transitional provisions bill amends the other legislation which governs the aged-care system, to facilitate the provision of information to the inspector-general that is subject to secrecy provisions. Through nine years of neglect, the Australian public lost trust in our how most vulnerable Australians were being cared for. The royal commission was a damning assessment of an aged-care system in crisis. So many of us in this chamber and in our communities have heard firsthand some of the stories of neglect that people unfortunately were experiencing in the aged-care system. We've heard really distressing stories not just from the residents, of course, but from staff and carers in the aged-care sector, who have witnessed terrible things—chilling things—and it is high time that we have reform in this area. I would hope that something everyone in this place can agree on is that the most vulnerable people in our communities deserve the absolute best care and representation from us here in this chamber. It is my hope that this parliament will do what needs to be done to improve this sector. After years of ignorance, the final report of the royal commission was a call to action to put people back in the centre of aged care. This bill is another step towards restoring trust between the Australian public and the parliament, which, unfortunately, was broken by the former coalition government. The Inspector-General of Aged Care will also play a crucial role in ensuring that the Australian public can have confidence in the aged-care system. Older Australians deserve the very best possible care, and having an inspector-general of aged care will go a long way to ensuring they receive it. The need for change in aged care has never been more urgent. As our population ages, the demand for aged-care services is growing, and we must ensure that these services are of the highest quality and standards. This Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill is a critical step towards achieving this important goal. Whilst we appreciate that the aged-care system is complex and that addressing its shortcomings will require a comprehensive and coordinated effort, the Albanese Labor government is committed to this process—to getting it done—as we told the Australian people we would. This bill is a crucial step towards transparency and accountability in aged care. The establishment of an independent Inspector-General of Aged Care will facilitate positive change for older Australians and their families. They will monitor and investigate the Commonwealth's administration and regulation of the aged-care system, shining a light on systemic issues and recommending improvements. The Commonwealth is not hiding from our responsibilities to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. We owe it to our older Australians to provide them with the care and respect they deserve. This bill will go a long way to helping us make this a reality. 09:58 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak in favour of the creation of the Office of the Inspector-General of Aged Care. In particular, I hope the inspector-general will have the ability to oversee the accuracy of the implementation of government policies that were announced in the election. From my point of view, I really do look forward to the inspector-general having a look at those policy documents—those bold claims that were made during the campaign, about pay rises of 15 per cent and 24/7 nursing in all aged-care facilities—and whether or not the government are accurately reflecting what they said in the campaign, now that they've got the opportunity to implement that as a government. What Labor said they'd do about the wage rise, in particular, is something I hope the inspector-general has a good look at. I certainly saw in my electorate and throughout the country—I'm sure it was the same—that they were going to give a 15 per cent increase to the aged-care workforce. So you would expect that, when the government put in their submission to the Fair Work Commission about wage increases for the aged-care workforce, that would have been the submission they put in. It's a fairly straightforward policy position to implement: if you're elected, when you come into government you correspond with the Fair Work Commission and you put in a submission saying: 'We would like to see the aged-care workforce get a 15 per cent increase in their wages.' What happened? Well, regrettably not that. What we instead saw was that the government adjusted that policy position, so when they said it was going to be a 15 per cent wage increase, the submission that the government ended up putting in was something quite different, quite clarified. It became a 10 per cent submission for 1 July 2023 and then the further five per cent by 1 July 2024. I do not know who writes the Labor Party's policy documents but this person needs to learn about the power of the asterisk, because when they are writing these policy documents they need to add in these clarifications that they leave out of them that are very relevant for people to understand when they're casting their ballots. The Labor Party policy position on this needed to have an asterisk next to that 15 per cent, and it needed to say in the footnote: 'But what we really mean here is 10 per cent and then another five per cent.' Don't forget, of course, that 15 per cent was in an environment of dramatically lower inflation than we have since had in the intervening period between when the policy commitment was made and when the government made their submissions to the Fair Work Commission. The 10 per cent—which was 15 per cent during the election campaign; in a dramatically lower environment of inflation—would've really turned out, if the government had got their way, and thankfully the Fair Work Commission didn't fall for that trickery, to have effectively been a real wage increase in 2023 of about two per cent. In the campaign the government said they wanted to increase wages in the aged-care workforce by 15 per cent. When they were then elected and had the chance to implement that they were effectively submitting for a real wage increase of about two per cent for that workforce. Thankfully, the Fair Work Commission ruled differently. They have given an interim order for a 15 per cent increase across a broader category of awards than those that the government submitted on as well, all relevant to the aged-care workforce. The policy that the government had in the campaign, that they then tried to wriggle out of through their submission to the Fair Work Commission, will indeed still be implemented at the 15 per cent rate. I welcome that, because with inflation running as hot as it is that 15 per cent is nowhere near the significance that it was meant to be when the policy commitment, that the Labor Party made and then tried to renege on once they came into government, was announced during the election campaign. I wish the Inspector-General well in looking at that issue. I think it would be very relevant for the Inspector-General to advise the government on the need to be honest with the aged-care workforce, not tell them one thing in an election campaign and then submit something totally different when you come into government. The excuse for that, of course, was the deteriorating fiscal situation. So we've now got a government saying: 'We don't believe in wage increases necessarily if the fiscal situation changes.' I don't remember that in the fine print in the election campaign either. I don't remember them saying: 'Well, we'll give you a 15 per cent wage increase unless the fiscal situation deteriorates and then we won't.' That wasn't on any billboards or part of any slogans or on any television commercials. My advice to the government is to brief their ad agency on that additional wording into the future when they are making those commitments. If they could just make them honestly with full disclosure and make sure that the slogans reflect what they're actually going to do when they get elected. The second one, of course, was quite significant. It was the 24/7 nursing care in all aged-care facilities, which we're now told won't be happening. The Labor Party said, in the campaign, that if they were elected to government they would implement this policy of having 24/7 registered nurses in all aged-care facilities. Now that they've come into government they're now saying that won't actually be possible. I look forward to the Inspector-General having a look at that, because, again, I didn't see on the billboards or on the television commercials any sort of caveat on that policy position about permanent, constant nurses 24/7 in aged-care facilities. I think that the Inspector-General would do well to look into that, to look at why it is that the government said in the campaign that they would implement that policy position and are now saying that they won't. It will be quite a revelation to understand what has changed from the government's point of view, what new information has come along. There's no new information that I'm aware of around the challenges of implementing that policy. When the coalition was in government, we pointed out all the challenges that this government is now using as excuses for not implementing that policy. I think it would be good to see the Inspector-General get to the bottom of that as well. It would be very interesting to know why those opposite said things around wage rises and permanent nursing staff for the purpose of winning votes. They made those solemn promises, and people chose to believe them, which is a reasonable position for the Australian people to take. When a political party says, 'Vote for us and we'll increase wages for the aged-care workforce by 15 per cent, and we'll put in place 24/7 nursing care,' it's a reasonable proposition that, in some cases, people voted for them because they believed that's what they would actually do, but now they've found it's not happening. That is very regrettable, and there would be a lot of people out there who would feel extremely misled by the government around that. The Inspector-General might do well to have a look at some of those issues, and whoever he or she may be can report back to this parliament. This legislation does provide for this independent mechanism, which we strongly support, to look at the system as a whole, to look at a range of different elements of how the aged-care system works and to provide advice to the executive of government and to the parliament. It was obviously a recommendation from the royal commission. I commend the former coalition government, which I was very proud to be a part of, for instigating that royal commission and bringing forward recommendations like this, which we are now in the process of implementing. I think all of us in this House are very touched and impacted by the importance of the aged-care system, both as members of parliament and as merely human beings with family members. I would expect that, at some point, everyone in this chamber has had a family member that has had interaction with, and needed the support and care of, the aged-care system. My last surviving grandparent is currently in an aged-care facility, and he is getting an excellent standard of care. We are very grateful as a family for the fact that the aged-care facility he is in is doing an excellent job and providing him with care in these final stages of his life. With the challenges that have been thrown at the system, particularly around the COVID-19 pandemic, our family's experience has been that they have done an excellent job in some very difficult circumstances in the last few years. As a member of parliament, like all others in this chamber, I regularly visit aged-care facilities in my electorate and meet with the leadership and management of those facilities and the people that are running system-wide aged-care networks in my home city of Adelaide and home state of South Australia. I'm sure we all share a very common objective of making sure that our aged-care system provides the highest standard of care for people in their last stages of life. It should be like at any stage of life—one where the greatest amount of support and comfort that is possible is provided. Obviously, the royal commission was very confronting and had some very concerning revelations, but we are grateful for the fact that we have had that process and we can therefore engage with the recommendations to improve the system. Of course, reform in this area is very complex. We know the two royal commissioners did not completely agree on all of the recommendations that were provided through that royal commission process. We had some that were from one royal commissioner and some different perspectives in that same topic area from another royal commissioner. We respect that it is an extremely challenging area. I just want to conclude by making some comments about the workforce, because I think this is becoming a very consistent, significant challenge in the care sector more broadly. I very respectfully say that I hope that people in the care sector know that, when we talk about the overarching care sector, we completely understand and respect that it is not fair to suggest that people working in the aged-care system are completely interchangeable or have exactly the same type of skill set and requirements as those in the disability sector or the healthcare sector or the childcare sector. There is very specific training and there are very specific talents that people have for the roles they perform. I don't in any way try and clump those people together and suggest that, if you work in a childcare centre, your skills and your capacities are pretty much similar to those of someone that works in an aged-care facility, because that's of course not the case whatsoever. But the commonality between these different roles within the care sector is that they've all got enormous workforce challenges and workforce shortages. These are particularly acute in regional and rural and remote areas. I think it would make a lot of sense for us to have an integrated workforce plan. There is a consistency of the challenge across the aged care, disability care, health care and child care sectors. They are all sectors that have frightening workforce projection gaps between what the demand is—even currently, let alone going into the future—and what the supply looks like. I think we need to be very nimble and very broad in the way we which look for solutions, which are going to have a lot of elements to them. There is some complexity, and they're going to need an enormous amount of financial support to make sure that we are investing in building a workforce that is going to meet that demand. It is absolutely not acceptable for us not to have a plan to make sure we deliver the standard of care that Australians deserve, whether they're in the aged-care sector, the healthcare sector, the disability sector or the childcare sector, whatever it might be. Even in education, in the teaching profession, these shortages are challenges. It is just unacceptable for us not to have a plan in place to ensure we have the workforce necessary to provide the highest standard of care for people that need it from those systems that we fund as a government. That is vitally important. It is becoming quite frightening to look at the outlook across all those various elements of care in our society, in our communities. So I urge the government to bring forward something of great substance and robustness and depth in this area of policy, in workforce planning in those areas, and to look for a variety of solutions that ensure that we can take that graph, which is diverging dramatically, and bring it back together so that demand and supply are meeting each other well into the future. With those comments, again, I commend the work of the members of the royal commission. This measure is a recommendation of the royal commission. We in the coalition committed to implementing this after the royal commission's recommendations were provided to government, and we very happily support this bill progressing through the parliament. I commend the legislation to the House. 10:12 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023 and a related bill. As previous speakers have mentioned, it's not easy to place a parent into an aged-care facility. I think many MPs would know what that means. I say that, having for over more than a decade dealt with constituents who have gone through that process and the complexities that it involves. People get confused, some people are tricked, and people are disappointed. This year, I've actually gone through the same process with my father in country Queensland, a process further complicated by being one of 10 children. My lived experience confirms there are a range of reasons that make it hard for families to make decisions. Just like hundreds of thousands of Australians, my family and I have, over the last few months, made the tough decision to put a parent into a nursing home—that horrible life journey from capacity, where they make their own decisions, to not having capacity, and other people step in, hopefully with their best interests at heart. They go from being a fully functioning member of society and transition to becoming somebody requiring care. There are black-and-white legal terms like 'capacity', but we all know there's a world of grey between those two legal concepts—a world of tears, a world of tough decisions. So I understand the conflict and the number of emotions and fears that people go through when making these tough life decisions. These tough days for families have not been helped by the almost 10 years of neglect that can be laid at the feet of the coalition. 'Neglect' is an emotive term, but it is also empirical. Remember that that was the title of the interim report handed down by the royal commission into the aged care sector—Neglect. What a cruel word for the cruel world visited on some of our most vulnerable Australians, all those older Australians who helped to build our wonderful country, who sacrificed so much during the Second World War, seniors who worked hard, paid their taxes, contributed to communities and raised their families. Those folks have their names on our street signs but were then hidden away in some cold hard place where society saw no sign of them. They suffered, using that umbrella term, neglect. Seniors rightly expect a federal government that will respect and support them in their frailer, more vulnerable years. That's what they deserve and what they've earned after a lifetime of contributing to society. We can't ignore this social licence. To do so would be a betrayal of civilisation. I will point out that no Labor government is blameless, but the former coalition government consistently let our senior Australians down over the last decade. It was a rot that started when the member for Cook was Treasurer. In his first budget, he cut $1.2 billion from aged care by demanding efficiencies over four years. This was already a sector under strain. So, after 23 different reports, which I suggest were more about time wasting than actually achieving change, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government knew older people were suffering in aged care and yet didn't fix the problems. They did very little to address the issues of malnutrition and substandard care in aged-care facilities. The coalition had nearly a decade to fix their mess and yet all that happened was the situation actually became worse. The Albanese Labor government does not want older Australians—our parents, our friends and our neighbours—to experience the horrors of a failing aged-care system. A wealthy nation like Australia can and must do more to ensure that our seniors live lives filled with safety, respect and dignity. So now as the government we are doing what we can to make sure that happens. Obviously we came to government knowing that the aged-care sector was in crisis. We came to government knowing that it had been in crisis for nearly a decade and perhaps even more than that, as we might hear from other speakers. The warning signs were there. Our vulnerable and senior Australians and their families were crying out for a government to act. Over the last decade, there were those 23 reports and inquiries, studies, committee reports and a royal commission telling us that same consistent story. That's why one of our first pieces of legislation as a Labor government was the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. The minister for aged care said while introducing the bill that the aged care amendment bill was the beginning of the process of returning security, dignity, equality and humanity into aged care. Last week, the Albanese government introduced key legislation to continue to increase the level of transparency and accountability across the aged-care sector. The Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill before the chamber today will establish a new statutory office, the Inspector-General of Aged Care, supported by a new statutory body, the Office of the Inspector-General of Aged Care. This bill demonstrates our continued commitment to improving the aged-care sector and building confidence back in a sector that has fallen so far in Australian eyes. This bill further adds to our government's response to the royal commission. It was a royal commission that should not have been needed, because older Australians should not have been left in such a parlous state of neglect. Once passed, the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill will establish an independent body with coercive information-gathering powers so that they can turn up and knock on a door and compel people to answer questions rather than just giving people warning so they can scrub everything. You need to be able to turn up and inspect. It will give the Commonwealth's administration and regulation of the aged-care system expertise. The bill will give the inspector-general the necessary powers to investigate systemic issues across the aged-care system, including the complaints management process. We can't fix these problems without tackling them head-on, without fear or favour. Very importantly, the inspector-general will also report findings and recommendations to government, parliament and the public to facilitate positive change for our older Australians. Reporting by the inspector-general will be public and must be tabled in parliament within 15 sitting days—lots of sunlight. This is necessary if we're to build trust, confidence and accountability in the aged-care sector. The inspector-general will also have the power to report on the government's implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, again a very important factor in making sure there is accountability and transparency in government processes. Governments cannot be left to say they will do something; they must be able to demonstrate that they've achieved it and that this action is accounted for. The most important thing about this role is that the inspector-general will operate autonomously. The Office of the Inspector-General of Aged Care will be completely separate from the Department of Health and Aged Care and the other government bodies responsible for administering and regulating aged care. This will protect the independence and integrity of the inspector-general and bring an impartial view to monitoring, investigating and reporting on issues across the aged-care sector. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety highlighted a clear need for independent oversight of the administration and regulation of the aged-care system. The commission also recommended that the governance of the aged-care system be subject to ongoing scrutiny. This means the inspector-general will have oversight, at a systemic level, of the existing government agencies with aged-care responsibilities. But it will not have responsibilities for the development of policy, nor for the administration, funding or delivery of the aged-care system. This approach preserves independence and mitigates any perception of a conflict of interest in the office's functions. The bill enables the inspector-general to use their information-gathering powers to monitor decisions, programs, operations and funding under aged-care laws, to maintain a comprehensive understanding of what is occurring, what trends are emerging, what systemic issues are prevailing and what insights there are from a holistic view. This is all designed to assist the work of those incredible aged-care workers who, we all know, are doing their best every single day for the people they care for. It will give assurance to the public and aged-care bodies on the priorities of the inspector-general. The bill requires the inspector-general to publish, each year, a workplan outlining the reviews they intend to conduct and when they intend to commence each review. This plan may be varied at the discretion of the inspector-general. As mentioned earlier, the bill empowers the inspector-general to report to the government—also, equally importantly, to the parliament and the public—on the progress of implementing the royal commission's recommendations. Progress reports will occur annually to ensure that aged-care reform remains a priority. We know that there are many challenges. We know there are workforce issues. There are workforce issues in the electorate of Moreton, which is almost an inner-city electorate, and it's even more complicated in the bush. Older Australians and their families will see the benefit of the reform coming from these recommendations. This bill requires the inspector-general to undertake a detailed review and report to the government, the parliament and the public at the five-year mark and the 10-year mark. This bill also makes sure that the royal commission will not be another missed opportunity, another one of those 23 reports sitting on the shelf gathering dust. It makes sure someone has the autonomy to say whether or not things are effective and to call out governments of whatever hue. As the minister said last week when introducing this bill, 'The bill I introduce today will steer a course to an aged-care system that deliver safe and high-quality aged care and underlines our commitment to holding ourselves accountable.' As a government, we now have the opportunity and responsibility to make sure that in the lives of our parents and grandparents in their senior years, our oldest Australians, there is humanity in the provision of care, and that, wherever possible, they are able to live their lives with dignity. The royal commission, which many of us spoke about while we were in opposition, challenged this nation to do better. The legislation before the chamber will make sure that we do, and I commend it to the House. 10:24 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Whether it be aged-care legislation or other legislation brought before the House, there's a concern for me that has emerged in the last couple of days, and it has been greatly disappointing. The member for Moreton has taken me to that place again, and I just want to put a couple of things on the record. This bill confirms the new position of Inspector General of Aged Care and all the things that go round that. What disappoints me—from each side, not just outside—is that there has to be an attack on the other side in the process of any speech. There are actually no grounds for that. I can go back all the way to the Hawke government and to the criticisms of governments across that time over various issues. There were criticisms in regard to aged care. But remember, when we're speaking in this house, that we're speaking to everybody out there. There are a whole lot of people who worked in aged care and were caring, responsible, engaging, loving people. They worked with people in aged-care facilities, and when they hear politicians today speaking about the failures of other politicians in the past to fulfil the needs of those in aged care, they think, 'Well, that didn't happen in my facility. What are they talking about? It must have happened in other facilities or we wouldn't have had a royal commission that had to find issues around aged care, that's for sure.' But every one of us have aged-care facilities in our constituencies. We know what's going on. We know what a great provider is. We know how people's lives are often changed, moving from their home to an aged-care facility, because we see them begin to thrive when they get the care that they need at that stage of their lives. There have been three instances that have disappointed me in this parliament. Every time I've come into the parliament I've tried to bring in some reasonable decorum, especially in regard to the other side. I try to keep the individual out of it and talk about the policies of the government of the day, and that's expected. Has there been criticism of former governments over aged care? Yes, there has been. Have many been blown out of the water to an extreme? I will go back to when former member Bronwyn Bishop, the former Speaker and former senator, was responsible for aged care and there was an incident somewhere in Australia around a tiny bit of kerosene being put in a bath. That was beneficial, apparently, to the people who needed it. That aged-care centre having that kerosene bath became her absolute responsibility, and it was big news all over the place. It couldn't have been more disappointing. The aged-care minister and ministers of the day are responsible for their portfolios. They can't be responsible for every individual acting in every aged-care facility across this country, especially when you know who, in my electorate alone, 99 per cent of the people working in the aged-care industry are dedicated to: their clients. It's not the highest paid job in the world. You need to be a very special person to be caring for older people. To give you some background in history, when I was first elected, the average stay in an aged-care facility was about 10 years. Now, in this day and age, the world has changed. That model of caring for people in community, born out of the bush nursing hospital, created across our country just after the war, said that, when someone was perhaps lonely, in difficulty and in need of care, they went in, possibly at an early age—sometimes under 60—and stayed in that village for a long time. But times have changed so dramatically, and the way we care for people in their homes and the energy government puts into that means that people are not going into aged-care facilities until much later in their lives, and when they go in in the year 2023 they are far more frail than they ever were in the fifties and sixties. So governments have had to change with them. Each government that I have observed or served in had the same desire for care for people in aged-care facilities as any other government. I have heard the criticisms of the former Turnbull government, the former Morrison government and the former Abbott government today in this chamber. Those are disappointing, because each of those governments poured extra money into aged care every year. And so did the Rudd-Gillard government put extra money into aged care before that. I can take you back to the start of the Howard government: there were reforms around aged care that cost the government greatly, politically, but which have proved to be a success over time. They were the right policies, but they were used by the opposition in the full knowledge that there's a political advantage if you strike fear and doubt into the Australian community about aged care. Who do they have in mind when issues like these around aged care come up, when we actually want to care for and make the industry viable? We call it an 'industry' now, because it is; it's a multi-multibillion dollar industry. Some are privatised, some are not-for-profit and some are quasi-not-for-profit organisations—there are churches which run aged-care facilities. They're big organisations—in fact, the smaller aged-care providers are being swallowed up where there's an advantage to the private provider. That horse has bolted: it has gone, and governments are now under strain to keep funding up. I can remember in the last days of the Howard government that Mr Howard, the Prime Minister, asked me what I desired for my electorate and for Australia. He said to me, 'Russell, please, don't ask me for more money for aged care!' At the start, the Howard government was spending, I think, $2½ billion dollars on aged care. Then it went to six, then 12, 14 and 18. It was fortunate that the government at that time was able to fund those huge increases in aged care as our population aged. What did they want to do—your parents, my parents and those people that the member for Moreton talked about, who built this place and this country after the war; those people who committed themselves to the education of their children and to the growing of their own wealth and therefore the wealth of the nation; and those people who came here from war-torn Europe to make a new life, and so many more after them with their children to make a new life? They wanted to educate their children—that was the first thing. Even though English was their second language, they made sure their children spoke English and they made sure they got the best education they could afford for them; whether that was state, private or Catholic it didn't matter. They knew their future was through education, and it was. Those generations went on to be the doctors, solicitors and surgeons of this world. And the politicians: there's one sitting in the deputy's chair at the moment, Acting Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou. They made great contributions. They age, and the interesting part is that when they age and go into an aged-care facility, even though they speak very good English in their older years they revert back to their old languages. They then need specific care from people who can understand that they've gone back to their old language, so we have specialist facilities by those communities, drive by a need to care for their elderly parents, although that generation mostly kept their own parents at home and there's still groups and societies in our country today that choose as best they can to keep their parents at home for as long as possible by keeping them in their household or having them move into their household when one or the other passes away. That's why I just don't want to see aged care and an incident that happened in Victoria on the steps of the parliament brought into this place with this huge accusation against the Leader of the Opposition from the Attorney-General when he had nothing to do with it. It was a long bow. But he didn't only include the opposition leader in his attack; he included me as well. A new member of parliament—I won't name her or what seat she was from—accused me of being a misogynist last night. She didn't understand. I don't know who wrote it for her, but it can't have come out of her experience of this place or me or anybody else. She said: 'I wasn't talking about you, Russell—not about you. I was talking about your party.' What does she know of my party? What does she know of the members? How could you say such a thing in this House? When the new Prime Minister came in—and I've seen a few of them come in—he said: 'I want a better parliament. I want a more reasonable parliament.' Isn't it about time he started to pass it on to those on the floor of the parliament? A deputy Speaker shouldn't have to pull up a new member of parliament for accusing the opposition of being misogynists. Why? It's totally out of order. I don't believe she wrote the speech. I believe she's a good person. When I'm talking about aged care, I'm talking about the care that goes right across the community too, because we reflect our communities. We reflect the electorate that we're from, and in my electorate, the electorate of Monash, I can tell you that, for aged-care provision, over all the time I've been in and out of this place since 1990 and from everything I learned about aged care before 1990, people were giving wonderful service and provision to their older people with respect and trust from the families that have their older people in those aged-care facilities. There was trust from them that their parents and grandmums and nannas will be cared for within that facility. I want to finish by thanking everybody who's a retired aged-care worker not to take this personally. It is not an attack on you. It is only about so-called 'divisions' within this parliament. That type of attack has to end. The Prime Minister has given the lead. Let's follow the Prime Minister's lead—everybody in the parliament. 10:39 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan A society should be judged on how it cares for its most vulnerable. My husband's nanna, Dawn Hurst, is 98 years old. She's an amazing and tough woman who's done a wonderful job of bringing up her children. She loves her children dearly and she's contributed to her community year after year. From the age of 95, her health deteriorated. It was really heartbreaking to witness this. Her daughters, who loved her so dearly, during this time basically decided to go on a family roster and stay with her 24 hours a day. They did this because they did not have trust or faith in the aged-care sector. They did this because they loved her, but they also did this because they did not have trust. At that time, we were seeing the horrors that were being shown through the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. They wanted to hold out for as long as possible to keep her out of that system. Eventually, Dawn's needs became quite high, and they found an aged-care home that they were happy with. But what this highlighted to me is that we need to fix the system. We need to make sure that this is not something unusual. We need to fix it for all Australians. Our most experienced citizens have given our country so much. Heck, they built this country. They deserve dignity and respect in their oldest and most vulnerable years. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety received over 10,000 submissions and called over 600 witnesses. The commission consulted widely in its deliberations over an almost 2½-year period. What came from this shocked me. I felt shame. And it was worrying to see that there was a sense of acceptance of what was happening in our aged-care sector. In some of the cases that we discovered, residents were left soiled for extended periods of time due to understaffing. Nappy rash is something that babies experience; it's not something that our older citizens should experience. The average that was spent on residents' food was about $6 a day. Prisoners, in comparison, receive about $8 a day. Incontinence pads, in one instance, were left unchanged for 16 hours. There were also several cases of wounds being left untreated and festering. And then there was also malnourishment and weight loss due not just to the quality of the food but also to residents not being assisted with eating. No-one in my community of Swan would accept this and, really, no Australian would accept this. But let me be clear: this is not about blaming workers, who are frequently overworked and underpaid, and who honestly want what's best for residents. Often, it's these workers who become whistleblowers, highlight these affronts and want to see increased dignity. What it's about is the system, and the royal commission highlighted that we need to fix the system. We need to set up workers and residents for success. I also want to recognise the workers for all they've done to help our elderly and vulnerable, and I'd like to acknowledge the work the United Workers Union has done to highlight some of the issues we're discussing today. Unfortunately, we can't fix the problem without fundamentally understanding the problem. There's the saying that you 'can't manage it if you're not measuring it', but the system also needs to ensure there's integrity in the numbers and integrity in the complaints, and that complaints are being handled properly. There needs to be trust in the system. I'll read a quote from volume 1 of the interim report from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety: People become unwilling to complain for fear that care will become worse, as they or their family member will be labelled as 'difficult' by the provider. Several submissions have highlighted occasions where the treatment of the older person deteriorated after complaints from family members—with neglect transforming into the withholding of care. It is disturbing that the aged care sector is not sufficiently mature or professional to listen to feedback from those who use and observe its services at close hand, particularly when the regulatory system appears so distant and ineffectual. The thing that I'd say is that this systemic problem has not been fixed. A friend whose father is in aged care explained to me that her father had complained about a particular carer. That carer was then moved off his ward, but then other carers treated him differently because he complained. They treated him unfairly. So that's what this bill is about. It's about sunlight. Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant, and there's a sickness at the core of parts of this sector and that must be challenged by shining a light onto these practices and empowering complaints. That's exactly what this bill will do. Another one of my constituents came to my office with a really serious aged-care issue involving misconduct. The aged-care worker had come into their home to provide care and assistance to them and, instead, this person received verbal abuse. It wasn't what they were expecting. This experience left them shaking. They have expressed that they would like to see greater transparency in aged care and that this is something that needs to be fixed. If action on the issue of transparency had been taken sooner, perhaps my constituent would have had a more positive experience. Those who are in aged care are some of the most vulnerable Australians and we must stick up for them, and that's what this bill is about. All of us, whether it is the Department of Health and Aged Care, aged-care providers or the parliament of Australia, must be held accountable for the decisions we make and the outcomes that they create for our aged and vulnerable. The Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill reinforces the Albanese Labor government's commitment to be open and transparent with the Australian public. This bill will establish an independent inspector-general of aged care who will monitor and investigate the Commonwealth's administration and regulation of the aged-care system. This is an inspector-general who will shine a light on uncomfortable and systematic issues and investigate the root causes. When you understand the root cause of a problem, you can come up with solutions to fix it. This is an inspector-general who will report findings and recommendations to government, to parliament and to the public to instil greater accountability and transparency across the aged-care system and, in turn, facilitate positive change for older Australians and their families. This bill directly corresponds to recommendations 12 and 148 of the royal commission. Recommendation 12 said: The Australian Government should establish an independent office of the Inspector-General of Aged Care to investigate, monitor and report on the administration and governance of the aged care system. Recommendation 148 said: 1. The Inspector-General of Aged Care should monitor the implementation of recommendations and should report to the responsible Minister and directly to the Parliament at least every six months on the implementation of the recommendations. 2. The Inspector-General of Aged Care should undertake independent evaluations of the effectiveness of the measures and actions taken in response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, five and 10 years after the tabling of the Final Report. 3. The Inspector-General of Aged Care should report on these evaluations five and 10 years after the tabling of the Final Report. I believe in continuous improvement, and this is a characteristic of high-performing organisations. We always have to strive for better. Continuous improvement is actually a critical component of the resources sector. The thing I would say is that this is a culture that's important in all sectors. We should constantly be looking at what's working and what's not. This is a conversation that should be public. We should ensure that when systematic issues become apparent that the inspector-general prepares a final review report that is tabled by the minister in parliament. What we as the parliament are undertaking is truly transformative. We are setting in place measures to grant dignity in older age and ensure quality care, which will contribute to the greatness of our towns, cities and country. The interim report said: The Australian community generally accepts that older people have earned the chance to enjoy their later years, after many decades of contribution and hard work. Yet the language of public discourse is not respectful towards older people. Rather, it is about burden, encumbrance, obligation and whether taxpayers can afford to pay for the dependence of older people. What we have brought before the 47th Parliament challenges this view, and I hope that our actions today meet the expectations of community and ensure that dignity and care is afforded to those in need. Most importantly, this bill is about restoring trust in our aged-care providers to do the right thing by residents; trust in our agencies to offer effective regulation and oversight of our aged-care providers; and trust in the Australian government to do the right thing by the community. I think that it's important when we're in this place that we remember what we're doing; what we're doing is talking about people, who are at the heart of this bill. It's about someone's brother, or sister, or mother or father. I know that, for me, I could not do my job as a member without the support of my 84-year-old mother. In my culture, the idea of aged care is a bit of a foreign concept. The thing that I know is that, if there comes a time when my mother or father needs access to aged care then I want to make sure that they're getting the best care possible. I don't want it to be a unique experience for them; it needs to be amazing quality for all Australians. In the end, what this bill is about is happiness and health, and I want that not only for people in aged care but also for the workers too. Having access to a positive work environment is really important. During the election campaign, the team and I knocked on 45,000 doors, and I remember one particular conversation that I had with a woman who was a migrant and had come to Australia. She had had an incredibly successful corporate career. She explained to me that she was watching the royal commission and could see that change was happening, and that aged care was going to be improved. She decided to go back to study and become an aged-care worker because she wanted to give back to the community. She wanted to be part of a system that was really positive and she wanted to spend time with our oldest Australians, to give them the dignified retirement and conditions that they deserve. I think that this bill goes to addressing that. I commend the bill to the House. 10:52 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise to speak in support of the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023. Today I'm thinking about Edie Dryden. Edie is the north-east's leading centenarian. In fact, she's one of the oldest people in Australia. She celebrated her 107th birthday last year. She has six children, 19 grandchildren, 29 great-grandchildren and 47 great-great-grandchildren. Edie lives in residential aged care in Yackandandah. She lived independently until she was 101, and then she moved into a facility in the same town that she had first come to in December 1960. She has now lived there for over 60 years. We owe it to people like Edie not just to talk about fixing the system but to actually make it happen. As the royal commission reported, our aged-care system is broken. As a result, too many older Australians are denied high-quality and safe care. Countless reports have told us so. Successive governments saw these problems and papered over the cracks. The system is opaque. We need to do better, and this bill is a step there. This bill establishes the long-awaited Inspector-General of Aged Care, implementing recommendation 12 of the royal commission report. The commission recommended an inspector-general to provide strong oversight to a system that for some time has fallen short of providing care and support to allow people to age with dignity. The inspector-general will have powers to identify, monitor, investigate and report on systemic issues in our aged-care system—the common, deeply rooted, complex issues. The inspector-general can also investigate the complaints system, which is a big concern for many of my constituents who have experienced distressing and unsatisfactory frustrating processes. Importantly, this bill brings a new level of transparency and accountability to the aged-care system. It will report to the parliament and the government on these issues, and recommend solutions to bring about real systemic change. Ensuring our aged-care system is transparent and accountable is one step towards instilling the trust of families, older people and workers back in a system that has failed them for so long. Critically, the inspector-general must report on the implementation of the royal commission recommendations. I cannot say strongly enough how important this is. For so long, Australians have listened to royal commissions and not seen action. The royal commission into aged care was so powerful, so compelling and so distressing to Australians that it is incumbent upon every one of us in this place to stand tall and strong, and to insist that those recommendations are implemented. When the royal commission handed down its report two years ago, I called, right then, for the implementation of all recommendations. Like other members, I stood up again and again in this place and called on the previous government to act urgently. I was frustrated by the pace of reform. I hope that now, under the watchful eye of the inspector-general, we will realise the ambition to implement all recommendations. As the minister said in her second reading speech, we are at the precipice of the great next test of our aged-care system: the baby-boomer generation. Our population is ageing, and we need to ensure that our aged-care system places people at the centre of all aspects of that system. This bill is important to me because my constituents are older and more likely to rely on aged-care services, and this reform aims to improve their quality of life. Twenty-four per cent of my constituents are aged over 65 years—compared to a national average of 17 per cent. In my electorate, 2,687 people are in residential aged care and 2,129 people receive home-based aged care. The Hume region, in my electorate of Indi, has a higher rate of use of at-home supports—under both the Commonwealth Home Support Program and Home Care Packages—to help us age in place. Before I came to this place I had the privilege of working in aged care. At the beginning of my career I was a director of nursing at a bush nursing hospital and aged-care centre. More recently, I was a volunteer director at a larger aged-care facility. I saw firsthand the challenges of becoming older in a small rural area, the challenges of finding workforce to care for those people and the challenges of being an administrator and a clinician. Now, as the member for Indi, I receive daily emails from constituents about their experience of aged care. I meet aged-care providers who are trying their hardest in the most difficult of circumstances, and I sit down with health and aged-care staff and talk about the burnout they're facing. We have no shortage of suggestions of where the inspector-general could start on this important work of investigating and reporting on systemic issues in our aged-care system. Let's go to the first. The first is the aged-care workforce crisis. Staffing levels are at the centre of aged-care system failures. Aged-care workers in my electorate are hardworking, committed, professional and compassionate. But the workforce has been decimated from years of policy failure, the pressures of COVID and the lack of skilled migration. It's a battle to recruit and retain staff. One provider told me, 'As with most facilities, we are struggling for staff. Registered and personal-care staff applicants are almost non-existent.' Another told me, 'Our future depends on our ability to attract a workforce, which is a major issue in rural Victoria.' In the small town of Alexandra, I met a nurse in her 70s who'd come out of retirement to head up the nursing team because they could recruit no-one else. Alpine Health, which has aged-care facilities in Bright, Myrtleford and Mount Beauty, is offering $5,000 incentives and short-term accommodation for workers who take up a permanent full-time role. As CEO Nick Shaw said, 'The cost of employment is great for any small rural health service, but the cost of not having a competent and skilled workforce is even greater.' We simply don't have enough clinically trained aged-care workers. Providing quality clinical care in aged-care facilities prevents unnecessary emergency department admissions, unnecessary transfers of elderly frail people to other locations, unnecessary distress to their family and friends and unnecessary pain and distress to those people in the last years of their lives. In just three months, on 1 July, the 24/7 nurse requirement will start. This is a crucial part of raising the standard of care across the system. Our local providers support it, yet there are serious concerns that rural and regional providers simply can't find the staff to meet this deadline. We currently have 245 registered nurses in my electorate working in aged-care residential services—this isn't enough right now, and we're going to need a whole lot more. Frankly, I don't know where we're going to find them. I'm glad to see that the government will grant providers in rural and remote areas an additional 12 months to meet this requirement, but I'm concerned. I'm very concerned that even in 12 months we simply won't find them. I'm relieved that areas of my electorate where the staffing shortages are most acute are eligible for this extension of time, and I'll be keeping a very close eye on how our providers will be assisted to meet this requirement because, gee, they need assistance. They're desperate for it. If you don't fix the staffing crisis, you don't fix aged care. That's where the powers of the inspector-general are so important. So we need to monitor how the 24/7 mandate will be resourced and its impact on the system. The government says there are changes in the pipeline that will alleviate the growing aged-care skill shortage, and this includes a 15 per cent pay rise in minimum wages for aged-care workers and the return to normality of the skilled migration program. We need to monitor these changes to make sure that they have the intended effect, or if more is needed. We absolutely need to monitor and observe the impact in rural and regional Australia and tailor support, because there's isn't one-size-fits-all for any of this. The second systemic issue really is the financial viability of aged-care facilities, especially those in rural, remote, and regional Australia, where there are so many facilities struggling to make ends meet. In fact, in the 2021-22 financial year, 74 per cent of aged-care homes in regional Australia were operating at a loss. We feel this, close to home. In the last two months, two aged-care providers in my electorate have sounded the alarm on the extent of their financial losses. One is experiencing losses of $100,000 per month. It's a fantastic facility, and we can't afford to let it fail, but the struggle is real. In rural and regional Australia, when providers go under, the consequences are felt everywhere. It's losing a major employer. It's losing a skilled workforce that has been painstakingly built. It's a blow, a serious blow, to the morale of a regional community. And it is devastating for the residents and their families who are forced to move away from a place in which they've chosen to age. Stories of husbands and wives having to travel hours or more to visit in places where previously they had been able to pop down the road are simply heartbreaking. When there are not enough aged-care beds it affects the whole health system. In public hospitals across my electorate we have older patients medically cleared for discharge, but they're stuck because there's nowhere for them to go. This means fewer beds for inpatient services, and these beds are desperately needed for clinical care, treating chronic conditions, emergency procedures and important surgery. The federal government steps in to help providers who are going under, but this is at a cost to taxpayers. The Structural Adjustment Fund, which supports providers who are in financial trouble to exit the market or wind down operations, has paid out $51 million to 62 providers since December 2022, according to research from the Parliamentary Library. We should investigate what is causing these providers to end up in this position. Finally, we should investigate the disgraceful state of residential aged-care buildings. Too many facilities, especially those in our small regional towns, are outdated and not fit for purpose. This is because successive governments have failed to properly invest in aged care. The royal commission called for a $1 billion investment into building and upgrading residential aged-care facilities every year from 2023. With proper funding, we would have the opportunity to upgrade our rundown facilities in regional Australia and give older Australians the quality of care they deserve. The Bright Hospital redevelopment precinct in the Alpine Shire in my electorate is one upgrade so worthy of the government's attention. In conclusion, this bill is a good start, but I want to see the remaining recommendations of the royal commission implemented and I want to see that done urgently. One major recommendation was a whole new aged-care act, which, I understand, the government is drafting. And any new legislation must focus on the safety, health and wellbeing of older people and put their needs and preferences absolutely at the centre, absolutely first. Aged care is not just about supporting a person's basic daily living needs; it's about ensuring older people can contribute to socialising, be empowered to make decisions about their own care, and supporting people to achieve their goals for a meaningful, happy life. In drafting legislation, the government must listen to any recommendation of the Council of the Elders, the Aged Care Advisory Council and all stakeholders to ensure that legislation is best practice. I recently met with Allied Health Professionals Australia, the national peak for allied health. The royal commission found that, although allied health services are fundamental is to aged care and particularly critical to maintaining a resident's wellbeing, they're underused and undervalued. In my experience in aged care, the impact of having a speech pathologist to assist with swallowing in someone who has had a stroke, physiotherapists to assist with continence management and to avoid falls, nurse practitioners are crucial to high quality aged care. The royal commission called for allied health services to be viewed as a valuable service rather than a burden and should be intrinsic in residential aged care. Further, it called on this bill to be strengthened to ensure that the inspector-general is adequately resourced to fulfil their functions and recommended measures to ensure that the government meaningfully responds to the inspector-general's recommendations by setting out what measures they have taken in response and how effective they've been. I urge the government to consider these recommendations. We need to make sure the work of the inspector is not left on a shelf gathering dust. We need to make sure that the older people in our society all across Australia, irrespective of who they are and where they live, have what they need for a meaningful, dignified final years of life, that their loved ones feel confident in that care and, importantly, that the workers who provide for them have a meaningful job as well, that they come home at night feeling like they've done all in their power to provide good, high-quality clinical compassionate care. I thank the government for this bill and I'll be watching to make sure it's acted upon. 11:07 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin This legislation implements recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, a royal commission which came up with 148 recommendations. In particular this legislation deals with recommendations 12 and 148. As the bill's digest states, the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023 establishes an Inspector-General of Aged Care and office with a function to monitor, investigate and report to the minister and parliament on the Commonwealth's administration of the aged-care system. This includes independent reviews to identify and investigate systemic issues, and making recommendations to the Commonwealth for improvement. The Inspector-General of Aged Care will need to undertake at least two reviews on the Commonwealth's implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. It goes on to say the Inspector-General will have coercive information-gathering powers, including powers to enter premises and compel a person to provide information or documents, or to answer questions. The bill sets out a number of offence and civil penalty provisions, including for unauthorised disclosure of information, failure to comply with the inspector-general's information-gathering powers, or providing false or misleading information, and victimisation of people who provide assistance to the inspector-general. For the benefit of anyone following this debate or listening in to it, that sums up the intent and purpose of this legislation. But in my view, what the legislation also does is it highlights the current inadequacy that existed for years and, at times, indeed, an incompetency of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, which, from my own observation, has over the years failed to adequately support vulnerable elderly people in this country. If that commission had been doing the job that the broader community expected of it, perhaps we wouldn't need this legislation today. With respect to other agencies that are there to support older people within our country—and that includes the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the elder abuse offices throughout the states—whilst they were set up in good faith, I don't believe they have led to providing families with the services and support that they expect at critical times in their lives. Again, with respect to those agencies, perhaps we need to have a look at the powers they have, so that they can actually implement recommendations and enforce changes that are asked of them when we see an injustice or someone being dealt with improperly. The real issue about all of this also goes to the process by which concerns are raised with the various agencies. The reality is that that process in itself has been the cause of much of the grief that we have heard about and the grief that was raised in the royal commission—and, indeed, in the other 22 inquiries or so that have been carried out in the last couple of decades. One of those inquiries was a parliamentary inquiry of the Standing Committee on Health, which I was a member of at the time. Time and time again, we heard similar concerns to those raised with the royal commission. I will touch briefly on some of those concerns, because, at the end of the day, it's those very concerns that I suspect this legislation is trying to deal with. The truth of the matter is we know that there are a lot of good operators out there, and that's the reality. There are a lot of good operators. But there are also some very poor operators. And those poor operators, even since the recommendations of the royal commission were handed down, continue, in my view, to be poor operators. That's not because of the staff they employ, but, rather, because of the management practices that they have. And, as the previous speaker referred to, in some cases they claim they are unprofitable and financially stressed, and, therefore, they can't provide adequate funding to pay for additional staff or even for the quality of care that is expected of them. The truth of the matter is that many of those operators have staff that are absolutely loyal, and if it weren't for those staff I guess the service would be even worse. These are staff that are underpaid, who work under enormous pressure and are often working unpaid hours because they care for the people they are looking after. They work under incredibly difficult conditions and are often undertrained and, in terms of total staff numbers, understaffed. They work in a very difficult environment. Most of those staff, in my view, are doing an extraordinary job, and I thank and commend them for it. But the reality is this: every time an issue arises within one of those centres it's very rare for the families of the person involved, or for the person themselves, to raise a complaint. Firstly, that is because they believe the complaint will go nowhere. Secondly, it's because they fear that if they raise a complaint they'll be subjected to further punishment and their life will be made even more difficult. I have spoken to family members who say to me, after they have come to my office for assistance, 'We're afraid to raise the matter with any external agency, because our parent in the aged-care facility is likely to be treated even worse.' Another reason people don't complain is the inability of those agencies to intervene. That is a genuine concern. I accept that in some cases those agencies have limited powers. But the fact they have limited powers is of no help to the person who is within the facility and needs additional support. Furthermore, I believe there's a level of incompetence within many of those agencies. I know the laws have been changed and the administration has been changed, but when you hear stories of agencies advising centres in advance that they'll be calling out to do an inspection, it beggars belief as to what they expect to find by doing that. When you hear of agencies that say they're only going between nine and five, when the truth of the matter is that these centres and the people who live within them are there seven days a week and 24 hours a day, with most of the poor care occurring outside the nine-to-five hours, you wonder where the logic is in them saying, 'Oh, we only operate from nine to five.' The third area—and I hear this time and time again—is staff themselves. These are staff who, for whatever reason, firstly, care about the residents within their care and, secondly, need the job they have. Therefore, they too are unwilling to raise concerns about what is happening within the centre where they work, out of fear of retribution on themselves by management. I have had people contact me both anonymously and having given me their names and having said: 'Please keep this confidential. I cannot afford for my name to get out there, but this is what's happening in the centre where I work, and something needs to be done about it.' People who work within the centres see the inadequate level of care on a daily basis and want to do something about it because they genuinely care, but the truth of the matter is that they can't. Those are the sorts of concerns that I hope this new position that is being established by this legislation is going to be able to address, if not directly then at least indirectly. I want to touch on two other matters in the time I have. The first is the home care packages themselves. I note that the Albanese Labor government introduced legislation in December last year to cap care management fees at 20 per cent and package management fees at 15 per cent. I applaud that and support it, but it's come to my attention that some of the operators are finding ways around that. Whilst the legislation has every good intention, the reality is that those operators who want to do so find ways to circumvent the intent of the legislation and are still overcharging their clients. I will use the case of one person. I won't name the person. This person had a package of $35,000, of which $4,000—and I'm talking in round numbers—was contributed by the person themselves. Of that $35,000 package, the person worked out that, in real service to him, the net amount was about $11,000. The rest of the money was going into admin services to the provider of those services. When the caps came into effect, the provider of the services found a way to circumvent that and is still taking about the same amount of money. Again, that's no fault of the legislation. It simply highlights how, when you want to do something in this world, there is always a way around the laws in place. The last issue I wanted to raise with respect to all of this is an issue that has arisen more so in recent times. I haven't had time to check, but I don't believe it was addressed in the royal commission findings. It is a matter that has been brought to my attention in my office on several occasions. In recent days, there have been several reports about it. I'm referring to the issue of the intervention of the public trustee in managing the affairs of a person who has perhaps been diagnosed as not competent to look after their own affairs. I'll quote one particular story that was published by the ABC on 26 March, only a few days ago, because I think it really encapsulates what I'm trying to say. The story says: He is being kept against his will in a nursing home at a cost to him of more than $75,000 a year. He's been denied access to his own medical and financial information—all in the name of protecting him. It then goes on to quote the person himself: I've got no rights at all and I haven't done anything. I've been in business all my life. I've paid my taxes and done everything. …   …   … I'm in an aged care facility with very old people that go to sleep in the mess hall and all this sort of stuff. I don't belong there. I belong in my own home that I've worked hard for all my life . This is a person in his late 70s who's got the early stages of dementia. Those were not the words of a person who has lost his mind but rather the words of a person who has lost his freedom and his rights. I have personally spoken to people in similar situations in my own state—people who have now been diagnosed and how that occurred I don't know—who now in the care of the public trustee, a state government office. They are right throughout Australia. It seems to me there are too many examples where these offices show no more compassion or empathy than the corporate service providers in this world. I would expect better from state government offices. Even worse, and this is the critical point, they are at times financially exploiting the person whose affairs they are managing the money for. The stories I referred to from the ABC go into a lot more detail about that. I don't intend to do that today, but I simply raise this as a matter of concern that also needs to be addressed. With respect to the that person I referred to earlier on, the person in his late 70s, I note that the Western Australia Auditor General has called for an urgent review into the state's public trustee, and I commend that line of action. I think that is very appropriate. It will be interesting to see where it leads. The point I'm really making though is that these issues, these concerns, I believe from my observations and from the stories I've read, are very widespread. This is not an isolated case. And it is time that people under the care of the public trustee, right across Australia, are looked at in terms of are they being properly cared for, do they deserve to be in the condition they are in and should they have more rights about managing their own finances and their own wellbeing in the future as to whether they should be at home or not? I have spoken to residents in aged-care facilities who have been put there for the convenience of others and who quite rightly don't deserve to be there and with a little bit of support at home could be living in their own home. People have all their faculties, have a clear state of mind and know exactly what is happening to them and would be able to care for themselves in their own homes if they had a little bit of support. I believe this legislation is a good step in the right direction. I hope the Inspector-General will be able to delve into some of the matters that I and other speakers in this debate have referred to and bring some accountability and transparency to the process of managing people under aged-care services in this country. I commend the legislation to the House. 11:22 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I'm pleased to support the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023 and the role of the Inspector-General of Aged Care for a number of the reasons that've been outlined by previous speakers, but in particular the capacity to provide that independent oversight of, or for reviewing, systemic issues and constantly drive improvement. For those of us who've had a loved one in residential aged care we understand very well the need for this role, and I can speak personally having had my mother in that situation. The former coalition government accepted this recommendation and committed to establishing the Inspector-General of Aged Care for that express purpose of providing that independent oversight of the aged-care system to provide the transparency, the accountability, the confidence for all involved, be it the families, be it the individual—that monitoring reviewing process and the public reporting capability that goes with this. In my view it will increase the transparency. That's something for us, in this House, to make sure does happen and to have that process that occurs across the aged-care sector in general. For me, being a rural and regional MP, I really will be looking for what comes out of the role of the Inspector-General in relation to rural and regional residential and aged-care facilities, given that they face additional challenges in providing services into regional areas. That often involves a lost more cost. And the more remote these facilities become the greater the challenges they're currently facing. Yes, we committed, in government, another $19.1 billion to the sector to assist in this process. All of us know we've got some wonderful aged-care facilities in our electorates and wonderful people who work very hard. They really do care about the people they care for and we want to enable those people to do so even more. One of the issues our residential aged-care facilities are currently facing is around the requirement for 24/7 registered nursing available in each home environment. That's really concerning for the aged-care facilities in regional and more remote areas that literally have no chance of doing this, and we know there are so many of them in regional and more remote areas and even in my part of the world. This has put a level of stress and pressure on my wonderful aged-care facilities, which are working their hearts out, literally, to provide really great care to the wonderful people they look after. But this has added another layer yet again, and they are very worried about what this will mean for them. Again, this is where I hope to focus on the specific issues in rural, regional and remote areas. How are these actual facilities going be able to provide that 24/7 care? I've spoken to a number of those in my part of the world, and there is no doubt they are desperately concerned. They're already getting a cross in a box because they are unable to provide that full 24/7 care, and they're concerned about what this means for them as an aged-care provider ongoing. We know there's a need for another 20,000 or 21,000 additional workers. A UTS report says fewer than five per cent of surveyed aged-care facilities actually have the direct care workforce needed to meet this 1 July deadline, but I don't know where the government thinks, in regional and remote areas, these nurses are going to come from. They're physically not there and they can't attract them. We've raised this repeatedly with government. There is a different issue for rural, regional and remote residential and aged-care providers. Where will the additional registered nurses, enrolled nurses and workforce come from when there are labour shortages right around Australia? What I don't want to see is where we take workers from one part of the health sector simply to move them to another. That creates pressures and stresses everywhere. Also, in WA the government has moved to a one-to-four staff ratio during the day and one to seven at night, and that's in the health sector, which adds to the challenges of supplying the staff. I don't want to see rural, regional and remote areas lose any aged or residential care providers. We are struggling to get them and keep them there, and we have been for some time. You know, 64 per cent of the facilities in major cities operate at a loss, but it's 70 per cent in regional, rural and remote facilities. I spoke to a provider not long before coming here last week, and they said the process to even apply for and administer an exemption takes an extensive amount of time for people who are already under the pump. They're a small facility in a regional area struggling for staff now, and they've got to go through this process of applying for and administering this particular application for an exemption and keeping that up to date. There's a constant reporting time attached to it and additional cost for them, taking those good people away from the job of looking after our people. They simply cannot source the required number of registered nurses. They've been looking overseas and in Victoria; they're simply not available. The facility, when at capacity, are going to actually need eight to nine full time to be able to service that 24-hour cycle for the number of people they have in their facility. How on earth do you fund and manage that in a regional and remote area? It's just so hard on them, and they are desperately worried as to what this means for their facilities. This has put on another layer of stress and pressure they do not need when they're doing a great job as it is. It is very difficult and expensive to attract suitably qualified overseas trained nurses as well, if you can find them. They've tried using a third party, an agency, to help source these nurses. They've even gone to the expense of subsidising accommodation for those people they can employ in a regional and more remote area. It's already affecting their star rating—the tick in the box; the cross in the box—that they cannot provide 24/7. This is not okay. They are very good facilities doing a great job. This will have a greater effect when the clinical care minutes apply post 1 July. What I don't want to see is that the respect and value for those places is undermined because they can't tick that box, yet they're providing very good quality staff. They are already struggling to survive. And what will happen to our people that live in small, regional communities when they can't access a residential aged-care facility in their own community? That connection to their community needs to be for life—life and wherever it brings you. I have a list of some fantastic places, but each one of them is under the pump for different reasons. There is a whole different model of aged-care delivery in regional and rural areas. In the time that I have, as the co-convener of the Parliamentary Friends of Dementia and Palliative Care groups, I encourage everybody out there who's watching to pay attention to their of end-of-life care planning. Put plans in the place to manage your end of life. Make sure you get exactly what you want, where you want. Take control of that and do that work. To assist some of the residential and aged-care facilities that are dealing with increased numbers of people with dementia—and Australia's going to be dealing with this—Dementia Australia is a leader in technology apps, and only yesterday they were here in this house demonstrating cutting-edge technology to improve the experience of dementia for everyone. With professional Graham Samuel and the amazing Maree McCabe, Dementia Australia provided a tech showcase demonstrating and showing the virtual reality dementia experience technology. This is a very good tool for training purposes for people providing aged care and residential care. What was really disturbing was the meeting I had with Megan about people dealing with dementia from babies to the age of 18. That is also something we need to be considering in this space. Everyone who attended and tried the technology was so impressed, and many didn't even know such technology existed to educate and train residential and aged-care staff and carers. I strongly encourage any and every residential aged-care facility and the dedicated people who work there to take advantage of these practical training opportunities. They recently introduced the BrainTrack app to learn about your own brain health throughout your life and track your cognition over time using virtual reality technology. That's where your end-of-life early planning comes in, so you can get things sorted. There's Ask Annie, a free mobile app that offers short learning modules for healthcare workers. There's Talk with Ted, a workshop using an artificially intelligent avatar to simulate a typical conversation experience between a care worker and something living with dementia. There's A Better Visit, a free tablet app designed to enhance a really good interaction between people with dementia and their visitors, particularly for those living in residential care. I've had that experience with my own mum in how to communicate well. I went and did a workshop along with my sister so that we could make what is a really tough, heartbreaking situation with dementia the best we could make it. We also heard from a wonderful woman, Bobby Redman, a retired psychologist who was diagnosed with frontotemporal dementia and is a very active community member. She talked about how she's able to live independently and continue to be active in her community with the help of technology. She lives alone without a family carer: in her own words, 'Technology is my carer.' Bobby was at high risk at home: she was burning food, leaving taps on and suffering falls. She didn't want to move into residential aged care, so she worked with researchers, she sourced timers and alerts to turn off her cooker, she uses a cane, and she wears a falls alarm and a GPS tracker. Her unit is monitored with unit sensors to make sure she's active and moving between rooms, and she has alarms on her phone to provide personal reminders of what she's supposed to be doing at any given time. Most importantly for Bobby, she has been able to retain her freedom and her independence, and to be safe at home and in the community, with that technology. Why is that so important? Deputy Speaker Freelander, I think you would know. For those of us who have shared the dementia journey with someone we love, and suffered along with them, anything that improves the quality of their lives is what we so desperately want—and they want it too. It's what people suffering from dementia desperately, desperately want. There's no doubt that dementia breaks the hearts of those living with, and of those of us who love those who are living with dementia. And this is going to become even more relevant, Acting Deputy President Freelander, as you know best: last month the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare announced that dementia is now the leading cause of disease burden for Australians aged 65 and over. It's the second leading cause of death for all Australians, and provisional data shows it's likely to become the leading cause of death. So I encourage everyone to go to the Dementia Australia website at dementialearning.org.au/technology. I encourage people to have a look at what's available there for so many families and individuals affected by dementia. Anything that helps in both the experience of the person living with dementia and the family and friends who support and love them and want them to stay as independent and connected for as long as possible is good. Please take advantage of these technologies. I really want to encourage anyone over the age of 18 that if you don't have an end-of-life care plan in place, please do so. None of us are guaranteed tomorrow, no matter what our age is; none of us knows what's ahead. But what is within our power is to make plans for the day that we cannot speak for ourselves. I had a very good friend who found herself on the floor of her kitchen, having had a severe stroke and unable to speak for two days after that event. She spent her last days in a facility, able only to move a couple of fingers and not able to communicate. If that were you, what would you want? What would you not want? Please make sure that you put in place advanced care plans to take care of all the things you need to take care of. Make sure that you plan for the things you want and need whenever that end of life comes. 11:37 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I want to start by acknowledging the member for Forrest and many of the things that she just said and shared. I thank her for being so generous with her stories and I echo much of what she actually said about the concerns she raised and the way that she encouraged those over 18 to take a moment to think about what they'd like as they age. Let's be honest about it: none of us should ever take lightly the opportunity and privilege it is to grow old. Some of the most influential people in my life have been my elders, whether that was my grandmother or my nan, my great-aunts and uncles, my current aunts and uncles or just those around me who I have always loved and respected. Never have they denied me the opportunity to learn from their experiences, so it is with a sense of responsibility that I stand to speak for them on the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023. While they have shared their positive life experiences, I have also been there to witness the challenges they faced as they aged—from end-of-life care being offered in rooms with no air conditioning and with temperatures over 38 degrees Celsius outside; falls in centres that left them dealing with further surgical interventions; or simple confusion as the system closed in around them, moving so quickly that it became foreign and often frightening. With that said, I do stand in full support of this bill, which establishes the new Inspector-General of Aged Care to provide independent oversight of the age-care system. The 2021 Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety concluded that Australia's aged-care system needed major reform. It provided 148 recommendations to address the systemic issues prevalent within the aged-care system, and I support the implementation of these recommendations in full. I'm pleased to see that this bill begins the work of implementing some of these recommendations, namely: the need for stronger governance. Enhancing aged-care governance through new and independent oversight is important for the integrity of our aged-care system. I appreciate that the inspector-general will be able to shine a light on the effectiveness of the system, identify areas of concern and recommend improvements where appropriate. Those aged 65 years or older account for over 16 per cent of the population in North Sydney. They make up a very sizeable and respected part of our community and, gratefully, it's expected that this part of our community will grow. How this community is treated and cared for as it grows is critical, and it's a long-term national issue for Australia. It's reported that there are currently nearly 76,000 operational aged-care places in New South Wales. However, ongoing systemic issues brought to my attention by both aged-care residents and providers in North Sydney include the rising cost of care, workforce shortages, skills shortages and substandard care. These issues can be helped by a legislative response, such as this bill and many others like it, in order to create a healthy aged-care system in Australia. I welcome the inspector-general's duties to monitor, investigate and report on the Commonwealth's administration of the aged-care system, and to do so independently. The aged-care system is a large and complex system that includes a range of programs and policies that need to be administered with integrity. The systemic issues that exist stem from problems inherent in the design and operation of the aged-care system. The royal commission provided us with the insight required to fully drive a positive change in the operation of the system, and we must fully embrace that opportunity. We cannot afford to let this potential for positive change pass us by. The same urgency with which these recommendations were presented is the urgency with which we must deliver on them, and that starts with this bill. Urgent reforms must be met with adequate reporting and monitoring processes, and an inspector-general can bring the oversight necessary to achieve this. If people can't trust that the government is acting with their best interests at heart, policies become less effective, workers and residents will not support reform, and the aged-care system will continue to suffer. Rebuilding trust in the administration of the aged-care system is critical to its long-term success. The inspector-general's role in overseeing the aged-care complaints management process is a particularly welcome part of this legislation. The royal commission showed us that the importance of a transparent and effective complaints-handling process cannot be overstated. Complaints can be a window into the quality and safety of care, and managing the complaints process well is imperative in ensuring quality and safety standards are met. Finally, I support the provision of a framework for the inspector-general to publicly report to the minister and parliament on the Commonwealth's administration of the aged-care system. Transparency in the reform process is critical to its success. To have nothing to hide is a position we want the system's administration to be in. As this bill is considered, we must look at it through our current human rights framework, which, while far from perfect, requires us to consider our obligations to protect individual, social and economic rights. The aged-care system needs to be a system of care based on the universal right to high-quality, safe and timely support and care, to enable people to exercise choice and control, to ensure equity of access and to provide for regular and independent review of the system. There are a number of serious concerns coming out of the aged-care sector, calling for further reforms. As a result of consultation with the sector's stakeholders and aged-care residents across North Sydney, I've learnt of the following key concerns. Firstly, the cost of administering and receiving aged care in Australia is rising to unsustainable levels, and it is inevitable that the reforms being called for are going to increase these costs further. A better system, quite simply, will cost more. The Parliamentary Budget Office has projected that, over the next decade, government spending on aged care will increase by four per cent a year, after correcting for inflation. This means that aged-care spending will be growing significantly faster than the rate of all Australian government spending, which is currently predicted at 2.7 per cent. By 2030-31, aged care will account for five per cent of all Australian government expenditure, compared to 4.2 per cent in the 2018-19 year. The financing of aged care relies on Australian government payments funded by general taxation and other revenue, supported by contributions from older people receiving care. As it stands, the Australian aged-care system is gravely underfunded, and it is compromising the quality of care available. Funding levels are based largely on historical precedents and ad hoc decisions, which bear little direct relevance to the actual cost of delivering care. For the quality of aged care in Australia not to be compromised, the Australian government must accept responsibility for driving these rising costs and must do all it can to help communities, individuals and providers cover them. If government funding isn't meeting the needs of the sector, which it currently isn't, then care becomes compromised and substandard. According to the Aged Care Financing Authority, approximately 31 per cent of home-care providers and 42 per cent of residential aged-care providers reported an operating loss in 2018-19. The exacerbating impact of COVID-19 was not reflected in these statistics. An aged-care provider in North Sydney reports that 60 per cent of residential facilities are already operating at a loss, and costs are only going up. The short- to middle-term outcome will be decreased care and services. The medium-to-long-term outcome would be that hundreds of residential homes will have to close their doors, causing distress to existing residents and nowhere for future residents to go. With home care not an option for many of these residents, the only alternative for care would be to go to hospital into an already overcrowded primary healthcare system, which is already unable to cope with what it is facing. The effect of an overburdened primary health system is to further strain the aged-care system. The hindrance to accessing adequate health care is a serious issue in aged care. It increases the burden on aged-care workers to provide care they are not trained for and should not be required to provide. The increasing burden on aged-care workers is a huge concern. The compounding expectation for aged-care workers to perform duties outside their job description is a result of a workforce shortage and poor policies. Workers are incredibly strained in their ability to meet the level of need present in aged care. For example, aged-care workers in North Sydney have expressed concerns to me about being subject to the NDIS regulatory system separately to the aged-care regulatory system. The workload this creates is unsustainable for them. They are calling for a uniform set of regulations. You can understand why the workforce is struggling, and why care has reached in some cases substandard levels. As a result of COVID-19 and the exhausting demands on our aged-care workers, there is not just a workforce shortage in the Australian aged-care system but a skilled workforce shortage. The pandemic has caused a huge loss of workers from the sector, and financial strain is being felt by a majority of aged-care providers. A report presented by the University of Wollongong as part of the royal commission found that, on average, each resident in a residential aged-care facility is currently receiving 180 minutes of care per day, of which 36 minutes are provided by a registered nurse. It concluded that staffing levels within large parts of the Australian residential aged care fell well short of good or even acceptable practices. The royal commission calls for a standard of 215 minutes of care every day by 2024, of which 44 minutes are to be provided by registered nurses. In addition, when fully implemented in 2024, the standards should always require at least one registered nurse is on site at each residential aged-care facility. The government's election promise to implement two of the three recommendations relating to the workforce shortage will require 14,626 new workers in 2023-24 alone and another 25,093 workers the year after. Around-the-clock nursing in aged care and mandated time spent caring for each resident will create a shortfall of about 25,000 workers over two years. This represents a real and an unattainable short-term goal, and we need longer term solutions to improve the sector's ability to attract new workers and retain skilled and experienced ones. The recommendation in the report states that aged-care workers should have good-quality and easily accessible ongoing training and professional development opportunities available to them. It is recommended the skills national cabinet reform committee should fast track the development of accredited, nationally recognised short courses, skill sets and micro credentials for aged-care workers. Another proposition that I support includes the improvement of the relevant visa requirements so that skilled migrants can fill job shortages. But the fact remains the gap between what we need and what we have is fairly, it would appear, insurmountable at this stage. These issues of rising cost, workforce shortages, skills shortages and substandard care are shared sector-wide. The current state of the aged-care system in Australia is a detriment to our aspirations towards human rights. As I said earlier, the findings of the royal commission have provided us with an opportunity for positive change in the operation of the system that we cannot afford to pass by. I will continue to hold the government to account, and I look forward to continuing to work with the minister and her team as she progresses this essential work. In conclusion, I want to offer my thanks and respect to those providing services and care in this sector, as it currently exists. I have met some truly incredible people and witnessed much compassion and commitment among those who work with the residents of these facilities. While there is much talk about what is broken in this system—it's very easy to try to find scapegoats—the reality is that the system requires us all to lean in towards it and accept our responsibility in how we can work towards improving it. I thank the government for bringing this bill forward. I commended it as a really positive first step. I recognise the significant challenges that we still have in front of us to actually bring this significant reform about, but I do want to commend this bill and the decision of the government to improve the governance of the aged-care sector. I look forward to contributing to further reform strengthening Australia's aged-care system. 11:51 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I rise in support of the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023 and the Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. The care and treatment of our nation's seniors has to be one of the most vitally important priorities of our country. One of the most common queries I receive from constituents in my electorate is on aged care. Moving a family member or loved one into aged care is a decision people across our nation are faced with daily, and it is not an easy one. Within the sector, staffing is tight. Wages have been an issue; they've been too low. Aged-care facilities are operating at a loss. With a stream of reforms on the way, active engagement with the sector and the appointment of an inspector-general of aged care is a good move. It's the right move. The purpose of the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023 is to establish an independent inspector-general of aged care to monitor, investigate and report on the Commonwealth's administration of the aged-care system, to provide oversight of the Commonwealth's aged-care complaints and management processes and provide a framework for the inspector-general to publicly report to the minister and parliament on the administration of the aged-care system. Ultimately, the bill intends to facilitate a positive change for older Australians and the sector generally, which is something I'm very supportive of. We know what an incredibly challenging industry and sector it is at the moment, and just how important it is to get this right. It is my hope that the inspector-general can be a key factor in getting that crucial reform right. The primary purpose of the inspector-general is to monitor, investigate and publicly report on systemic issues arising from the range of bodies within the aged-care sector. While the inspector-general does not have the power to impose corrective orders, it will have the ability to make recommendations for policy and sector improvements to enhance the lives of those living and working in aged care. Our aged-care facilities, particularly our regional aged-care facilities, need all the support they can get. I was interested to hear the comments of the member for North Sydney, and I was reflecting on the commonalities of issues affecting both city aged care and regional aged care. Recently I met with representatives from Three Tree Lodge, an aged-care facility in Lithgow in our electorate. It's fair to say that they were exasperated. They told me, in no uncertain terms, that the aged-care sector is in crisis. Their facility is almost operating at a loss, and many other facilities already are. Three Tree Lodge raised the government's first Quarterly financial snapshot of the aged care sector with me. This report showed that 66 per cent of aged-care homes were operating at a loss for the period of July to September 2022. The report outlined that the net loss before tax per resident per day is $27.90. In addition, 70 per cent of aged-care facilities in rural and remote regions operated at a loss from July to September 2022. Three Tree Lodge attributes these losses to inadequate funding and indexation, workforce pressures and service challenges that mean having to pay higher agency fees, higher travel costs and higher maintenance due to distance and contractors' availability. And, as we've heard in this House previously, there is also the workforce shortage, which continues to cause major difficulties for the sector. We all know how incredibly important a pay rise is for aged-care workers. I would consider it essential. The drain on aged-care workers during COVID and the resulting rapid change in the sector has been immense, and we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to all of our frontline workers who did so well during the pandemic. We wouldn't have been able to get through it without them. I often visit our aged-care facilities and I'm always impressed by the caring, compassionate and kind way staff members approach their work. They are truly unsung community heroes. They deserve their 15 per cent wage increase. They are most definitely worth it, as cost-of-living rises have made it all the more essential. While I note the government has agreed to fund an additional 10 per cent from 1 July 2023, and a further five per cent in 2024, there has been no indication if on-costs will be funded within this—not to mention rapidly rising inflation, meaning that, as it stands, aged-care providers are left with increasing costs from all angles and with limited government support. So I urge the government to step in and fund the full 15 per cent from 1 July. The need for a collaborate approach for reform within the aged-care sector, specifically in relation to time frames for change, has been made clear to me by Three Tree Lodge. During this period of reform, it's critical that the impact on providers in terms of cost, financially and to individuals within the sector, is adequately managed. The pressure on smaller, community based providers in regional, remote and rural Australia to manage reform at the current pace is seeing these providers question their viability. That's what Three Tree Lodge is doing at the moment. They love what they do, but they're questioning whether they can continue. The move of an older person into an aged care facility can already be very daunting, and when regional aged-care facilities close the results can be devastating for older Australians and the communities they come from. It's exacerbated by that tyranny of distance that we experience in our regional communities. When our regional aged-care facilities close, residents are forced to move. Sometimes they must move long distances from their homes, away from their support networks and away from the communities they have known and loved. They are taken away from their loved ones, and health outcomes for them can be adversely affected. Because of that tyranny of distance, visiting residents in faraway aged-care facilities is made all the more difficult, particularly for older Australians who may not have the capacity to drive those longer distances. The isolation builds when our regional aged-care facilities close. Local jobs are lost, as are generations of work by the local community groups who built them. Facilities like Maranatha House in Wellington have been built by the community for their community members so that they wouldn't have to leave Wellington to find great aged care. Regional aged care and, indeed, all aged care must be protected. I ask the government to recognise the vital role it plays around regional Australia and to recognise the importance of our community-run facilities and how difficult they are all finding it at present. I would encourage the government to continue to engage with our aged-care providers, particularly our regional ones, and recognise the many challenges that facilities, like Three Tree Lodge in Lithgow and Maranatha House in Wellington, are facing every single day. Their vital work must continue, and we must give them all of the support that we can. I commend the bill to the House. 11:59 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley The passage of these bills through the House today marks an important step in the Albanese government's mission to bring transparency and accountability back into aged care for the benefit of older Australians. As the member for Swan said in her contribution, 'Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the Inspector-General of Aged Care will shine that light.' The bills establish an independent Inspector-General of Aged Care who will impartially monitor and investigate the Commonwealth's administration and regulation of the aged-care system. As recommended by the royal commission, the Inspector-General will look at serious and ongoing problems associated with the design and operation of aged care through a systemic lens—issues that have proven to be persistent, complex and interconnected. The bill also empowers the Inspector-General to monitor and report on the implementation of the recommendations of the royal commission, which, as the member for Indi said, is a very important tool to make sure the final report isn't just another report that collects dust. I thank the member for Chisholm, the member for Moreton, the member for Swan and the member for Makin for their support for this bill. I know that people like Dawn in the member for Swan's community elected them to this place to make sure that we had a Labor government to create a better future for aged care. I especially thank the member for Moreton for sharing his own experience of helping his dad transition into an aged-care home. Like so many Australians, I know improving our aged-care system is a deeply personal issue for him. I note the proposal of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is here with us, to create a workforce plan. That is something that would have been helpful at any point over the past nine years when they were in government as the workforce crisis spiralled out of control, which we are all now left to clean up. I also thank the member for Indi and the member for North Sydney for their contributions to the debate on this bill, and I would add the member for Clare to that as well. I commend these bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 29 12:02 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 30

Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 30 Third Reading 30 12:03 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 30 COMMITTEES Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum: Joint Select Committee 30 Membership 30 12:06 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum. 12:06 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin by leave—I move: That Dr Reid, Mr Neumann, Ms Murphy and Ms Claydon be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum. Question agreed to. BILLS 30 BILLS Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 30

Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 30 12:07 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise to speak on the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023, and in doing so I would like the House to note that the coalition has been constructive when it comes to Jobs and Skills Australia and supported its establishing legislation. Indeed, the legislation establishing Jobs and Skills Australia was the first piece of legislation introduced by the Albanese government, and I'm proud to say we worked closely with stakeholders, with the crossbench and with the minister and his office to finalise that first tranche of legislation. Today, we are assessing the second tranche of legislation, and that will seek to finalise Jobs and Skills Australia. As we assess the second tranche, I would like the House to cast its mind back to 2019, when this policy for this agency was first announced by the now Prime Minister. It was one of his first policy announcements as opposition leader, and, as we listen to his words, I want you consider if this legislation delivers that. He said: Jobs and Skills Australia will be a genuine partnership across all sectors—business leaders, both large and small; State and Territory governments; unions; education providers; and those who understand particular regions. …   …   … It will be legislated, just as Infrastructure Australia was… …   …   … I see Jobs and Skills Australia as the basis of a new compact. …   …   … As Infrastructure Minister, I established Infrastructure Australia. And it worked. I envisage a similar model for Jobs and Skills Australia. A collaborative model to guide investment in human capital, just as Infrastructure Australia guides investment in physical capital. That quote was from the now Prime Minister. Four years on, in this chamber, we should rightly assess whether the Prime Minister and his Minister for Skills and Training have lived up to the hype, because this legislation purports to be the final piece of the puzzle. According to Infrastructure Australia: Infrastructure Australia is an independent statutory body with a mandate to prioritise and progress nationally significant infrastructure We provide independent research and advice to all of levels of government as well as investors and owners of infrastructure. Infrastructure Australia has an independent board and is an independent agency. This is the model the Prime Minister promised Australia, and today this is the model he has failed to deliver, because, on face value, Jobs and Skills Australia will not be independent. Jobs and Skills Australia will remain a creature of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. Its additional funding does not go into the forward estimates, and it appears that it will be set up in a way reactive to ministerial directions rather than taking a proactive and strategic posture, independently assessing Australia's workforce and skills requirements. Whatever government may say, Jobs and Skills Australia cannot credibly claim that it will be truly independent. We've raised these concerns with government and we've been surprised with the response. We were not told that this approach would deliver better outcomes nor that it was informed by expert advice or stakeholder input. No, we were told that this is a cost-management exercise, that in a fiscally tight environment this government cannot find the money to properly fund what we were promised would be a game-changing and independent workforce agency. This is a government that just yesterday put us $15 billion further into debt through the National Reconstruction Fund against the advice of the International Monetary Fund. That is quite an extraordinary admission from those opposite. Apparently this agency that the Prime Minister said would be the basis for a new compact does not warrant sufficient investment to establish as a truly independent agency in the interests of Australia's workforce. To say we are underwhelmed by what we've ended up with is an understatement, and we aren't the only ones making that assessment. Many stakeholders have told us that this is a missed opportunity from the Albanese government. It is a worrying trend that we're seeing big promises made but, when it comes to the detail and the delivery, the Albanese government keeps falling short. That is all important context for how we have approached this legislation. We have assessed it with clear eyes and open minds. We support Jobs and Skills Australia. We support its establishment. In fact, we wish that this legislation did more than it does. But it does not. As the Leader of the Opposition and I have said, we will look at each piece of legislation on its merits. Where it is in the interests of the country to support what the government is proposing, we will. Where it is not, we will hold the government to account. Now, as I've said, this bill is the second tranche of legislation related to Jobs and Skills Australia and it seeks primarily to finalise governance arrangements for the agency, which sits within the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. The bill outlines that the minister must commence a review into the operation of the act within two years of the commencement of the relevant section. The bill provides that the agency must prepare and provide a report to be tabled in parliament each calendar year, examining Australia's current, emerging and future skills and training needs and priorities. This reflects an amendment the opposition secured in the establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia, and it's important for transparency. Of particular note, the bill establishes the ministerial advisory board of the Jobs and Skills Australia agency, mandating the following: a chair, two members representing the interests of the states and territories, three members representing employee organisations, three members representing employer organisations and not more than four other members. The bill also widens the remit of Jobs and Skills Australia to include the impact of workplace arrangements. The coalition is pleased that the agency amounts to an evolution of the arrangements we put in place for the National Skills Commission. It's an admission from this minister and this government that our approach was working. Unfortunately, where we were promised an independent agency in the mould of the National Skills Commission, we are not seeing that today. I would like to thank the crossbench for engaging constructively with the coalition on this legislation. The skills portfolio is an importantly policy area, and I look forward to continuing to work together as it progresses through the parliament. I also do want to thank the minister's office for their open approach, and I thank them for making themselves and departmental officials available to brief my office too. It was a reminder of the outstanding people we have in our Public Service, and I thank them for making themselves available. It allows us to gain a deeper understanding of what the government is seeking to achieve with this bill. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the coalition has a strong record to stand on in the Skills and Training portfolio. During the pandemic, we ensured that apprentices were protected with our wage subsidy measures and we supported jobseekers and young people in getting the skills for the jobs of the future through low-fee or fee-free training through the $2.1 billion JobTrainer Fund. JobTrainer created around 478,000 training places in areas of skill need. This included 48,000 places in aged-care training. The coalition committed over $13 billion to the skills sector through the pandemic, including a record $7.8 billion in our final financial year in office. We saved more than 530,000 apprentices and trainees through our wage subsidies through the pandemic, with total pandemic apprentice wage subsidy support reaching over $7.9 billion. We delivered a record 240,000 trade apprentices and trainees, the highest number since 1963. We invested a further $2.4 billion from 1 July 2022 to upskill apprentices in a new streamlined Australian apprenticeship incentive system, which I'm happy to say those opposite have continued to date. We will always look at legislation on its merits in order to allow the government to build on the strong foundation and legacy we left to them when they assumed office. So we were disappointed to see that the bill, instead of formally establishing a fully independent agency to drive Australia's workforce forward, predominantly focuses on establishing a new appointed board with taxpayer funded roles. It's a board that doesn't, in our view, have sufficient balance. While the coalition has been constructive when it comes to Jobs and Skills Australia, we are not going to give the government a blank check to create taxpayer funded board roles that are set aside for union representatives, which this bill effectively does. We don't think it's appropriate and we do not think the Australian public would either, especially given the sorts of union representatives this government has given a platform to since taking office. We remember the threats Christy Cain and the self-described militants in the Maritime Union of Australia made at the Jobs and Skills Summit. We saw the appointment of Andrew Dettmer to the forerunner of this board, the Jobs and Skills Australia Consultative Forum. He is a self-described socialist who has levelled unacceptable attacks on coalition politicians and clearly conducts himself in completely unprofessional ways. Time and again this Labor government has given a platform to aggressive men, and with this bill it would seek to give those same aggressive men a golden handshake paid for by the taxpayer, and we're not going to stand for it. I appeal to the crossbench on this issue. We believe there should be a role for unions in the consultation Jobs and Skills Australia undertakes, but we hope that those opposite can see why we have taken the position we have. We do not think Labor should be using taxpayer funds to give a platform to this sort of aggression—men who talk over women in meetings, men who insult the appearance of women and men who don't believe in compromise or hearing the views of others. It is from this viewpoint that we are coming. In the appointments that the government has made to date it's these sorts of aggressive men who keep getting a gig on these sorts of boards. This is an important point. Jobs and Skills Australia will be charged with identifying skill needs across the economy and developing a policy response to build Australia's workforce. It will play a key role in advising Australia's migration program, as well as providing advice on how to reform our skills and education systems. This important work cannot be overshadowed by Labor's predilection for helping out their union mates, many of whom, as I said, have this track record of being aggressive to and dismissive of women. So we will move amendments to remove the mandating of three members of employer organisations, unions, on the ministerial advisory board of Jobs and Skills Australia. These amendments will mandate the inclusion on the ministerial advisory board of a small-business representative and two rural, regional and remote representatives. We will also move an amendment to ensure that each state and territory is represented on the ministerial advisory board—that is to say that there is someone from each state and territory represented on the board. These changes will deliver a more balanced board and ensure union officials do not get an automatic and overrepresentative presence on the board. Further, we also do not believe that two years is appropriate when it comes to reviewing the agency and its performance. We need a more responsive review timeline to make sure we're on the right track. Those opposite can drink all the Kool-Aid they like when it comes to Labor's mess on skills and training, but the facts are that the Liberals and Nationals cleaned up Labor's mess and invested record amounts into the Australian skills system, which delivered the higher number of apprentices on record. We don't want to have to do it again, especially with an agency as important as Jobs and Skills Australia, which strongly reflects the coalition's National Skills Commission. Under the arrangements we propose through our amendments, the government would still be able to appoint officials from unions as general members of the board, if they think it is defensible to do so, but they would not be earmarked for these positions. The government would have to justify that these individuals meet the professional experience and temperament benchmarks for appointment to this important committee. We will also move an amendment to mandate the commencement of an independent review into the operation of the act no later than 12 months after the commencement of that section, and if we do not gain support for our amendments, we will oppose the bill. We're not going to sit idly by and allow this government to use the taxpayer to stitch up dedicated jobs for union mates. Incredibly, when we raised issues about Andrew Dettmer's role in JSA, the government's response amounted to, 'Well, we've known him for a long time, he knows what he's talking about and he's a good bloke.' Their defence to why he should have a formal role in Jobs and Skills Australia boiled down to, 'He's one of our mates,' and this is the problem: I thought Labor was ending jobs for mates. The government would not be prevented from putting representatives from employee organisations on the board; we're simply removing the mandate to do so. Furthermore, as a cornerstone of the government's election platform, we believe the review into the operation of Jobs and Skills Australia should commence within 12 months, not two years, so that the Australian public has the ability to measure the Albanese government's delivery of this important promise. We believe our amendments are sensible and minor changes. Our amendments offer the government a choice: who do they value more—the unions; or small business, regional and rural Australians and a balance of voices from across the country? If they oppose our amendments, that's the choice they're making: jobs for mates over a platform of merit. We hope they can meet us in this offer, and we hope we can land a better balance in the interests of all Australians. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 33 BUSINESS Standing and Sessional Orders 33 12:21 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I ask leave of the House to amend the notice relating to the proposed amendments to standing orders by replacing standing order 133(d) with the following: (d) Standing orders 80 and 81 shall not apply during a period of deferred divisions. Leave not granted. Mr BURKE DYW I move: That standing orders 34, 55, 85 and 133 be amended as follows: 34 Order of business The order of business to be followed by the House is shown in figure 2. Figure 2. House order of business 55 Lack of quorum (a) When the attention of the Speaker is drawn to the state of the House and the Speaker observes that a quorum is not present, the Speaker shall count the Members present in accordance with standing order 56. (b) On Mondays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House between 10 am and 12 noon, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House at 12 noon, if the Member then so desires. (c) On Tuesdays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House prior to 2 pm, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House after the discussion of the matter of public importance, if the Member then so desires. (d) On Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House from 6.30 pm until the adjournment of the House, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House at the first opportunity the next sitting day, if the Member then so desires. (e) If a quorum is in fact present when a Member draws attention to the state of the House, the Speaker may name the Member in accordance with standing order 94(b) (sanctions against disorderly conduct). 85 Proceedings on urgent bills (a) If one or more bills have been declared urgent, the provisions of standing order 31 will not apply and a single second reading debate on the bill[s] may continue from 7.30 pm until 10 pm that sitting, or earlier if no further Members rise to speak, at which time the Speaker shall interrupt the debate and immediately adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting. (b) After prayers on the next sitting, each bill will be considered in turn. The question on any second reading amendment and the question on the second reading shall be put without further amendment or debate. (c) If the second reading of a bill is agreed to and any message from the Governor-General announced, the bill then to be taken as a whole during consideration in detail, if required, with any detail amendments to be moved together and the mover to speak for a maximum of five minutes, without further debate, and any government amendments to the bill which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved together, any opposition amendments which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved together, and any amendments by crossbench Members which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved as one set per Member, with: (i) one question to be put on all the government amendments; (ii) one question then to be put on all opposition amendments; (iii) separate questions then to be put on any sets of amendments circulated by crossbench Members; and (iv) any further questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put without delay. (d) Standing order 81, providing for the closure of a question, shall not apply to any proceedings to which this standing order applies. (e) Any division called for during the second reading debate from 7.30 pm until 10 pm that sitting shall be deferred until the first opportunity the next sitting day, except for a division called on a motion to suspend any standing or other order of the House moved by a Minister during this period, and, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House at the first opportunity the next sitting day if the Member then desires. 133 Deferred division s on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays (a) On Mondays, any division called for between the hours of 10 am and 12 noon shall be deferred until 12 noon, except for a division called on a motion to suspend any standing or other order of the House moved by a Minister during this period. (b) On Tuesdays, any division called for prior to 2 pm shall be deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance, except for a division called on a motion to suspend any standing or other order of the House moved by a Minister during this period. (c) On Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, any division called for from 6.30 pm until the adjournment of the House shall be deferred until the first opportunity the next sitting day, except for a division called on a motion to suspend any standing or other order of the House moved by a Minister during this period. (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of standing orders 80 and 81, only a Minister may move during a period of deferred divisions— That the Member be no longer heard; or That the question be now put. (e) The Speaker shall put all questions on which a division has been deferred, successively and without amendment or further debate. [and see standing order 85 in relation to urgent bills] For the motion in front of us on the Notice Paper there is a challenge at the moment that I am wanting us to fix. Two particular problems have arisen since the standing orders were changed shortly after the election. In response to the Jenkins report we made a decision which I think most members or possibly all will say has worked pretty well—that is, after 6.30 pm, if you're giving a speech, then you stay, but otherwise there are no further divisions or quorums. I won't say we have landed at a truly family-friendly workplace, but I think we're getting better and the 6.30 rule has been part of that. The challenge is the way the standing order had been drafted just said, 'No divisions or quorum calls between 6.30 and 7.30,' and that means on those days, which don't happen often but we'll get one when we return on budget night, where we sit beyond 7.30 pm, divisions and quorums could all happen again, even though we've told a whole lot of members they can leave. The impact of that, simply, is we run the risk of completely undoing the intention of what we did and creating a situation where the whips—we have one of them here—end up feeling obliged to tell members, 'You have to stay. You might be able to duck out for an hour, but there could be divisions later in the night.' That would effectively defeat what we're trying to do. The first half of what's in front of the House is to say the 6.30 rule would no longer be between 6.30 and 7.30; it'd just be from 6.30 on. That should deal with the challenges we would otherwise have with members feeling an obligation to stay here and back to the late nights of everybody being here and the cultural problems that had been associated with that, which were referred to by Kate Jenkins in her report. The second challenge, though, is one that has not yet arisen but conceivably could, and it's this: during a period of no divisions, if someone moves that the member be no further heard, the House can't divide on it; the House can't deal with it. What happens is that member is immediately sat down, whether they would have won the vote of the House or not, and we move to the next speaker. So there is a capacity at the moment for somebody, even if they don't have and know they wouldn't have a majority of the House, to effectively unilaterally terminate people's speeches by moving that the member be no further heard, and the House has no way of resolving it, because if we can't divide. It gets deferred, but the nature of the deferral is that it never happens. We have a similar problem in the Federation Chamber, but I'm not proposing to deal with that at the moment. But that challenge after 6.30 pm is real. The amendment on the Notice Paper seeks to pull that back by saying that at the moment a minister can move anything after 6.30 pm. I'm proposing we pull that back so that a minister would only be able to force a division if it were a suspension of standing orders. Of course, in a situation where you need an absolute majority of the House, that would only be possible if people knew to stay. It would also be the circumstance, realistically, given that there are always some pairing arrangements going on, that the standing order that involves the cooperation of the Manager of Opposition Business would need to apply to that standing order for it to take effect. I want to pull back further on what ministers are able to move. In what was circulated, I had left that a minister could move that the question be put or that a member be no further heard. I felt that we had the runs on the board in terms of not moving that and, in terms of allowing people debate, that would have been a reasonable compromise, given that we already can, and I was preventing us from moving a whole lot of other things. On consulting with both the opposition and the crossbench, I find there has been a clear view that there is concern about that. There are effectively two ways you could then go. Either you could go down a path that says that you could only move those motions if the opposition and the government agree, at which point there is a disadvantage to the crossbench, or you could have a situation where we just say, 'After 6.30 pm, those motions are not on, and that's the rule.' What I sought leave to do would have created an absolute prohibition on there being any closure or gag motions moved after 6.30 pm so that we would have had a situation where, when they were moved, they were resolved by a majority of the House. I am hopeful that someone else will move the amendment that I was denied leave to include in the motion in the first instance. The motion in its current form says a minister can. I'm encouraging another minister to move the amendment in the terms I have described. But, out of this, we end up with two things being fixed. First, the 6.30 pm rule will become real again, and it means that, from 6.30 pm onwards, if people aren't speaking they're effectively free to go. The second thing we will fix is a situation where any person from anywhere in the chamber can just stand up and move that someone be no further heard, and it just happens without the vote of a House, which is the impact that there would otherwise be during a period where there are no divisions. I commend the standing order change to the House. I hope that provides adequate explanation. I am braced for the prepare, when the Manager of Opposition Business uses his 'reasonable voice' speech. But, nonetheless, I actually think this is a reasonable way for the House to operate. 12:28 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I want to commence by acknowledging that the Leader of the House has consulted with the opposition and, I'm informed, with the crossbench on the changes that are proposed in the motion that is before the House this afternoon. He has accurately foreshadowed that I will issue my normal consumer warning, which is that, when the Leader of the House comes in here and uses his most reasonable voice, be on alert! Again, I cite the words of that great statesman Ronald Reagan—a hero of centre-right parties around the world for a very good reason—who said, 'Trust, but verify.' That is a very good principle, and I urge it upon all in this House today. Let us go to the substance of what is before the House—first of all in the motion that was moved by the Leader of the House and that is on the Notice Paper and then secondly the amendment that I understand he envisages may well be moved later in this debate. The concern that the opposition has with what has been moved, with what is on the Notice Paper—and I will deal with that first—is that the proposed standing order 133(d) would greatly constrain an important right, which is presently available to every member of this House, and that's the right to move that a member be no longer heard or that the question be put. As a general proposition, what we're seeing from this government is that it is eager to reduce the capacity of the parliament, the representative branch of government, to hold the executive government to account, to put it under scrutiny. One of the ways that this government has done this is through steadily increasing the number of hours in the sitting week in which divisions may not be called, in which the House may not vote on a question before the House. Of course, this is an absolutely fundamental exercise of the rights that members have and it has been a trend that we have seen. It's now the case that there are some seven hours across the week in which members are not able to bring on a division. The divisions are deferred. There are some seven hours across the week in which rights already are constrained, and what is now put before the House is that those rights should be further constrained. Of course, I do note that the calculation of seven hours assumes that the adjournment comes at 7.30 pm and then the House rises at 8 pm. But, of course, very commonly that time after 8 pm is used for continued debate. I make no criticism of that, but I simply make the point that that increases the proportion of the time in which the capacity of members to exercise a right which is ordinarily available to them is constrained. And in particular the right that is of concern to the opposition that would be constrained—under both the version of proposed standing order 133(d) that is contained in the motion as moved by the Leader of the House which is on the Notice Paper, and the amended version, which I understand will shortly be moved—is that the existing right of members of this House to move that another member be no further heard or to move that the motion be put, and that is an issue which of is fundamental concern to the opposition. It essentially goes to the relationship between, on the one hand, representative government, the parliament, and on the other hand, the executive government. The amended change, which the Leader of the House has foreshadowed that he intends to bring forward, is that standing order 133(d) would now say that nobody, no person in this House, minister or not, would be able to move that a member be no longer heard or that the question be now put. As I'm advised, the amendment that the Leader of the House will shortly facilitate or procure be made is that standing orders 80 and 81 shall not apply during a period of deferred divisions. I say to the House that that is of no assistance when it comes to the fundamental problem and that fundamental problem is the rights of members in this place. All of us want to facilitate debate. All of us want free flowing debate. All of us want vigorous debate. But what we must also recognise is that there will be circumstances from time to time where a member in this place says something which is so egregious, so offensive that it prompts at least one other member in this place to jump and to move that the member be no longer heard. Of course, standing orders provide that, once such a motion is put, it must be voted on immediately. So it's not the case that any one member can impose his or her will on the House. What is the case is that the matter needs to be considered by the House. What is being proposed in either form of the amendment is that that right, which ordinarily is available to all 151 members of this House, is no longer available by reason of this change to the standing orders, because of the fact that the standing orders would now say, under the original version, that, in effect, anybody who is not a minister would be deprived of that right, but under the version that we understand will shortly be moved, indeed, no member of this House may exercise that right. That is, in the view of the opposition, quite problematic. I acknowledge that the Leader of the House has engaged and has consulted in good faith on this issue with the opposition and, I'm advised, with the crossbench. I make it clear that the balance of what is proposed is not problematic or objectionable from the perspective of the opposition. But we do have concern about proposed standing order 133(d) in either the original version or what I'm advised will shortly be the amended version. I'd put to the House that the best way to deal with this is therefore not to include standing order 133(d)—either version of it—in what the House agrees to pass as an amendment to the standing orders. If there's more work to do, let's do that further work in good faith. Let's see if there is a better solution to be found which does not constrain what ultimately is a fundamentally important right of all members in this place but does address the concerns and anxieties which the Leader of the House has shared with all of us today. We stand ready to approach this constructively. It's not as if this is the last and only time to deal with this matter, but both forms of the proposed new standing order 133(d)—either in the form as it stands in the motion contained in the Notice Paper or in the form that I'm advised will shortly be moved as an amendment to the form of the motion that's in the Notice Paper—are, in the view of the opposition, problematic and we are not in a position to support them. Indeed, what I now wish to do is move, as an amendment to the motion moved by the member for Watson: That: (1) standing order 133(d) be omitted. What the opposition very clearly is putting forward is an amendment that would remove either version of the words, frankly, of 133(d), although, as a formal matter, we're doing that in relation to the version that is on the Notice Paper. I now table that amendment and conclude my contribution at that point. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is there a seconder for that motion? Mr Taylor 231027 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 So the question now is that the amendment be disagreed to. 12:39 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark To ensure the effective functioning of the House, I move: That all words after (1) be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "standing order 133 (d) be amended to read: (d) Standing orders 80 and 81 shall not apply during a period of deferred divisions." The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is there a seconder? Dr Ryan 297660 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:40 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I indicate the government's support for the amendment that was just moved by the member for Clark. I have to say, in terms of the 'reasonable voice' trick, I think the Manager of Opposition Business just did it far more effectively than I've ever done it. When he talks about the rights of members, I just want to flesh out what the Manager of Opposition Business is saying. There are often times when we talk about the fundamental rights of members—the right of members to move motions, the right of members to speak. The fundamental right of members that was just referred to by the Manager of Opposition Business was the right to silence others. I have to say, in terms of rights—and we've all seen the movies where you get told you have a right to remain silent—I've never, until this moment, heard that we're meant to have a right to silence others, and that's effectively what this whole discussion is about. I've put forward that this only applies after 6.30 for the very simple reason that after 6.30 the House doesn't have the capacity to resolve the question. The other times it's being used are not dealt with in this particular motion; just in circumstances where the House can't resolve it. The amendment that's been moved by the member for Clark and seconded by the member for Kooyong goes further than what I've put to the House. Effectively, it says: after 6.30, nobody, whether they're in the opposition, the crossbench or the government or whether they're a minister, can silence another member. That's what it says. We've never had that principle in the House. I think it's a good one, and the government supports the amendment to the amendment. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Clark to the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.    

The House divided. [12:46]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

90 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. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 52 NOES Andrews, K. L. 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. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 12:51 The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business, as amended, be agreed to. Question agreed to. The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House, as amended, be agreed to. Question agreed to. BILLS 39 BILLS Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 39

Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 39 12:52 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm The Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 is a really important bill before the House. Australia, of course, is facing a skills crisis that requires urgent action—this is something which has been quite well ventilated. Before I begin speaking about the bill, I just want to remark on some of the comments that were made by the previous speaker. I want to invite the previous speaker to reflect on the fact that comments made about union members were highly disrespectful to the carers, teachers and frontline workers who kept this country going during the pandemic. Earlier today we heard about the bill on the aged-care sector, and I note that there were platitudes made by those opposite about the importance of the work that carers in the aged-care sector do. I would remark that those workers are more often than not union members, and that they deserve respect and better than the comments made about them this morning. Our government respects workers. That's why we've introduced an amendment that would establish Jobs and Skills Australia as a statutory body to address the skills crisis, to really ensure that we're able to work in partnership with the state and territory governments, business, industry leaders, unions and education and training providers to build the skilled workforce that Australia needs for the future. Jobs and Skills Australia was established as an interim body in November 2022, and has begun the important work of providing independent advice on a range of workforce skills and training issues. One of the very first things our government did upon our election was to hold the Jobs and Skills Summit here in Canberra. I too, in my electorate of Chisholm, held a jobs and skills forum, and I wrote to the Treasurer about our local discussions as he was coordinating that process. It was a really wonderful opportunity to bring together so many different parts of my community to talk about what we could do collectively to address the skills crisis and create better jobs for people in Australia. To ensure that stakeholders views were considered in the design of the permanent Jobs and Skills Australia structure, the legislation has been introduced in two phases. We're now introducing this amendment bill to establish the ongoing governance, structure and functions of Jobs and Skills Australia. This bill will support the expanded and clarified functions and governance model of Jobs and Skills Australia. This has been informed by significant stakeholder engagement through the Jobs and Skills Summit that I have mentioned already, the Senate committee inquiry into the first bill, a discussion paper seeking public comment and bilateral and other targeted engagement. Ours is a consultative government. The current skills and labour market issues facing Australia are significant. The country has the second-highest labour supply shortages across all OECD countries. A staggering three million Australians lack the fundamental skills required to participate in training and secure work. An estimated nine out of 10 new jobs will require postsecondary school education, with four of these requiring VET qualifications. We are doing a lot in the space of vocational education and training as a government with the introduction of fee-free TAFE. As a nation, we're experiencing skills shortages across many critical industries, with the top 20 occupations in demand showing seven with a shortage driven by a lack of people with the required skills, reinforcing the importance of our skills system in addressing these shortages. We know the labour market remains tight, with unemployment expected to remain low for the short term. The tightness is causing challenges for our labour market and for employers. In December of last year, the recruitment difficulty rate for occupations were sitting at 65 per cent. That means that 65 per cent of recruiting employers reported experiencing difficulty hiring staff in their most recent recruitment round. Many of the vital industries that rely on VET graduates are facing workforce shortages, and this has been made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic and a related reduction in migration. Our government understands that urgent action is needed to address skills shortages and to manage participation with the type of skills in demand now and in the future. That's why we are introducing this amendment. The proposed permanent Jobs and Skills Australia will take on a broader range of functions. This will including identifying labour market imbalances, analysing the role played by the demand and supply of skills, building an evidence base of the impact of various workplace arrangements, including insecure work, on economic and social outcomes. It will analyse workforce and skills needs to support decision-making in relation to Australia's migration program and in regional development. It will provide tripartite advice to the government to ensure Australia's training and broader education systems deliver the skilled workers that industry needs. Our government is, of course, absolutely committed to investment in vocational education and training to address skills shortages in Australia. In the October budget, we allocated $6.3 billion for VET, which is $451 million higher than estimated in the March budget of last year. This funding includes 180,000 new fee-free TAFE and vocational education places in 2023. That is part of a larger investment of $921.7 million over five years to strengthen Australia's VET system and address skills shortages. It remains a source of pride to me and my community that the first visit that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took to Melbourne post the election was to my electorate of Chisholm and specifically to the Drummond Street campus of Holmesglen TAFE, home to the Victorian Tunnelling Centre. I enjoy frequent visits to the TAFEs in my electorate, and I am so thrilled to be part of a government that is doing all we can to support the vocational education sector. Our government is providing funding transfers of $2.3 billion to state and territory governments to support their skills systems in the 2022-23 financial year, and that is more investment than the previous government made. Jobs and Skills Australia will provide independent advice to address skills shortages, including by conducting a clean energy capacity study and a national study on adult literacy, numeracy and digital literacy skills. Immediate actions include the delivery of around 180 fee-free TAFE places, as mentioned, and those are in the areas of highest skills need. That includes converting existing government funded places to fee-free places. There will be new places and specific aged-care places from the previous JobTrainer announcement as well. We have a long-term plan for skills and for good secure jobs. We are going to continue our work in collaboration with the states and territories to deliver a new five-year National Skills Agreement in accordance with the vision and guiding principles agreed by skills ministers and endorsed by National Cabinet in August of last year. The establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia is a critical step towards addressing Australia's skills crisis, and this amendment will provide the necessary resources and support to ensure that Australia can build a skilled workforce for the future—a better future for all. I urge all members of the House to support this amendment. 13:01 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt As has been indicated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the coalition is supporting the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. We welcome jobs and skills as an area of focus because we do hold serious concerns about the forward profile of what our workforce demands are in this country and what the supply side of that is going to be. It would be remiss of me not to use as a focus not only the defence industry and the excellent opportunities that the AUKUS announcement provide but also, equally, the risk that if we don't get the workforce needs right then an enormous amount of opportunity might not be fully realised, particularly for my home state of South Australia. Obviously, shipbuilding has been a significant feature of the South Australian economy for a very long time. That goes back to the Playford era, with the shipyards at Whyalla, and, of course, the Collins class submarine decision that saw the submarine yards developed through the eighties and nineties to build the six Collins submarines. We built the air warfare destroyers for the Royal Australian Navy in Adelaide. We are now cutting steel and completing prototyping of the Hunter class type 26 BAE frigates, the antisubmarine warfare frigates, in Port Adelaide. Most exciting is the opportunity to construct nuclear submarines, nuclear-propelled conventionally armed submarines, for the future requirements of the Royal Australian Navy through the AUKUS partnership. The skills requirements around that are obviously some of the most complex that we've ever faced in the history of our nation, because building a nuclear submarine is going to be the most complicated engineering feat that we've ever undertaken. Just building conventional submarines is extremely complicated. I remember that in briefings on the Attack class submarine program, a gentleman who had worked for Airbus, putting together the A380s, said that there are about 125,000 parts in an Airbus A380 and that there were going to be more than a million in the conventional submarines that we were going to acquire before the AUKUS opportunity presented itself. So this is a spectacular opportunity, but one that is at risk if we don't get the workforce and training right. Of course, what we know about the AUKUS deal is that we'll be building a submarine which is also going to be built by the Brits in Barrow-in-Furness, north of Liverpool, where they already build the Astute class submarine at the BAE shipyard there. They will be building the AUKUS submarine. They'll start that before we do here in Australia—specifically, out of the Osborne shipyard in my home city of Adelaide. They're talking about building theirs by 2037. On the government's announced time line, ours will be in 2042. So they'll have a five-year head start in the UK to build a submarine that will be identical to the one that we'll then build in Osborne. The reason I dwell on that is that I foresee some serious risks, if we're not careful and don't maximise the jobs and the economic and the industrial outcomes in Australia. If the UK are doing what we'll be doing five years early then there's a significant risk, particularly through the supply chain. I don't think there's any likelihood that we won't assemble submarines at Osborne, and that's not an insignificant number of jobs. But the lion's share of the jobs are with all the companies that will supply that program. The companies supplying the UK program will be very hungry to supply the Australian program as well, and they'll have a five-year head start. That's something which is very significant, and a very significant risk—particularly given what has been confirmed to me and other members of parliament: there's no Australian industry content requirement in the AUKUS submarine program. Nothing in the agreements made so far requires a minimum amount of industry content or a minimum amount of spend in Australia. When we were in government and undertaking significant decisions around shipbuilding, the then opposition, the Labor Party, had Australian industry content as an article of faith—as the most significant relevant factor in major shipbuilding decisions. To be fair, we, as a government, also made those industry commitments. We always said, 'Yes, this is the minimum amount of Australian industry content we're going to have in these major shipbuilding programs.' That's completely missing from the AUKUS agreement. So I'm watching this very, very closely and carefully because in obtaining this excellent capability for the Royal Australian Navy it's vitally important that we also make sure we secure the economic outcome. In turn, that provides the sovereignty we must have as a nation. We have to build these submarines and we have to have the lion's share of the supply chain coming from our own country. Sovereignty only comes around things like a shipbuilding program if we have the capability in our nation to sustain and maintain that capability. In the case of the AUKUS submarines we know, obviously, that the nuclear propulsion system will be coming from our offshore partners. Obviously, that's something which has bipartisan support. We know that this technology is very significant, in the sense that, like many other countries which have nuclear propulsion, we don't have to refuel the reactor. My understanding, for example, of how the French operate their Barracuda and Scorpene nuclear submarines, is that they have to refuel the reactors every 10 years or so. We won't have to do that with this US technology, which the UK has also had access to for some time. This means, hopefully, that the reactor doesn't have to be touched for a good three decades, which is the whole life of the submarines. But we need to be able to manufacture and sustain the rest of the submarine here. That's so we have sovereignty and aren't relying on someone else if there's an issue with a particular component of the submarine. That's very relevant to this bill on jobs and skills—if we don't get the skills and training right. I'm guessing—assuming—that this agency which is being created will play an enormous role in identifying the necessary workforce and ensuring that it's trained to maximise Australian industry participation in the AUKUS submarine program. I hope that's the case, and that the government is looking very seriously at this to make sure there's no excuse to start giving contracts to UK and US firms at the expense of Australian firms. That's because the UK gets a five-year head start on this program and they'll have business saying: 'We're already producing that particular component for the UK AUKUS submarines and it's the same submarine. It's much safer to choose this UK business over an Australian business.' If, equally, Australian businesses are not being provided with the opportunities to supply into the UK program—and we're not insisting on that. We're putting billions of dollars into the shipyards in the UK and US through this deal. That's fine, but there better be an economic dividend for Australian businesses and Australian industry capability out of this. What has not been envisaged or suggested is that we're ultimately going to spend a lot of money on an excellent capability for our Navy, which we all support, but the vast majority of the investment should bring with it a great dividend of economic and industrial activity in this country. We need this agency—which we're debating now—to be on top of this, and we need the government to have a broad agenda to make sure that the extreme majority of what could be more than $300 billion worth of Australian taxpayer expenditure will be spent in the Australian economy. Then we get an outcome for the Royal Australian Navy, from a capability point of view, but we also get an enormous economic outcome for this country. I mentioned in an earlier debate some of the developing workforce challenges in our economy. Particularly in the care sector, we know that this is becoming more and more significant. I am anticipating and hoping that this agency, Jobs and Skills Australia, is also going to be looking very closely at that category. I said in that debate, and I reconfirm again now, in no way when we talk about the care sector do we suggest that the workforce is homogenous and they should be treated exactly the same way, whether they're in the aged-care workforce, healthcare workforce, disability care workforce or childcare workforce. There are very specific skill sets and very high-quality people that work in all those sectors. They are trained specifically for those roles they hold. But the thing those various areas have in common is that they've all got the same very significant projected workforce shortages into the future. We've had debates in this place about child care and disability care and the NDIS. The health system, of course, more broadly has enormous workforce challenges. They all have a widening gap between the future demand for employees in those sectors and the projected future workforce. Those forward projections are getting quite frightening, and we need to urgently take very significant and comprehensive action to come up with a multifaceted solution to that growing challenge. I'm sure all members hear this from these types of service providers and businesses in their electorates, all the time. I certainly do. It doesn't matter if it's aged care, if it's local health service providers, child-care providers, disability services providers—whatever it might be, they are struggling desperately with workforce, and that's right now. These are in areas where the projected demand is growing dramatically into the future, and no-one is arguing with or disputing that. We know we're going to need an ever-increasing and larger workforce in all those various care services areas. If we've got shortages now, where are we going to be in five or 10 years time? It's a very concerning outlook. I hope, as the coalition supports this bill, that we're going to see a very serious body of work. I'm sure this agency, Jobs and Skills Australia, will have a big role to play. You'd hope so, given the outline of what the agency is meant to be doing into the future. But we need to see from the government, through agencies like this and more generally—and hopefully something specific in the budget—a really significant investment in the training and the skills for these massive workforce shortages that we can see coming down the tunnel towards us. I've touched on a few areas of the economy where this is the case, but it's obviously much broader than that. We know that in many agricultural industries there are shortages in place as well. We in the coalition support the bill. We do have amendments that the member for Farrer outlined, which obviously I strongly support. I hope that those amendments will be successful on this bill because they are important from a governance point of view and the way in which this ministerial advisory body is going to be established and appointed, who it is going to represent and what experience and expertise are going to be in place there. We very much commend those amendments to the chamber and hope that the government sees the value in them, because they will dramatically improve this bill as it stands. More broadly, in summing up, I do call again on the government using Jobs and Skills Australia and any other capacity before them to bring forward a very comprehensive and thorough workforce training strategy for our economy, because we desperately need it. With that, I commend the amendments to the House. 13:15 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to make my contribution to the debate on the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. Australia will experience difficult challenges in the long-term regarding our workforce, with net zero transition creating entirely new industries and the care economy booming as our population ages. Even in the short term, there are challenges. With Australia experiencing record-low unemployment, the labour market is becoming increasingly tight. As of February 2023, the unemployment rate is sitting at 3.5 per cent and it is something this government is proud of because it is not just a monthly statistic but it also means more Australians are getting into the workforce, which is, of course, a positive. But coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic and the opening up of the economy last year, there has been a skills shortage in sectors all across Australia. Just recently, the new data from the Jobs and Skills Australia quarterly labour market update revealed the top 20 in-demand occupations. Critical occupations such as aged-care workers, nurses and childcare workers top the list. As of December 2022, we saw the number of occupations that were experiencing skills shortages double in 12 months—that is, 286 occupations that are currently finding it hard to recruit workers. The impact this will have in the short term is already being felt in both the economic data and in services that Australians rely on like those in the care economy. The Albanese government is committed to addressing these job shortages while preserving our record-low unemployment. It is a difficult task and an incredibly fine balancing act. Immigration will play a role as developed economies race to attract skilled workers, and our government is making it more attractive to immigrate to Australia for those skills that we need. The Albanese government has seen a significant reduction in visa backlog and has updated the priorities skills list to reflect the needs of our economy. I commend the work of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister for Skills and Training in those areas. But this problem is complex, and immigration can only be one part of the solution. The other solution requires investment in training and upskilling, which the Albanese government has focused on over the past 10 months. In the October budget 2022-23 budget, our government budgeted $6.3 billion for vocational education and training in this financial year, which is $450 million higher than estimated in the March 2022-23 budget. The Albanese government's commitment to provide 180,000 fee-free tape places in 2023 to start to address the skills shortages is part of the overall commitment to deliver 480,000 fee-free TAFE places. These places are for Australians from all backgrounds who are looking provide themselves with the skills to get jobs that interest them and that are desperately needed. The quarterly labour market update also showed over 60 per cent of total employment growth was in occupations that require a VET qualification, highlighting the importance of continuing funding to our VET system and our government's fee-free TAFE places. The government will continue to work with the states and territories, with the Commonwealth providing $2.3 billion as part of our overall investment in funding transfers to support these skills systems. Collaboration and coordination are critical because it will take more than one layer of government to alleviate the short-term skills shortages while ensuring Australia has an increasingly skilled workforce for the future. That's why this year we will work on a new five-year national skills agreement. Australia must ensure we can support those in training and completing an apprenticeship so they can become the skilled workers we need. We established the new energy apprenticeship program to provide direct financial assistance to help with cost-of-living pressures for Australian apprentices in the clean energy sector. We have increased the number of occupations on the Australian Apprenticeships Priority List to 111, meaning more eligible Australia apprentices will receive direct financial assistance. It's not just the VET sector; 36 per cent of total employment growth has been in university qualified jobs. The university sector had been hit hard over the last few years, and the Albanese government, through the Minister for Education, is committed to delivering on the ambitious Universities Accord by December, with an interim report expected in June. This will ensure the tertiary sector can provide the skills Australians need for the future and a range of other issues that will be worked through. It will be broad, and the Minister for Education will have an incredibly important task ahead of him. The solution to the skills shortages is complex. This bill is the next step to address the issues impacting on the labour market. We cannot afford to react to these challenges as they happen; there must be structured responses, and that requires evidence to guide and inform policy. Last year the Albanese government established the interim Jobs and Skills Australia, which has already provided advice and data on the state of the workforce in the short time it's been running. The body initiated the Clean Energy Capacity Study, which will assess the workforce needs of Australia's transition to a clean energy economy. This is important work and will continue under the permanent body established in the legislation we are debating today. The bill sets out the body's functions, operations and structure based on a broad consultation from industry, business, state and territory governments, unions and education providers, and there will be a high level of engagement, with over 130 submissions received, because stakeholders across economy recognise the importance of this body. The government is committed to tripartisanship in the design of this body—that is, collaboration between government, unions and employers—so the body can provide advice that is relevant in addressing the skills crisis we are facing. The bill will also create a ministerial advisory board, which will consist of state and territory representatives, industry stakeholders, unions, education providers and other members of Jobs and Skills Australia—which will be required to consult the board in the development of its work plans. Additionally it will be fair and equitable. Unions and employer groups will be balanced, with three representatives each. Jobs and Skills Australia will be headed by a commissioner appointed on a permanent basis, with the support of two deputy commissioners who will be appointed long term, and all of these appointments will be through a merit-based selection process in line with the APS merit and transparency guidelines. The functions of the body will be broad to ensure flexibility in its responses to changing economic conditions and complex situations. It will be able to identify labour market imbalances, analyse workforce skills and the need to assist in migration programs—especially in regional, remote or rural areas—and undertake studies to assess the outcomes of historically disadvantaged groups, such as over 55s, youth, people with a disability, women and First Nations people. Its functions will extend not just to the quantity of jobs but also their quality. Recently we've seen a rise of insecure work in Australia, with an estimated 20 to 25 per cent of the workforce lacking job security. Insecure work is increasingly having economic and social impact, with harm to both mental and physical health of the workforce. But more evidence needs to be gathered, and this body will do that, building an evidence base on these insecure work arrangements. Evidence gathering is an important function of this body and will help inform all stakeholders on what needs to be done to support and secure the Australian workforce in the short, medium and long term. The permanent establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia will be a benefit for government, business and workers, providing independent and evidence-based advice on these challenges. There are big challenges facing our economy and our future workforce, but the Albanese government is working in collaboration with other levels of government to ensure we have the skilled workforce we need to adapt to net zero transition, create manufacturing jobs, fill increasing service roles and care for our ageing population. We will continue to build a better economy for all Australians, and Jobs and Skills Australia will play an important part in that process. I commend the bill to the House. 13:25 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak about the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. As the honourable member for Sturt has indicated, the coalition is supporting this legislation, and we have put forward some amendments that I also commend to the government to consider. The bill is fairly benign in its content, but it deals with a very important issue, which is Jobs and Skills Australia and how we are going to address the massive skills shortage we have within our country. The bill is a second tranche of legislation related to Jobs and Skills Australia, and it seeks primarily to finalise governance arrangements for the agency, which will still set within the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. The bill does a few other things. It changes the name of the director of Jobs and Skills Australia to the Jobs and Skills Commissioner and establishes that there will also be up to two deputy commissioners. The bill legislates that the Jobs and Skills Commissioner develop and table a work plan for each financial year, which must also be published online. Again, measures like these are supported. The bill outlines that the minister must commence a review into the operation of the act within two years of commencement. Again, that's not a problem. The bill does also establish the ministerial advisory board of the Jobs and Skills Australia agency, and it mandates a couple of things. This is important. There are: a chair; two members that represent the interests of the states and territories; three members that represent employee organisations—that is, unions; three members purportedly representing employer organisations; and not more than four other members. The bill also widens the remit of Jobs and Skills Australia to include the impact of workplace relations arrangements, including the impact of insecure work on economic and social outcomes. Of course, any attempt to upskill Australians, create more jobs and address the skills shortage that we have in our country is highly commended. In my electorate of Hughes, it would not be surprising that we also have a massive skills shortage. Everybody I speak to from professional services, such as accountants, lawyers and our local doctors, are all saying that they simply do not have enough staff and they cannot get the appropriate workers. Then we turn also to our local cafes and coffee shops. They are short of baristas and waitstaff. It is across the board. I know that the two local councils in my electorate are similarly struggling with both indoor and outdoor staff across the board. This bill was in its infancy when the current Prime Minister, former opposition leader Anthony Albanese, said on 29 October 2019: Today I announce that Labor in Government will establish a new national partnership to drive improved outcomes in the vocational education and training sector and to strengthen workforce planning, particularly in the growing sectors of our economy: Jobs and Skills Australia will be a genuine partnership across all sectors—business leaders, both large and small; State and Territory governments; unions; education providers; and those who understand particular regions. If that was all that was in this proposed legislation, then we would indeed say congratulations to the Prime Minister and to the government. Any improvements to the vocational education and training sector are to be commended and are supported by this side of the House. The Australian vocational education and training sector, or the VET sector, delivers outstanding education and training through a variety of institutions like public TAFE and also through private registered training organisations, universities and our school system. It's a dynamic and responsive sector that supports millions of students each year to obtain the skills and knowledge— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour. You've been interrupted, so you'll be granted leave to resume when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 45 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Mildura Health Icon Cancer Centre 45 13:30 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I rise to speak about the opening of the Mildura Health Icon Cancer Centre, which is happening this week. The new centre is based at the Mildura Health Private Hospital and brings radiotherapy cancer treatment to Sunraysia residents. While no-one wants to be on the receiving end of a cancer diagnosis, the added burden of travelling, staying in unfamiliar environments and being separated from loved ones will now not have to be part of the journey for Sunraysia people. No longer will cancer patients need to travel to Bendigo, Ballarat, Adelaide or Melbourne to access treatment that frequently lasts 10 minutes a day every day for weeks on end. The tragedy is that there are people in Mallee who have made the choice not to have treatment because of the travel. My father endured this as a head and neck cancer patient for weeks at a time, having to travel and remain in Melbourne for his treatment. That was incredibly difficult for him. I'm glad to see local treatment is now available for those who unfortunately need it. I am very proud to have delivered $6.5 million of coalition government funding for this project, partnering with Mildura Health Fund to ensure this wonderful outcome. I commend Mildura Health Fund and Icon for their commitment to regional health in Sunraysia. Kerin, Hon. John Charles, AM, AO, FTSE 45 13:31 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Yesterday, Australia lost a giant with the death of John Kerin AM, AO, FTSE at the age of 85. John was born in Bowral and attended Bowral High School and then Hurlstone Agricultural High School before completing a Bachelor of Arts at UNE and a Bachelor of Economics at ANU in 1977. John worked as a poultry farmer and then as an agricultural economist at the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. He was elected as the member for Macarthur in 1972. He lost in 1975 and then re-entered parliament in 1978 as the member for Werriwa, where he served until 1993. He was a giant of Australian politics, serving in the Hawke and Keating governments. He was a personal friend, and I was very grateful for the help that he gave me when I first came into parliament in 2016. He, his wife—June Verrier—my mate Bob Bennett and I had several wonderful dinners together. Tragically, he died yesterday, but his legacy will stay on. The people of Macarthur are very grateful for his service, and he'll remain in our memory. He remains in the memory of all those who served in the Hawke and Keating governments as a man true to his word, an honest man and a highly intelligent, principled person who gave lots of very good advice to young Labor members like myself over many, many years. We lost a giant. Anzac Day 45 13:33 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I commend those comments. It's only 26 days until Anzac Day, and this will be my last opportunity in the chamber to actually say something before Anzac Day rather than after. It has become perhaps our most important national day, and I'm looking forward to 25 April and being out and about in my electorate to commemorate service. The day commemorates the day that Australian troops landed at Gallipoli, but it has become so much more than that. It's the day when we remember particularly the service of those who gave their lives and were injured in battle and the service of those who put their name on the line for Australia. Each year, I do an Anzac brochure. I try to share stories of battles and provide new experiences and learnings to the people of Grey so that they can go on this journey with me. This year, we're focusing on World War I and the Battle of Passchendaele at Ypres, in Belgium, and on the clearing of Huon Peninsula, in New Guinea, which was after the Kokoda Track and Milne Bay but in those years when we were still trying to evict the enemy from the lands close to Australia. I will be in Clare for the dawn service, and then after that I'll go down to Ardrossan for the 11 o'clock march. Tasmania 45 13:34 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons This week in the Tasmanian parliament illustrates in stark relief why a change in government in my home state cannot come quickly enough—a Liberal health and hospital ambulance ramping crisis, a Liberal schools crisis, a Liberal housing and homelessness crisis, a Liberal public transport crisis, and now, completely tipping the scale, the latest in a long line of Liberal integrity scandals. This week, disturbing evidence has been presented of serious irregularities in Tasmania's harness racing industry, with the Liberal Premier and his accident-prone minister asleep at the wheel and the racing director, a former Liberal staffer mired in controversy. The Mercury newspaper reported, David Killick, wrote a brilliant column yesterday outlining the path the Liberal spin doctors will undoubtedly take in trying to deflect and delay. I encourage all to read it. I can't help but compare the failures of the Liberal Premier with the strength and unwavering leadership of the Tasmanian Labor leader, Rebecca White. Rebecca White is a tireless defender of the public interest, standing up every day for better health services, better schools, lower power prices and integrity in government. She knows it takes guts to lead and she has what it takes. Tasmanians go to the polls in two years. It's time to throw out a tired and incompetent Liberal government, mired in controversy and elect a Rebecca White Labor government. Goldstein Electorate: Bayside Community Emergency Relief 46 13:26 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Bayside Community Emergency Relief has grown from an idea in 2019 to now providing much-needed assistance for people struggling under the cost-of-living crisis. Established by Goldstein resident Deb Brook, it's now providing food and other essentials to people in need, not only in bayside Melbourne but elsewhere. My supporters and I are in the midst of a food drive to help, with a cost-of-living forum where we're asking people to bring along non-perishable items for distribution. Deb points out that it is simple things like breakfast bars that are top of the list because when people haven't eaten for some time, they need immediate energy while their food package is being put together. Protein is then top of the list—tins of fish, baked beans, tinned stew—and also carbs—pasta and rice. My team and I have surveyed Goldstein residents, who have said things like, 'I can't afford to heat my home this winter. I am working part-time, watching my super deteriorate and noticing price increases for everything I use and eat.' People are tightening their spending, our business earnings are down by at least 50 per cent and it's time to introduce a super profits tax on gas and coal producers—real stories from life in 2023. From little things big things grow. Thank you Deb Brook and Bayside Community Emergency Relief. Goldstein will do its best to help. Sinhalese New Year 46 13:37 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Sinhalese New Year, or Aluth Avurudhu, is one of the most significant cultural festivals celebrated in Sri Lanka and around the world. It's a time of great joy and celebration for the Sinhalese people and a time to seek blessings for the year ahead. The festivities for the new year last for several days and include a range of cultural activities such as lighting oil lamps, playing traditional games and preparing special foods. It's an opportunity for the Sinhalese community to display our rich culture and traditions to the wider community. It provides an occasion for people to come together regardless of their backgrounds to celebrate a shared heritage and to promote mutual respect and understanding. It's also a time for families to come together and celebrate the start of the new year, with traditions and rituals that have been passed down for generations. I encourage my colleagues and my constituents to join in celebrating Sinhalese new year and take the opportunity to learn more about the cultural richness of Sri Lankan Australians. Once again, happy new year to the Sinhalese community in my electorate of Holt and across Australia. Suba aluth auruddhak wewaa—may this festival bring peace, prosperity, and happiness to you all. Health Care 46 13:39 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong The Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights gives all Australians the right to safe high-quality health care. Our national cabinet promised to protect the vulnerable from the COVID-19 pandemic. This promise has not been kept. Yesterday Sue Jennings, a constituent of Kooyong and co-founder with Amy Lewis of Cleaner Air Australia, contacted me to express her concern about the removal of masks from healthcare settings. There are no longer any legal requirements for healthcare workers to wear protective masks. All pandemic orders have now expired. Chronically ill, disabled and elderly Australians can avoid restaurants, shops and travel to protect themselves from COVID but they have no choice about accessing health care, where they are now at high risk of hospital acquired infections. If you go to hospital for something unrelated to COVID but you are infected with it while in hospital your risk of dying from it is one in 10. This is more than 50 times the community mortality rate for COVID. It's an unacceptable and unnecessary risk. The COVID pandemic is not over. There are more than 400 Australians on ventilators with COVID today. Forty of them will die from it. On behalf of all vulnerable Australians, I ask the Albanese government to urgently review its public health measures in response and in regard to COVID-19. Trade: Investor-State Dispute Settlement 46 13:40 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Imagine the breakfast table trauma in WA this morning with people grabbing a copy of the West Australian only to be confronted by the special combo of Clive Palmer and Christian Porter. Now that is some kind of dream team there. Clive Palmer wants to rip off WA to the tune of $300 billion and Christian Porter is trying to help him achieve that using a dodgy international tribunal system called ISDS. We know the coalition loves Clive Palmer. They supported his legal action against WA when Christian Porter was the Attorney-General. We know the coalition loves investor-state dispute settlement arrangements, the dodgy system known as ISDS through which multinational companies try to override public policy in areas like health, the environment and workers' rights; the system that allows billionaires and multinationals to have a go at ripping money out of the public purse. That's what Clive Palmer is trying to do with Christian Porter's help, take the Western Australian community to the cleaners for $300 billion. I have no idea why those opposite think it's clever to undermine Australian sovereignty in that way, but already this year members opposite have brought motions supporting ISDS. You have to ask: whose side are they on? I can tell you we are not going to do Clive Palmer's bidding on this side of politics and we're not going to roll over for multinationals who want to take Australia for a ride. They can keep Christian Porter and they can keep Clive Palmer. On this side of the House we're going to back Western Australia and we're going to make sure that multinationals and billionaires don't use these dodgy tribunals to rip money out of the public purse. Budget 47 13:42 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon The next time the parliament sits it's going to be for the handing down of the budget. We've seen members of the government come into this place with their Expenditure Review Committee folders. They're going through them. I want to use this opportunity to remind the government of what the people of Wannon want to see in the budget in May. Their No. 1 priority is for the government to restore the $40 million they ripped from our roads in the October budget. It's one of the most shameful decisions I've ever seen. I have asked the Prime Minister to come down and drive on our roads, so he can understand the heartbreak, the trauma, the despair that people are facing as they drive on our roads daily in the knowledge that the government ripped $40 million from our roads. We saw a winter like we haven't seen before. We've seen the roads devastated. They weren't in great shape. And now they need extra funding into them. So in the budget in May the government needs to restore that $40 million of funding as a priority. If they don't then Prime Minister Anthony Albanese needs to come down and drive on those roads and explain why he has ripped $40 million from our roads. No Limits Perth 47 13:43 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce No Limits Perth is a not-for-profit organisation in my electorate of Pearce that brings out the best in humanity, helping members of the community in crisis. This community based group helps victims of domestic violence, vulnerable families with children, the elderly and anyone doing it tough. No Limits Perth provides food, preloved furniture, toiletries and basic essentials, and relies on the support of the community, local businesses and volunteers, as well as schools and churches. For example, it receives donations of meals cooked by school food science classes, food collected by OzHarvest food rescue and furniture from businesses and individuals. I would like to recognise the kindness and decency of the cofounders, Janine Wood, Belinda Hawes and Debbie Jordaan, who are truly inspirational human beings. Janine and the team are always ready to help, stepping in and stepping up when our community needs them. No limits Perth has recently helped a number of people who have been referred by my electorate office. I'm thankful for the seamless manner in which Janine and her team reach out with kindness and compassion. They consistently say they are restoring love, faith and hope one random act of kindness at a time. I thank them for their very important work in helping and supporting others. Aston Electorate: By-election 47 13:45 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies This Saturday, the voters for Aston will place their trust in a new member. Roshena Campbell is my friend and our Liberal candidate. Roshena has the experience to do the job. She is a successful barrister and councillor, with a track record of getting things done. This by-election is also an opportunity to send Labor a message on their cuts to local road funding and to do more to tackle the rising cost of living. The by-election won't change the government, but it will be an important choice about who has the right skills and experience to be a good representative, and that's Roshena. In their first budget, Labor cut funding for local projects in Aston, including the Dorset Road extension, Wellington Road duplication, Napoleon Road duplication and Rowville rail. In response, Knox City Council said: Melbourne's outer east has been shafted by the Australian Government which has axed major road and public transport infrastructure projects desperately needed to improve safety and ease congestion. Roshena is connected to this area and has rented a home in Knox, unlike Labor's candidate, who does not live in the electorate and has not committed to moving in. This by-election is about who is most qualified to do the job, and that's Roshena. She also has the character to be an outstanding member of this House. AUKUS 48 13:46 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon AUKUS is a crucial technology-sharing partnership between Australia, the UK and the US, and it will deliver Australia's first nuclear powered and conventionally armed submarines. This is the single biggest defence investment we have ever embarked on. It is also an investment in our industrial complex. So it's understandable that a lot of the attention has been on the submarine element, which is pillar 1. It is true that Darwin will continue to provide a forward operating base for submarine operations. However, technological and innovation dividends will also come in a big way from pillar 2 of AUKUS, and that shouldn't be underestimated, particularly for the jobs and development it will drive in the NT. The NT economy is already gearing up to reap the benefits of AUKUS, both pillar 1 and pillar 2. In pillar 2, for example, last year the Northern Territory government, Charles Darwin University, RMIT and the federal government established the first defence and aerospace industry 4.0 digital test lab at Charles Darwin University. This was a decision ahead of its time that will transform the northern Australian workforce. This initiative will upskill Territorians and prepare them to meet those job opportunities of the future. AUKUS pillar 1 and pillar 2 are great for Australia. Longman Electorate: Mobile Black Spot Program 48 13:48 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I was extremely disappointed to see that the Longman community were neglected by this Labor government in the last round of the mobile black spot funding, despite the need for better mobile coverage in our community being enormous. Longman is one of those electorates in the country where the city meets the bush. We have blocks ranging from 300 square metres up to thousands of acres of farming land. Unfortunately, the areas in Longman that qualify for black spot funding, such as Woodford, D'Aguilar, Mount Mee, Stanmore, Toorbul, Donnybrook, Sandstone Point and Beachmere, were snubbed in this latest round. Many of these areas have a higher-than-average age cohort that rely on mobile connectivity for medical alert devices, not to mention that communities like Woodford and D'Aguilar are regularly devastated by flood events, where mobile connectivity is crucial. Mobile coverage truly can be the difference between life and death. Out of the 54 locations in the nation that received the funding, 40 were in Labor seats, which is 74 per cent. This is despite the fact that Labor hold only around 30 per cent of seats eligible for black spot funding. To put porkbarrelling and politics before the needs of the Longman community is reprehensible. The people of Longman deserve better treatment than this from this Labor government. I'm asking the minister to intervene and relook at her decision and redirect some of this funding to the Longman community that I serve, because they deserve it just as much as any Labor held seat. Victoria: Aston By-Election 48 13:49 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm This Saturday, the voters of Aston in the beautiful eastern suburbs of Melbourne have an important choice at the ballot box when voting in the by-election. This election is a choice between a strong, local voice in government, Mary Doyle, or a blow-in from Brunswick who would be part of a bitter opposition under an angry leader, who, when he does offer something up to the parliament, it is usually just the word no. And in a previous role, it was dangerous, divisive rhetoric and a GP tax. I think that the good people of Aston deserve better than Peter Dutton. They deserve a representative like Mary, who'll be an excellent advocate for her community and who would be part of a team doing all we can to address cost-of-living pressures. Already we've introduced cheaper medicines and over 5,000 families in Aston will benefit from cheaper child care. We're also building great jobs in the east—great, secure, well-paid jobs through the National Reconstruction Fund—and we're driving skills through fee-free TAFE. We've invested $6 million in a business case for a Caulfield to Rowville Trackless Rapid Transit system. It's a big choice for Aston on Saturday, and I really hope that we can welcome Mary to Canberra. McPherson Electorate: Australian Bravery Declarations 48 13:51 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson The Australian Bravery Declarations are awarded annually to those who display courage and bravery to protect others. This year, 22 commendations for brave conduct were awarded, including to Gregory John Anderson from Robina and to Palm Beach's Lucas Glenn Short. Mr Anderson was commended for his attempted rescue of a man from a rip at Currumbin in 2020. After escaping a rip while swimming, he and another swimmer assisted an elderly man to safety. When they noticed another swimmer was missing, Mr Anderson went back in. The man was brought to shore and CPR was performed. Unfortunately, the swimmer passed away. Mr Short was commended for his actions in rescuing two swimmers in New South Wales in 2022. Mr Short was with a friend when they saw a young girl and her father caught in a rip. He paddled out to reach them and guided them to safety. His friend had also gone out to assist, but got caught in the rip. Mr Short went back in and paddled his friend back to the beach, where he was treated by ambulance officers. I commend these brave men for their courage and selflessness in rescuing others in very dangerous conditions. Our community is proud of you both and inspired by your very brave actions. Hayston, Detective Superintendent Martin 49 13:52 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Detective Superintendent Martin Hayston from Burwood Local Area Command will mark 30 years of service on 26 April. He has dedicated his professional life to keeping us safe. Anyone who knows him will tell you that under that blue uniform there is an officer with heart—someone who cares deeply about protecting our community. He says one of the most emotionally difficult assignments he was on was a bus crash in 2009 at Lucas Heights. A car collided with a school bus. The car's passenger was trapped in the vehicle, and the driver died at the scene. The busload of young students was left traumatised, with some suffering injuries. Detective Superintendent Hayston was there to comfort and protect them all. He has led major operations, including a strike force to break a major crime syndicate in Fairfield. It was a complex operation lasting months and involving hundreds of officers. In recognition of his bravery, leadership and service, he has been awarded the New South Wales Police Diligent and Ethical Service Medal, the National Medal and the National Police Service Medal. An avid runner, Detective Superintendent Hayston will be celebrating his 30 years of service by competing in the Berlin marathon. On behalf of our local community, I want to thank Detective Superintendent Martin Hayston for his years of service. Barwick, Councillor Heather 49 13:53 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass A few weeks ago, a number of wonderful women were inducted into the Tasmanian Honour Roll of Women. Today, I'd like to acknowledge one special inductee: Councillor Heather Barwick. It would be difficult to find a person in my local area of Georgetown who doesn't know Heather. Heather was first elected to the Georgetown Council in March 1989 and is the longest-continuously-serving counsellor. She also served as deputy mayor for two years and was the first female Mayor of Georgetown from 1995 to 1997. Last year, at the age of 83, Heather successfully stood for re-election, with the belief that not being re-elected would be the only acceptable age to retire. She is now in her seventh term as a councillor. I met Heather when I first joined the George Town Council in 2009 and I've learned so much from a woman committed to her community. Heather is also an absolute force. In my time on the council, particularly as mayor, we have had our differences, but I deeply admire this woman and her commitment to our community. I also say 'good luck' to anyone wanting to pull the wool over her eyes; Heather remembers everything. Councillor Barwick, you have tirelessly worked to improve the lives of your community and have also been a trailblazer and strong role model for the women who have come after you. We are very fortunate to have you. Thank you for your tremendous work over the past 33 years, and congratulations on your induction into the Tasmanian Honour Roll of Women. Corangamite Electorate: Rip Curl Pro 49 13:55 Ms CO 263547 Corangamite KER () (): I'm excited because Bells Beach will once again host the World Surf League's Rip Curl Pro. Its natural amphitheatre and massive Easter swell makes the Rip Curl Pro one of the world's most iconic sporting events—and it's held right in the heart of my electorate of Corangamite on the Great Ocean Road. This year marks the event's 60th anniversary, with the world's best surfers battling it out for the ultimate prize—the Bells Beach trophy. But as veteran Kelly Slater and our own awesome Steph Gilmore know, you've got to win it to ring it! This is the event that puts our region and our nation on the map. It attracts crowds of 50,000 and more than 10 million digital viewers across the globe. It's a huge economic boost for Torquay, Surf Coast, Bellarine and all of Victoria. The organisers have once again announced free entry to local residents and Surfing Victoria members, and they're putting support behind local vendors, food vendors and local jobs. I extend my congratulations to organisers, including Surfing Vic, the WSL and the Surf Coast Shire. It's also time to congratulate Ellie Harrison from Barwon Heads. She is an amazing local talent who has made it to the YF WSL Challenger Series. I have no doubt that one day we will be watching her at the Rip Curl Pro. So this Easter, come down to Bell's—it promises to be an awesome swell and a fierce battle to win it and ring it. Albanese Government 49 13:57 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff What a week! A week full of more broken promises from this Albanese government. In the last seven days we've witnessed disgraceful behaviour from some of those opposite in this chamber and against coalition women. The Prime Minister promised a more respectful workplace, and yet in less than 12 months his government's behaviour has been anything but respectful. But what you expect from a government so untrustworthy that they've broken promises to the Australian people? They've broken more than they have kept. Labor promised to cut your electricity bill by $275—broken promise. Labor promised cheaper mortgages—broken promise. Labor promised no changes to super—broken promise. Labor promised lower inflation—broken promise. Labor said they wouldn't touch franking credits—broken promise. Labor said, 'Industry bargaining is not part of our policy'—broken promise. Labor said they'll do their bit to assist real wage increases. Labor said they are not about raising taxes—broken promise. The PM once said, 'If you make a promise and a commitment, you do have to stick to it.' So why won't this Prime Minister stand up now and be honest with the Australian people, who deserve better than this two-faced Labor government. Housing Australia Future Fund 50 13:58 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Labor took a suite of housing affordability policies to last year's election. We sought and received a mandate to deliver them—30,000 new affordable and social homes with the Housing Australia Fund and a further 10,000 with the National Housing Accord, supported by the states and territories. Our policies will provide more affordable and social housing for those who need it. That is why it is so outstanding to see the Greens political party side with the Liberals on our housing policies. The Greens' refusal to support this bill this fortnight puts them in lockstep with the Liberals. Their unholy coalition will only hurt the most vulnerable members in our community. It will now take longer to build homes for veterans and people fleeing domestic violence because of the Greens and the Liberals. It's so infuriating to see a political party that talks big game on housing and social justice not support this bill in the House and then delay it in the Senate. Over the break I would encourage the leader of the Greens to take over negotiations with the government on this bill. Clearly, whatever the member for Griffith is doing is just not working. I'd encourage the Greens and the Liberals to listen to all the major community housing associations across the country, who all agree that this bill should be passed as a matter of urgency. Every day that the Greens and Liberals delay this bill is another day that hurts the most vulnerable in our community. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living 50 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how many Australian families have received payments to date from the Prime Minister's so-called Energy Price Relief Plan? Honourable members interjecting— The S 53517 Order! Members on my right. The Treasurer will cease interjecting. 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler As we have said, the Energy Price Relief Plan will be included in the budget. The figures will be there— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Minister for Skills and Training will cease interjecting. Members on my left. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 and those opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, voted against it. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 50 14:01 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Minister, how is the government advancing the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through the establishment of the Voice? 14:01 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I thank the member for Lingiari for her question and her immense support through what has been a remarkable process. The Constitution is the founding legal document of our nation. For 65,000 years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been speaking more than 300 languages. But, under our Constitution, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have had no voice, no say in the matters that affected our communities. For far too long governments have made decisions for Indigenous Australians and not with Indigenous Australians. As Nathan Appo said today: 'Our people are living in poverty. They need a voice. We need recognition. We need a voice to the parliament. We've seen over years and years of changing government how we've had to travel down and fight just to exist—for our people, for our elders.' Today my friend the Attorney-General introduced the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) Bill 2023 into the parliament. It sets out the question and constitutional amendment that will be put to the Australian people at a referendum later this year. It's a simple question: A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration? It's a simple question, a matter from the heart. It's the culmination of so much consultation and hard work. I want to thank members of the referendum working group, the referendum engagement group—some of whom have joined us here today—and the legal expert group, for their wisdom and their dedication. I want to finish with this quote from Noel Pearson, and I ask everyone to listen to this: Now is the time for us to act as Australians. Not as Labor people, not as Greens, not as Liberal or National party people … not as indigenous and non-Indigenous people, but as Australians. Because what we are trying to achieve here is unity. We want inclusion. This will do it. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 51 14:04 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Is there any issue on which the Voice will not be able to provide advice to government? And is the Prime Minister able to factually respond without taking personal offence to reasonable questions and without his usual indignation? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left, the member for Groom and members on my right! The question was in order. I give the call to the Prime Minister. 14:05 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I keep the Uluru Statement from the Heart, framed, on the wall of my office. It uses such an economy of words, but it demonstrates such a generosity of spirit. It is a patient, gracious call to hear the First Peoples of Australia—for them to have a say. The concluding words of the statement are these: We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. This is an invitation to all of us as Australians, right across Australia. And I do see more and more Australians taking up this invitation. On 17 April, I'll be with a former member of this place, the former Liberal member for Macarthur, Pat Farmer. Pat Farmer is, of course, an ultramarathoner and fitter than anyone who is still here now! He is going to run 14,000 kilometres in a six-month run around Australia in support of constitutional recognition and a voice to parliament. That's 80 kilometres a day, beginning in Hobart. He will be seen off by the Tasmanian Premier—who I've spoken to, about him being in attendance—and the Tasmanian opposition leader, as well. Pat will pass through every state and territory. Yesterday, the Collingwood Football Club announced their support. In a statement, they said this: The Board's support for a First Nations Voice to Parliament is a natural progression of our commitment to doing and being better. Many, many other groups— The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Ms Ley 00AMN On relevance, Mr Speaker: I thank the Prime Minister for his calm manner. However, he is not addressing any part of the question at all, which is about issues on which the Voice will not be able to provide advice. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The question was about the issues surrounding the Voice and advice to the government. I'm listening carefully to the Prime Minister. He has provided some background context, and I'll ask him to return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 It also went to the nature of the way that I'm answering the question. If the deputy leader didn't want that, then she should have framed the question in a less personal way. What I do note is that, overwhelmingly, there is goodwill from school groups, community groups, local councils—all want to be a part of the historic, unifying moment. There are sporting organisations; leaders of every faith in Australia; seven religious charities, including St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army; minerals groups like BHP, Rio Tinto, Origin and Wesfarmers; NAB, the Commonwealth Bank, ANZ; Woolworths and Coles. All of these bodies are uniting for a better Australia—uniting in a positive way. I'd say that those people of goodwill will continue to advocate for a 'yes' campaign when the referendum is held. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 52 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Youth Advisory Groups, Thailand: Parliamentary Delegation, Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Parliamentary Delegation 52 14:09 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are committee members of the government's youth advisory groups. I give a very warm welcome to our young visitors. I'm also pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a visiting delegation of members from the Thai parliament; and also the 24th delegation from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, led by His Excellency Ngo Van Cuong. On behalf of the House, I give a warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 52 14:09 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills My question is to the Treasurer. What is the focus of the Albanese Labor government's second budget, and how will it deliver for Australians and their economy? And what challenges does the budget have to deal with? 14:09 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Wills for his question, and I acknowledge the youth advisory groups who have joined us in the parliament today. Welcome; we're very pleased to see you. Mr Speaker, as you know, this is the last sitting day before a budget which will be finalised against the backdrop of inflation, which is moderating but still unacceptably high, and in an environment of global economic uncertainty. This week I spoke with US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and European Central Bank's Christine Lagarde, ahead of our discussions with G20 economic ministers and central bank governors in a couple of weeks in Washington DC. That will help us understand the global conditions as we put the finishing touches on the budget. International authorities are working closely together to do what's necessary to reassure markets and provide some extra liquidity into the banking system, and that has had a calming effect on markets. This morning I convened the Council of Financial Regulators, and their message is very clear: our banks are well capitalised, well regulated and well placed to deal with this uncertainty. Our authorities are confident but not complacent about these conditions, and we are vigilant as a government. But volatility in financial markets, combined with the war in Ukraine and the impact of higher interest rates, is creating uncertainty around the world in the global economy. We've got a lot going for us here—low unemployment, good prices for our exports, strong banks. But we've got a lot coming at us as well. Australians are still under the pump, and we understand that. Inflation is, as I said, unacceptably high, but it's clearly moderating in welcome ways as well. The Reserve Bank board will weigh all this up when they take their decision independently on Tuesday. Our job in this environment is to provide relief and repair and show restraint in the budget, when there's a trillion dollars in Liberal debt to deal with and billions of dollars of unfunded programs as well. The budget will put a premium on what's responsible and affordable and sustainable. It will be all about cost-of-living relief, including energy bill relief which those opposite voted against. It will invest in the care economy and decent services. It will fund our national security priorities. It'll fix our supply chains so we can grow our economy the right way. It will begin to break down the barriers to women's participation in the economy. It will try and tackle entrenched disadvantage in local communities, at the same time as we get the budget under control and clean up the mess that we inherited from those opposite. The budget will be all about providing security in these uncertain economic times, so that we give Australians the help they need and the economic future they deserve. I look forward to handing down the budget from this dispatch box in 40 days time. Youpla Group Funeral Benefits Program 52 14:12 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday I met with the elders from Save Sorry Business, using their voice to seek compensation for the harm caused by the failed Youpla ACBF scheme. So many trusted and invested in this scheme because they thought it was government endorsed, through Centrelink. The collapse of this scheme has delayed families being able to put loved ones to rest. Will the Prime Minister listen to the voice of these elders and pay compensation to so many affected in the May budget? 14:13 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I thank the member for Warringah for her question. I, too, was at the meeting you referred to, and I thank the Speaker for welcoming the members of the Save Sorry Business coalition into the Speaker's rooms yesterday. What happened in Youpla, previously known as the Aboriginal benefits fund, was a disgrace. It wasn't for Aboriginal people, it wasn't for the benefit of Aboriginal people and it wasn't run by them. What we saw over a period upwards of 30 years was Aboriginal people being flogged dodgy insurance products, manipulating their concern to ensure their funerals were paid for. It was a disgrace. It was why one of the first things the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and myself acted upon when we came into government was to ensure we could put in place an interim arrangement. When we came to government, there were bodies in morgues because the company had collapsed and could not afford to bury them. Our first act when we came into government was to put in place an interim scheme to make sure that we could get those bodies out of morgues and that families could bury their loved ones. Over the course of this week there has been a lot of discussion about the sorts of things Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should have a voice to parliament on. I can only think that if, over the last 30 years, we had been listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, we would not have let this scheme go on for so long and we would've ensured that the people the member for Warringah has drawn our attention to had their issues dealt with and that this scheme was closed down. The government is committed to ensuring we put in place an enduring solution for these people, but in the meantime we'll ensure the funerals get paid for. The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the member for Warringah on a point of order. Ms Steggall 175696 Relevance; it was directly relating to the May budget. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister has concluded his answer. Gender Pay Gap 53 14:15 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women: what action is the Albanese Labor government taking to help close the gender pay gap? 14:16 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank very much the member for Holt for her question but also for her longstanding advocacy for equality for women. All of us in this place agree Australian women deserve fair and safe working conditions. They deserve equal opportunity and equal remuneration for their efforts. I'm very pleased to report this House has passed the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023, and I thank all members for their support for that. It fulfils a major election commitment to close the gender pay gap at work, including by boosting pay gap transparency and encouraging action to close gender pay gaps within organisations. These reforms will be a key driver for employer action, transparency and accountability and will help speed up progress towards gender equality in our workplaces while at the same time streamlining reporting for employers. For the first time the Workplace Gender Equality Agency will report gender pay gaps at the employer level, not just the industry level. It will certainly help encourage companies to prioritise gender equality and to work to close their gender pay gap, and it will accelerate progress towards gender equality. It will give us more information about gender pay gaps and put employers on notice to take action. 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, and it is very pleasing to note that this place and the Senate have agreed that that is too long. The average weekly full-time earnings of a woman in Australia across all industries and occupations is lower than the equivalent for men by $253.50 per week. We see a gender pay gap from the moment women enter the workforce and a gender pay gap accumulated over our lifetimes, and it has real consequences. Women have on average 23.4 per cent less super when they come to retirement age than men. The gender pay gap is also holding our economy back, with $51.8 billion a year lost when it comes to women's pay. This bill, now passed through both houses, is a critical step towards achieving women's economic participation and women's equality. The bill is getting on with the job of closing the gender pay gap for women in Australia. I thank very much everyone in this place for the passage of this bill, but also it has taken a majority Labor government to get this done and to start to finally close the gender pay gap for women in this country. Taxation 53 14:19 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Mr TAYLOR 231027 Will the Prime Minister rule out any changes in the budget to the tax treatment of work expenses? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I could not hear the shadow Treasurer's question. Out of respect for him, I'm going to ask him to repeat it so I can hear, and the whole chamber can hear, the question. Mr TAYLOR 231027 Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rule out any changes in the budget to the tax treatment of work expenses? 14:19 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Like other governments in the past, what we will do is hand down our budget— Mr ALBANESE R36 in 40 days time, the Treasurer said—it will be a good one. What we'll be aiming at doing there is addressing the short-term pressures that are on cost of living. And you'll see those measures, including our energy price relief plan, including, of course, the other plans budgeted for: cheaper child care, cheaper medicines—all of those measures. But you'll also see the funding of plans that are based upon dealing with the medium- and longer-term challenges in our economy—dealing with the pressures that are on the health system; dealing with pressures that are on supply chains, through our National Reconstruction Fund; dealing with skills and making sure that people can get appropriate training and education going forward as well. Mr Taylor 231027 Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Moreton! Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? Mr Albanese R36 I want to see what he says. The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the member for Hume on his point of order. Mr Taylor 231027 It's relevance, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question. We don't need pixie dust. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume knows that that is not an appropriate use of the standing order and that he has the MPI today. The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I was surprised to see them taking a point on relevance. Never have an opposition worked so hard to make themselves irrelevant—on every issue— The 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 and I predict this about our budget next month: whatever's in it, you'll be against it! Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! When the House— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Moreton is warned. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! When the House comes to order— A government member: He wasn't doing anything. The SPEAKER 53517 well, he would have done something today—I'll hear from the member for Swan. Climate Change: Safeguard Mechanism 54 14:22 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How will passage of the Albanese government's safeguard reforms progress action on climate change and deliver a strong economy? Are there any obstacles to these reforms? 14:22 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I recognise the expertise and experience of the member for Swan in climate change and resources, and I appreciate her counsel as well as her question. I'm very pleased to inform the member for Swan and the House that just before question time the government's safeguard legislation passed the Australian Senate, 32 votes to 26. Government members: Hear, hear! Mr BOWEN DZS What the parliament has done today is safeguard our climate, safeguard our economy and safeguard our future. What the parliament has done today is draw to an end 10 years of dysfunction and 10 years of delay. What the parliament has done today is start the Australian industrial economy on the road to decarbonisation. We can now get on with the job of reducing our emissions by 43 per cent. We can now get on with the job of creating jobs of the future in a decarbonised economy. That's what this parliament has done today. I've met, even today, with chief executives of Australian industry who've told me that now they have the certainty to make investments which will reduce carbon and create jobs. Now they have the certainty, they've told me and the government, and they are keen to get on with it. I want to thank the Senate. I want to thank the Greens senators. I want to thank Senator Lambie, Senator Tyrrell, Senator Thorpe and Senator Pocock. A vote of 32 to 26 and a vote in the House of 87 to 55 means that this parliament reflects the will of the Australian people to take action on climate. I was asked if there were any obstacles. Well, there were a few. There is a rump of irrelevance, but that rump of irrelevance has been overcome. The numbers in the House and the Senate reflect a broad coalition. The government's policy has been supported by the Business Council of Australia and the Climate Council, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and groups right across the board. The Albanese government knows how to build coalitions. The coalition has forgotten. There's a broad coalition in favour of support and a little coalition fighting on against action on climate change. For too long in this country, the government of the day weaponised climate policy to divide Australians, pitting Australians in the regions against Australians in the cities. This government uses climate to unite Australians in our great national endeavour to reduce emissions and create the jobs of the future in the regions right across Australia—the great regions that power Australia. Those regions will be at the centre of our renewable economy. This government gets on with the job and gets over 10 years of denial and delay. Energy 55 14:25 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Under government modelling, how much will electricity prices increase for households and businesses from the safeguard mechanism? 14:25 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Zero, because the electricity sector is not covered by the safeguard mechanism. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting immediately, as will the member for Groom—he shall be warned as well—so I can hear from the member for McEwen. Manufacturing Industry 55 14:26 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is for the Minister for Industry and Science. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitment to support Australian manufacturers and create jobs? What opposition has there been to these efforts? 14:26 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Thanks to the member for McEwen for the question and also for his service as the chair of the House of Representatives Committee on Industry, Science and Resources. When you talk with any Australian manufacturing worker, the one thing that stands out in them is pride. They are proud of what they make. They're proud of the products they are making and proud that they're making a contribution to the economy. They're proud of what they're doing for exporting. And they're proud to make a difference in someone's life. A lot of us know this firsthand because we're the sons and daughters of manufacturing workers. We've seen it in our own families. The $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund that got the support of the parliament this week is not just providing growth capital for those firms; it's sending an important signal. It's Australians backing Australians. It is about the fact that we've got the backs of Australian manufacturing workers and their businesses, and that modern economies, especially big economies, need a strong manufacturing capability running through them. Manufacturing matters. It creates secure jobs, and it's not just in our cities but in our regions as well. For example, in Victoria more than a quarter of manufacturing jobs are in the regions. In New South Wales, it's 35 per cent. In Queensland, it's over 40 per cent. The NRF should be a platform to create secure jobs in sectors and activities like value-adding in resources, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, defence, renewables and low-emission technologies, medical sciences, and advanced manufacturing. This is creating work—from boilermakers through to bioengineers; from designers through to fitters and turners, medical scientists, warehouse managers, software experts, technicians and more. We want the NRF to have a strong regional impact. When you listened carefully to the Liberal and National lines used to attack manufacturing and the National Reconstruction Fund, you didn't feel as though they were talking about us. You thought it was more about them. It was Liberal and National MPs talking about jobs for mates. It was Liberal and National MPs talking about slush funds. It was Liberal and National MPs talking about politically motivated projects in marginal seats. The sad reality is that they're talking about the way they did business. That's the way they looked at it. I'm sad to inform the Liberal and National parties that their business model is finished. Drawing on the greats like Monty Python, I can say that it's a 'dead parrot' of a business model. It has joined the 'choir invisible'. It is gone. We are done with doing that. It is about an independent board making decisions free of colour coded spreadsheets, about not doing business in the way that you did it and, importantly, about backing Australian manufacturing, because that— (Time expired) Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! When the House comes to order, I'll hear from the member for Casey. Cost of Living 56 14:29 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey My question is to the Prime Minister. More and more Australians are having to make difficult decisions to make ends meet. UnitingCare have told the Senate's inquiry into Labor's cost-of-living crisis that they're witnessing a surge in first-time support recipients who they describe as double-income-earning families finding themselves at risk of poverty, homelessness and financial stress. When will this out-of-touch Prime Minister finally admit to Australian families that they will always pay more under Labor? 14:30 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Casey for his question. The fact is that we are taking action to address cost-of-living pressures. We know that inflation is causing pressures in households in the member's electorate and in electorates right around Australia. That's why we've introduced cheaper medicines, why we're having cheaper child care, why we've got fee-free TAFE—and I've certainly visited the TAFE areas in the member's electorate, in fact, in the past and know the good work that they do. I'll tell you what we won't do, though. What we will do as a Labor government is always protect people who are vulnerable, and that stands in stark contrast to what those opposite did, which was to establish an illegal scheme, robodebt, which attacked the most vulnerable. That's the contrast between this government and the former government. Sandra Bevan, who appeared at the royal commission, is a single mum of four sons who received a $3,000 Centrelink debt letter— The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, on relevance: you've previously directed the Prime Minister back to the topic of the question when he has veered off it, as he has. This is a question about the cost-of-living crisis and UnitingCare. The SPEAKER 53517 I want to deal with this issue. At the end of these questions, there is a tag question about who pays more under which government. If that is part of the question, when that's included, that's inviting a comparison, and it's also an invitation to talk broadly about who does pay more or less under which government. So, if you don't want that part answered, don't include that in the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 This is what Sandra Bevan had to say: … it was these threats of taking money directly out of my pay or out of my bank account, from my tax return. … it was … such a weight on my shoulders. … I do remember driving home at night just beside myself with worry about this money and thinking— to quote her— I could just drive my car into a tree and make it stop … My kids needed me. They had already lost their dad. And I was trying my best to … keep the roof over our head. Matthew Thompson appeared at the commission as well. He, incorrectly, was told he owed $11,000. He said this: The Robodebt Scheme has had a lasting effect on me … as it has on many others. It … made my mental health worse. It made me feel like a criminal and a cheat. He said: It really messed me up. He said, 'The ministers who gave evidence were referred to as "the honourable", but, given what they said or did, I don't think they are honourable, and I don't think they deserve to be called "honourable".' The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition needs to cease interjecting; otherwise, action will be taken. Mr ALBANESE R36 He said: They were the architects of the Scheme which has caused so much pain to so many people and which has caused some people to lose their lives. That is a direct result of what those opposite did. That's a different approach that we have towards people who are vulnerable in our community. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Lyons is warned! I can't be clearer about interjecting when someone is about to ask a question. If this happens one more time, you'll be ejected from the chamber. Gambling 57 14:34 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question as to the Minister for Communications. What is the Albanese government doing to protect vulnerable Australians from gambling harms, including gambling-like features in video games? 14:35 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for her question. In only 10 months, the Albanese government has taken a range of important steps to minimise harm from gambling. We have implemented three long-overdue elements of the national consumer protection framework. Mandatory monthly activity statements came in last year, and, from today, new evidence based tag lines with messages about the potential harms of gambling must be in place as well as training for online wagering staff. Yesterday, I announced the government will seek the agreement of the states and territories to introduce mandatory minimum classifications for games with gambling-like features. Research commissioned by my department has found concerning associations between gambling-like features in games and harm, including problem gambling. Games with simulated gambling will be classified R18+, restricted to those 18 and over, and games containing paid loot boxes, where a player can purchase a virtual box with a randomised prize inside, will attract an M rating. We know Australians value the classification framework, and these new ratings will send a strong message that there are risks associated with these products so consumers can make an informed choice about what they and their children watch and play. Ms ROWLAND 159771 But the classification framework is in urgent need of updating. The 2020 Stevens review, the report of which I also released yesterday, made a range of recommendations to update the framework, including on the classification of games. Those opposite received this report when they were in government back in May 2020, but they sat on it, taking no action in response to the growing body of evidence about the harms associated with gambling-like features in games. It's another example of the former government talking big about keeping Australians safe and yet failing to respond to their own review, which showed a clear need for stronger protections. In contrast, the Albanese government is acting on this as a priority. In fact, what we are proposing actually goes further than what the Stevens review recommended. The classification framework is one avenue to address harms associated with gambling-like features, and we know that we need a multifaceted approach. I therefore asked my department to examine non-classification options to further the objective of harm minimisation in this area. I note this matter is also being considered by the House inquiry into online gambling. I look forward to working with my counterparts in the states and territories to implement these changes so we can protect those most vulnerable in our community from gambling harms, including children. The SPEAKER 53517 I understand an unparliamentary term was used by the member for Cunningham. I'm going to ask her to withdraw that comment. Ms Byrnes 299145 I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member. Homelessness 57 14:38 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the Minister for— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Page is warned. The member will begin her question again. Dr HAINES 282335 My question is to the Minister for Housing. Some 2020-21 census duty released last week revealed that in Wangaratta homelessness has increased 67 per cent since 2016. With the passage of the government's Housing Australia Future Fund legislation in doubt, I'm worried we will be left without a plan to fix this urgent problem. What's your plan B to guarantee my constituents will have a roof over their heads? 14:39 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for Indi for her question. I also thank her for her constructive discussions around the Housing Australia Future Fund when we passed it through this House. I thank her for her support for that important piece of legislation. She understands that this is critical to Australia's homeless people. On census night in 2021, there were 123,000 homeless Australians. It is concerning. It should be concerning to all of us in this place. It's a really serious issue. Indeed, that is why we announced last week some important funding for homelessness services. There was over $90 million for the Reconnect service and an additional amount of $67.5 million for homelessness services in the states and territories. This of course is on top of the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, where we have just offered the states and territories an additional $1.6 billion for the next 12 months. That's $1.6 billion for the next 12 months for housing and homelessness services which we have offered to the states and territories. Of course this fits with the National Housing Accord, which was in out last budget. The National Housing Accord is for another 10,000 affordable and social homes, particularly affordable rentals, and this will be matched by the states and territories. So that's 20,000 affordable rentals from the National Housing Accord announced in our last budget. We have immediately released the $575 million from the National Infrastructure Facility, and properties are already starting to go up on the ground around Australia today because of that money. So I say to the member for Indi that I really appreciate this question and that we have a broad housing agenda. Obviously, the Housing Australia Future Fund is central to that, because it will allow us to work with other tiers of government, institutional investors and community housing providers to leverage getting more homes on the ground more quickly. That's why it's so important. As the member indicated, there are vulnerable people right across Australia today who need that legislation through the parliament. So I would say to those opposite to talk to their senators in the Senate and tell them how important this legislation is. If you're serious about housing and the housing situation in Australia today, we need that bill through the parliament. And I would say to the Greens political party that this needs to be done and needs to be done quickly. We're already delaying this because the Greens wouldn't allow us to debate it in the Senate. So I say to members of the Greens political party to go back to their electorates and tell people that houses are not on the ground today because this wasn't able to be brought on in the Senate. There are vulnerable people in Australia today who need these houses, and they need them today. Education 58 14:41 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese government doing to make sure that the next school funding agreement delivers a better and fairer education system? How is this different to previous approaches? 14:42 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank my friend the sensational member for Paterson for her question! We've got a good education system in Australia, but it could be a lot better and a lot fairer. In January, the Productivity Commission released a report that revealed if you're a child from a poor family, or from the bush, or an Indigenous Australian then you're three times more likely to fall behind at school. That report told us that over the last 10 years we've seen the reading skills of children in primary school improve but that the gap between reading skills for children from wealthy families and poor families at primary school got worse. That report also told us that if you're a child from a poor family and you go to a school where there's a lot of disadvantage then it's harder to catch up. That weighs heavily on me, because I went to a school like that. These are the sorts of problems we have to tackle. Funding is important, but so is what it's spent on, what it's invested in and what it's tied to. That Productivity Commission report was critical of the current schools agreement. It said that it lacked real targets and that it lacked the practical reforms we need to tie that to, to tackle these sorts of problems. I have told this parliament before that the next agreement will do that—that it will have those targets and that it will have those sorts of practical reforms. Yesterday I announced the expert panel whose job it will be to provide education ministers with what those targets should be and what those reforms should be that we tie future funding to. Leading this work will be Dr Lisa O'Brien, the Chair of the Australian Education Research Organisation and the former CEO of the Smith Family. Dr Lisa O'Brien will lead a team that also includes Ms Lisa Paul, Professor Stephen Lamb, Dr Jordana Hunter, Ms Dyonne Anderson and Professor Pasi Sahlberg. They'll report to me and other education ministers by the end of October. This is a big year for education. Last month, the Prime Minister announced that Professor Deborah Brennan will lead the most comprehensive review of early education in Australia's history. At the other end of the education spectrum, Professor Mary O'Kane is leading the Universities Accord, the biggest review of higher education in 15 years. In between is the work that Dr Lisa O'Brien will lead. Weaving through all of this, though, is a common thread. It's about opportunity. If you're a child today from a poor family or from the bush or if you are an Indigenous Australian, you're less likely to go to preschool, you're more likely to fall behind at primary school, you're less likely to finish high school and less likely to go to university. This is a chance to change that. Cost Of Living 59 14:45 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman has told the senate inquiry into Labor's cost-of-living crisis that the rising cost of living is having an acute, adverse impact on small and family businesses that underpin livelihoods. Prime Minister, why do Australian families and businesses always pay more under Labor? 14:45 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Again, we have that tag in there which allows me to do a comparison between this government and the former government. Although, there is a link there, because, if I am not mistaken, it's a former minister in the former government who has made the submission that you're talking about. Is that right? Is that right? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will direct comments through the chair. Mr ALBANESE R36 So the political appointment made by those opposite, which they leave out of the question, gives a submission that is a pro-Liberal Party submission from the former pro Liberal Party minister. Shock! Horror! 'Deidre Chambers. What a coincidence!' The member is from Western Australia, and I note that in Western Australia today there is a bit of a comparison about the former government and this government. On a day when my Attorney-General has introduced very important legislation into this parliament, the former Attorney-General of the former government is part of Clive Palmer's operation to sue the WA government for $300 million. The Liberal Party were anti-WA when they were in government, they're anti-WA now they're the opposition, and they're anti-WA— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting, and so will the member for Barker. The Manager of Opposition Business? Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, on any reasonable test of relevance, the Prime Minister has strayed a very long way from this question. He should either be directed back to the terms of the question, or— H onourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The members for Macnamara and McEwen are not helping. The Prime Minister will return to the question, which was about rising costs of living and the compare and contrast at the end of the question, which I think he started with. I am listening to him carefully, but I want silence so that I can hear him. If he strays, he will be returned to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 It was also about former Liberal Party ministers and Mr Porter's colleague. Knowing Clive Palmer's record for paying his workers, I hope Christian Porter asked for his money upfront. I hope he got that! Together at last: Palmer and Porter. Name a more iconic duo—I dare you! Ministerial Standards 59 14:49 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence My question is to the Minister for Government Services, and I refer to the minister's answer on Tuesday. In light of Dr Watt's review into contracts and procurements, why is disclosing conflicts of interest important for public officials? 14:49 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for his question. On Tuesday I updated the House on a matter which went to the core of the Dr Watt review into procurements at the NDIA and Services Australia. I refer to procurement contracts relating to unregistered lobbying firm Synergy 360 and multinational IT company Unisys. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG A key red flag of Dr Watt's review is the failure to declare conflicts both real and perceived, and so far I've been unable to locate any disclosure of the member for Fadden's relationship with Synergy 360 anywhere. Leaked emails from Unisys and Synergy 360 executives reveal how they planned to use the lobbying firm's special connection with the member for Fadden to gain special, privileged and commercially valuable access to the important ACLEI committee in parliament and also other decision-makers in government. I quote directly from an internal email from the Unisys vice-president to Unisys head office in the States on 16 October. It glowingly reports: 'Thanks for putting this together. I told Stuart I'd get him something tonight. Tomorrow at the Joint Committee for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity he'll be proposing the committee formally meets with Unisys for a briefing on our work with the US government.' There's another email between two of the owners of Synergy 360, on 31 October. They are excited at the big payday to be delivered by this undeclared special friendship with the member for Fadden. I quote: 'Bloody amazing, considering we only officially launched on 1 June. Some companies don't even make a profit, let alone clear $100,000 in the first three to four months. This year isn't over, so let's aim for $1 million within the financial year.' This secret, undisclosed trapdoor of influence offered Unisys boundless commercial opportunities. Unisys wrote to Mr Milo on 25 September 2017: 'I sent Stuart an email yesterday to follow up our meeting and request contact details for the appropriate person to arrange a presentation to the committee.' The email continues: 'I also asked for his thoughts on delivering a similar presentation to the National Security Committee, the NSC.' How does a multinational company form the presumption that they can talk to the heart of our national security architecture in Australia? The NSC is not some judge of a corporate beauty parade, looking for contracts. Whatever the opposition leader and I think of each other, I know the opposition leader, who served on the NSC, does not see the NSC as some sort of trailer boot market on a Sunday, where the security of the nation has to listen to a beauty parade of commercial vendors, with a relationship not disclosed by the member for Fadden. (Time expired) Housing Affordability 60 14:53 Mr 300121 Griffith CHANDLER-MATHER () (): My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday you said couldn't organise a national rent freeze, because of the Constitution, but, during the pandemic, national cabinet regulated rentals, with a moratorium on evictions. As well as making proposals to national cabinet, the federal government has the power to offer grants on the condition that states freeze rent increases. The government uses the same power to regulate health and education. With so many renters one rent increase away from eviction, will he finally take national leadership and coordinate a national freeze on a rent increases? 14:53 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question, which in part he answered himself. During the pandemic a range of things occurred with the support of everyone in this parliament. For example, there was a circumstance whereby we were paying people's wages; we don't pay people's wages today. Ms Ley 00AMN If you care about people, you should. The SPEAKER 53517 Deputy Leader of the Opposition, it's been a big two weeks. I'm just going to say to her she's on a warning now. If she interjects again, she will definitely be asked to leave. Mr ALBANESE R36 There were a range of emergency measures put in place over workplaces and support for businesses. State government made those decisions. The idea that the national government has the power to impose a rent freeze—that is, essentially to nationalise the private rental market around Australia—is just not the case, and the member knows that. What we have is a real solution being put forward, and that is our National Housing Accord. That is the Commonwealth-state housing agreement, which is where the Commonwealth, together with the states, negotiates in a way in which states don't then say, 'Yes, we'll bank that money and withdraw our investment by the amount that the Commonwealth puts in,' which is why you need to have that negotiation. This isn't an SRC; this is a national government, and what national governments have to do is put forward real solutions to issues. That's why we will also have our national homelessness strategy. That's why the Housing Australia Future Fund, which will provide 30,000 additional homes that are affordable or social, 4,000 of which will be reserved for women and children escaping domestic violence, will provide funding for veterans at risk of homelessness, will provide $100 million for emergency housing and will provide support to repair Indigenous housing in remote communities, should be passed. Now, to those opposite: you can argue during the break if you want that you're against $10 billion of funding because you think it should be $20 billion or whatever figure you want to pluck out, but the idea that you will support zero, which is what opposing this legislation will do—we will let members in the electorate know that that is exactly the case. So I say to the member and his colleagues: vote for this legislation and support it. (Time expired) Health Care 60 14:57 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question as to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. What action is the Albanese government taking to make it easier for Australians to see a doctor, and why is action needed to improve primary health care? 14:57 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank my friend and electorate neighbour for that question because he knows the government has no higher priority than strengthening Medicare and making it easier to see a doctor. That's why we established the $750 million Strengthening Medicare fund and a task force of nurses, patients, doctors and policy experts to help us advise us on tackling the enormous challenges we inherited after nine years of cuts and neglect. That's why in the October budget we invested $2.9 billion in new primary care measures, which includes $220 million of grants to every general practice in Australia to help them improve patient access, their IT systems and their facilities. We're investing over $160 million into attracting and retaining more doctors and health workers in rural and regional Australia, and in Tasmania we're working with the Liberal state government to expand the single-employer model down there that will make training and working in a general practice more attractive for our young doctors, growing the future health workforce of Australia. We're also delivering our 50 urgent-care services across Australia this year, providing care out in the community for those non-life-threatening emergencies seven days a week, with extended hours from 8 am to 10 pm and, importantly, fully bulk-billed free of charge, taking pressure off our stressed hospital emergency departments. I'm asked why action is needed to improve primary care. The fact is that primary care is in its worst shape in 40 years of Medicare, and there is no single person in this country more responsible for the crisis in Medicare than the Leader of the Opposition. When he was Minister for Health, he tried to introduce a tax on every single Australian every single time they visited the doctor. When Labor blocked him in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition said proudly that he would 'do whatever it takes to get around our blockage'. So, instead, he started a six-year long freeze of the Medicare rebate—a freeze later described by the AMA as 'a sneaky new tax that punishes every Australian family'. That freeze ripped billions and billions of dollars out of Medicare, and patients and doctors in Australia right now are paying the price for the decisions made by the Leader of the Opposition. Whether it's his attempts to introduce his GP tax, his dearer medicines policy or his Medicare rebate freeze or his attempt to put a tax on every Australian visiting the emergency department in their local hospital, it is no wonder that Australian doctors overwhelmingly voted this man—who is smiling about it as I speak—as Australia's worst health minister in the history of Medicare. (Time expired) Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 61 15:00 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Prime Minister. If the Voice offers advice on a policy matter that is contrary to the view of local elders and Indigenous communities, how would this conflict be resolved? For example, if a local Indigenous community wanted to reintroduce the cashless debit card, against the advice of the Voice, how would this be resolved? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! If the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Skills and Training continue to interject, they will be warned and asked to leave the chamber. 15:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler An Indigenous advisory body that's established by the Constitution and which provides non-binding advice to parliament about Indigenous affairs is the best way of addressing the need for practical guarantees that policymaking will be done better in future, without undermining the fundamental structure of the Constitution. That's my view, and it's also the view of the shadow minister, because they're his words. It cannot veto parliament. Rather, it provides greater input into the policymaking process, which should lead to policy improvements and greater buy-in from Indigenous people across Australia, which is also a very important point going forward. That is also the member for Berowra. I do want to say something on the opposition's tactics. We know that Noel Pearson had something important to say as well. Noel Pearson, I would hope, is someone that's respected by everyone in this chamber. I've heard him quoted by people right across the parliament in the past. What he said was this: Now is the time for us to act as Australians. Not as Labor people, not as Greens, not as Liberal or National party people … not as indigenous and non-Indigenous people, but as Australians. Because what we are trying to achieve here is unity. We want inclusion. This will do it. Parliamentary Standards 61 15:03 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Leader of the House. What has been the Albanese Labor government's approach to passing its agenda through the parliament, and what approaches has the government rejected? 15:03 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Pearce for the question. We've now completed 50 sitting days, and, in that time, we have had a different approach to our predecessors, one of whom was the previous member for Pearce, who had been a Leader of the House. One of the big changes is that we debate legislation without shutting people down. Over those 50 sitting days, we've had more than 2,000 speeches on legislation. Over the same time period, that is 60 hours of additional debate on legislation compared to what happened opposite. The 60-hour figure is a convenient one, because they've got a 60-hour statistic of their own. Their statistic is they spent 60 hours in divisions voting whether the member should not be heard further or whether the question should be put. When I was asked a similar question at the end of last year, I was able to report that there had been no case when anyone had moved that the member be heard no further. It used to be a staple for leaders of the House, including the one who is now Leader of the Opposition. But last week the record got smashed. Who moved that the members not be heard further? Those over there! Even in opposition, they are still addicted to silencing debate. This morning there weren't many people in the chamber, but we had a standing orders debate. In the standing orders debate the Manager of Opposition Business referred to the right of members—like a democratic right—to be able to move that someone else not be able to make a sound. We've all seen movies where someone gets told, 'You have the right to be silent.' According to them, you have the right to silence everybody else—that's their approach. We have had these debates where the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Leader of the House, wanted to shut down debate. Now, in his next job, he wants to keep shutting down debate. There's a similar parity with his predecessor, the former member for Pearce—when he was Leader of the House he wanted to back Clive Palmer; now he wants to be employed by Clive Palmer. It has all continued. But in that time— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The leader will pause. I will hear from Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN A point of order on relevance. Mr Speaker, you might not like it, but this government's priorities are totally warped. The SPEAKER 53517 I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows what's coming. As a result of the abuse of standing orders, she will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Farrer then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House will continue for the remainder of the time. Mr BURKE DYW As a result of that, our aged-care reforms are now law. Paid family and domestic violence leave—now law. The National Anti-Corruption Commission—now law. The electric vehicles tax discount—now law. Jobs and Skills Australia—now law. Cheaper medicines—now law. Cheaper child care—now law. Getting wages moving—now law. The climate change targets and the safeguard reforms—now law. Improved paid parental leave—now law. The National Reconstruction Fund—now law, with those opposite saying no. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members banging on desks is highly disorderly. The Prime Minister has the call. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left and right—I know it's the last day, but can everyone pause so I can hear from the Prime Minister. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 62 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Coronation of King Charles III 62 15:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm pleased to inform the House that on 6 May I will attend, along with the Governor-General, the coronation of His Majesty King Charles III in London. Our nation will be represented at the historic event by us along with all state governors and a number of other notable Australians, most of whom are based in the United Kingdom. Outstanding citizens have been chosen to show the world the best of our values: caring for others, serving community and championing progress. I note that the Palace requested in particular that there be significant representation from Indigenous Australians as part of the coronation. There will be a holder of the Victoria Cross for Australia and another of the Cross of Valour attending, as well as representatives of the Australian Defence Force. While in the UK, I will meet with Prime Minister Sunak to continue what have already been very productive discussions on defence and security co-operation, as well as trade and investment ties. I note that the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement received royal assent in the United Kingdom on 23 March. This is an achievement both sides of this House have played a role in. I'm sure all members will welcome the new jobs and opportunities this agreement will unlock. During the trip, I will also visit Barrow-in-Furness, which will play a key role in manufacturing the first AUKUS submarine and will also be a source of great expertise and training opportunities for the next generation of Australian defence manufacturing. In addition to that, we will give notice, as soon as details are finalised—I've spoken with the Leader of the Opposition—about the Quad leaders meeting that will take place in May. When those arrangements are finalised, we will, through you, Mr Speaker, and through the President of the Senate, give members and senators as much notice as possible for those arrangements. BUSINESS 63 BUSINESS Rearrangement 63 15:10 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I will deal with this quickly; there has been an agreement and I've consulted with all sides of the chamber. I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent: (1) the Speaker immediately reporting a message from the Senate in relation to the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023; and (2) the message being considered immediately, and having priority over the discussion of the Matter of Public Importance until its completion. Question agreed to. BILLS 63 BILLS Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 63

Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 63 15:11 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Agreeing to these amendments will enable the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 to become the law of Australia, following royal assent. These are sensible amendments which are in keeping with the government's election mandate and our agenda. As has been said many times in this House—I don't propose to detain the House—this enables us to get on with our important task of reducing emissions in our country and creating the jobs of the future, creating the jobs in a decarbonised economy. This is an important piece of legislation. It is unusual to interrupt the business of the House to do this on a Thursday afternoon, but it's vital that we do so we let industry get on with the task ahead of them. I want to thank those members of good faith who worked with the government. The amendments reflect the discussions that have been held, very intensively, over recent weeks. I want to thank the senators and members of the Australian Greens, particularly the leader, the honourable member for Melbourne, who has focused with the government on those areas in which we could agree. There's been public commentary about the areas in which we disagree. We were able to focus our conversation on the areas in which we can agree and come together to provide an important piece of legislation for our country. I recognise the member for Melbourne and the Greens. I want to recognise Senator Pocock, who is particularly concerned about carbon credits and integrity. We were able to have discussions with him. I want to recognise Senators Lambie and Tyrrell, who are passionate about manufacturing jobs, particularly in Tasmania. We were able to reflect those conversations in the amendments and in the regulation. I want to thank Senator Thorpe, who is particularly interested in the role of First Nations peoples in carbon trading. I particularly enjoyed my conversation with her about sea country and the involvement of sea country in carbon trading. I appreciate her support. Far too much is spoken sometimes in this parliament about differences, and we have many, but it's important that parties and individuals of good faith can come together. I also thank the crossbench in the House, who've had many conversations with me and who have reflected views. I thank them for their support. To achieve net zero, we cannot start in 2040 or 2045; we must start today. The best time would have been 10 or 15 years ago; the second-best time is today. This is an important day. The amendments are important. I want to thank, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, the Safeguard Taskforce in my department, led by Kath Rowley and Edwina Johnson. I want to thank my chief of staff, Andrew Garrett, and my senior adviser, Peter Nicholas, for their very intensive efforts on this most important task. 15:14 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Well, today this chamber will cast a vote on a carbon tax that the Labor Party has been looking for now for years. Today, again, we see a broken promise from the Australian Labor Party. We see a broken promise from the now Prime Minister, who assured the Australian people he would not do dodgy deals with the Greens. We see a dodgy deal with the Greens that leads to a carbon tax, a tax that will be imposed on Australian industry, a tax that will be passed through to Australian consumers. This is a tax that will see prices go up. In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, where every household across this country is feeling the pain of prices going up, the solution of the Albanese government is to introduce another tax that drives prices up. Not only will we see prices go up as a result of these reforms to the safeguard mechanism but we will also see investment go down. We hear from a Labor government that seek to spruik their credentials about building manufacturing in Australia but now they introduce a tax on manufacturing. This is a government that talks about decarbonisation but in fact introduces a policy of de-industrialisation. This is not a policy to decarbonise the Australian economy but to decapitate the Australian economy. It comes at a time when Australia can least afford it. But don't just listen to me, let's see what Credit Suisse say about it. They say: 'The new reforms agreed with the Greens are going to be inflationary—' The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister for immigration and the Assistant Treasurer. The SPEAKER 53517 The Assistant Treasurer is warned. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 I will repeat that word for those opposite who cannot hear it—inflationary. The new reforms agreed with the Greens are going to be inflationary and risk jobs by hindering investment and restricting offset use across all of Australia's heavy industry. How about APIA? Chief executive, Samantha McCulloch, said: New gas supply investment needs policy and regulatory certainty but instead, the Labor-Greens deal creates additional barriers to investment, further diminishing the investment environment and adding to the growing list of regulatory challenges facing the sector … Then how about Australian Pipelines and Gas Association, whose CEO said '… there are questions over whether the flow-on effects of any additional restrictions on gas supply will be borne by Australian households and businesses who are already facing major increases to energy bills due to the transition.' So what we have here today is apparently Labor's centrepiece for decarbonising the Australian economy. They have their own minister claiming this is as big a move as the entire de-industrialisation or, let's say, the industrial revolution. So the minister thinks this is as big as the industrial revolution. You would think that the Labor Party may have done one thing—some economic modelling. What we've found out and confirmed in the Senate over the last 24 hours is that this government has not done any economic modelling on the impact of this policy on jobs, on regional communities, on manufacturing. There is no economic modelling from Treasury, no economic modelling from the department. What does this mean? What we are voting on today is a policy they have not researched. They've done no modelling on it. It will be paid for by Australians. Prices will go up. Investment will go down. Emissions will go offshore and they'll multiply. It's a disgrace, and it's not the pathway to decarbonising the Australian economy. (Time expired.) 15:20 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Over there, we have a bunch of Eeyores. The world's always going to end. It's always bad. It's always completely devastating. They channel Francis Ford Coppola. Their motto is not so much Apocalypse Now as 'Apocalypse soon'! 'If you do this, it's going to be just a shocker.' But you've got to address some of the comments that have been put forward by—it's hard to follow, I've got to say—the last minister for energy. I reckon he had a say in who was chosen as the shadow minister. He said, 'Find someone who's less coherent than me,' and they've managed to do it. The safeguard mechanism that is before this parliament was introduced by the Abbott government. It's the Abbott government's model. It's not a model that we came up with. What we've done is make sure that it works. On investment, you have a plan that's supported by the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Energy Users Association and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, all of whom are saying that what they want is investment certainty. They want a mechanism to be certain going forward, and that's what this provides. That's what a majority of this parliament have accepted. I give credit to those people on the crossbenches who didn't get everything that they wanted but who had the courage to say, 'Yes; the good is better than the perfect,' from their perspective. That's why this is an achievement of this parliament. But those opposite just choose to be irrelevant to the parliament and irrelevant going forward. When in government they stood and announced 22 different energy policies but didn't land one. Even policies that went through their party room multiple times never made it to the floor, because they'd rather knock off two sitting prime ministers than actually implement a policy. At the last election, a decisive majority of Australians voted to put an end to the delay and inaction and take action on climate policy. Australians had seen the devastating impact of climate change. It's not something that's theoretical. The bushfires and the floods—the science told us there would be more extreme weather events and they would be more intense, and that has tragically played out. There are older Australians determined to do the right thing by the next generation, farmers who know the pain and hardship of drought and young people demanding that their voices be heard. Today is a big step towards repaying that faith. Passing this legislation has put Australia on a realistic path to net zero emissions by 2050 and a 43 per cent reduction by 2030. This legislation is a big part of how we do it. What's more, what it will do is get more renewable energy, which is the cheapest form of energy, into our grid. Overall, what it does is provide that certainty and stability that the business community have been crying out for. I want to congratulate the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and all who participated constructively, including the crossbench in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The fact is that we had to get this done. I was elected to do this. The member said that somehow this was contrary to our policy. This is spot on our policy. It's spot on our policy, Powering Australia, which we released well before the election for all to see. The people of Australia voted for action on climate change. Today, the parliament will do the same thing. 15:24 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I think the relevant comment here is from a minister opposite. In saying this, I must praise the government, because the CopperString proposal has already resulted in a vanadium mine announcing its operations and Eva, a big copper mine, announcing it's starting up operations. That is the sort of thing that government does. I've said previously in this place that I sit under a picture of the great founder of the labour movement in this country, 'Red Ted' Theodore. He wrote to Chifley that the object, the most important function, of government is to provide meaningful work for its people. Now, this is something that takes away meaningful work from our people. The Boyne smelter, it was announced, was going to be duplicated; they have now taken that proposal away. This is from Madeleine King: We will not meet our commitment to net zero without the resources sector. …   …   …    Taxes and royalties paid by the resources sector make an essential contribution to the services that Australians rely on. …   …   …    … it also contributes to community services, emergency services, roads and train lines … …   …   …    Some fail to acknowledge this, but Australia's coal and gas resources are essential for energy security, stability and reliability … No gas— and no coal— means no processing of critical minerals … For those in this place who are not familiar with this, there is no process by which you can extract a mineral without smelting and there is no way you can smelt, really, without coal. So you must understand the implications for industry that are being called upon here. My colleagues who sit on the cross benches want action to happen, and, in fairness to the government, the CopperString proposal will lead to the biggest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere. So you are doing good things—right? But this is not a good thing. It's heading in the opposite direction. I'll conclude by saying that two of the six biggest bridges in Australia are named after the great Leo Hielscher. Whether it was Bjelke-Petersen or Leo Hielscher, one of them created the coal industry, the tourism industry and the aluminium industry. They were created because they built the biggest power station in the world at Gladstone and because we had a reserved resource policy where the coal was supplied for zero cost. We said, 'If you want to mine coal here, you'll give a percentage to the people of Queensland.' So we had the cheapest electricity in the world. That led to the establishment of the great aluminium industry. I seriously think that you're placing it in jeopardy. Not just by this—I agree with the Prime Minister that this may be a small move—but it's a move very much in the wrong direction. It sends out a signal that you're going to continue to move in this direction. 15:28 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Since the Prime Minister found it very hard to comprehend, as he was saying, let me try to simplify it for him. Here's the big tip—are you ready? Are you ready for it? When taxes go up, costs go up. When costs for businesses go up, they pass them on to consumers. And then guess what happens to prices! Have a guess! Guess which direction they go! An opposition member: They go up. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Up! The second point the Prime Minister made was to suggest that the policy Labor is introducing was in fact a coalition policy. No, it was not. At what point, Mr Speaker, have you seen a coalition government stand before the Australian people and say they want to introduce a carbon tax? That is not our policy. It never has been our policy. All that government has done is to take an existing coalition framework, unwrap it, reuse the wrapping and hide a punitive carbon tax inside it. That carbon tax is going to impact every single business within that scheme—all 215—and the cost will be passed on, of course. This is the exact problem that we have pointed out. The third point I'll make in response to the Prime Minister's comments— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume and the Treasurer will cease interjecting so I can hear the member for Fairfax. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 The third point I'll make in response to the Prime Minister's comments is about the coalition's record. The coalition has a proud record of reducing emissions. Indeed, we reduced emissions by over 20 per cent on their 2005 level. When it came to the Kyoto protocol and targets, we smashed them out of the ballpark. We were tracking to also smash our targets for the Paris Agreement. This is the thing—what the coalition believes in, Labor doesn't. That is, you've got to strike the right balance. There's a balance to be struck here. On one side, you need to decarbonise the Australian economy, but, on the other side, you need to grow the Australian economy. Unless you get that balance in tandem, well, you're going to throw it out of whack, and one side loses. With this policy, it's the economy that loses. The last point is that the Prime Minister and the minister have spoken this afternoon on this policy using the word 'certainty'. Let me ask them this question. Name one business in Australia that now has any certainty about the tax they're going to pay—not one. Do you know why there's no certainty? Despite all the crowing from Labor, they have not modelled the impact on the businesses. So think about that. They do not know the impact of this policy on any one of those businesses. How dare the Labor Party inflict this on the Australian people and the Australian economy. They've never done the economic modelling on this, but they're proud of it. Taxes up—they're proud of it; prices up—they're proud of it; investment down—they're proud of it; and emissions offshored and multiplied—and they're proud of that, too. It's a disgrace. There's a way to decarbonise the Australian economy. You need balance. This lacks balance and therefore it needs to be opposed. 15:32 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I urge the House to accept these amendments secured by the Greens because they tackle the causes of the climate crisis—coal and gas—and deliver a big hit on coal and gas and especially on new gas projects. That is critical, because before these amendments were secured pollution from coal and gas was set to increase. Why? Because, under the original design of the scheme, new coal and gas mines could come into the system and keep on polluting, and all coal and gas mines could keep putting out as much pollution as they wanted, and they just had to buy offset permits to deal with it. As a result, pollution from the areas that were covered by the safeguard sector, which at the moment is about 140 megatonnes a year, was set to rise to up to 184 megatonnes; pollution from coal and gas was going to rise. This at the time when the UN Secretary-General and the world's scientists are pleading with countries like Australia, saying, 'We need countries like Australia to do their bit,' and that means stopping opening new coal and gas projects. As a result of these amendments that we're debating right now, secured by the Greens, there will be a limit on coal and gas expansion in Australia for the first time. There will be a limit on how much pollution can come out of the corporations covered by this safeguard sector, and that is critical, because that means, no matter how much offsets the corporations buy, they cannot offset their way out of this hard cap. And that is what matters to the climate crisis. The decisions that we make right now will reverberate for generations to come. The decisions that we make right now about whether or not to open a new coal or gas mine will determine whether or not climate change becomes runaway and our kids and our grandkids are unable to rein it in. We estimate that, as a result of this hard cap on pollution, the pollution from about half of those 116 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline won't be able to go ahead. And that is huge. Also, as a result of these changes, it will now be up to the minister—this minister and future ministers—to look at any new projects that are coming up in the pipeline and work out whether those projects are going to lift pollution above the declining cap, and, if they are, the minister can take steps with respect to the scheme generally or with respect to that project. So there will be that kind of trigger in the legislation, and that is critical to ensuring that this hard cap is not breached. Yes, there are areas of disagreement, as the minister has said. The Greens stand with the science and with the people. To get the climate crisis under control, we cannot open any new coal or gas projects. Unfortunately, the government disagrees with that, but that remains our position and we will continue to fight in the rest of this parliament to stop the other half from being opened up. We know that there are many who want them opened up, to squeeze a bit of extra profit for their billionaire shareholders before the planet goes under and our kids and our grandkids suffer. And we will stop any new coal or gas projects being opened. But one thing I need to say to the opposition is that they don't seem to get that, as to taking action on coal and gas and ensuring that we've got a safe climate, you can do that, because it's coal and gas that are causing the climate crisis, not manufacturing and not investment in clean energy. The Greens support manufacturing and investment in clean energy. Growing manufacturing in this country and, indeed, supporting mining in critical minerals in this country are things that we all back. You can back manufacturing but tackle coal and gas, and that is what we are seeking to do. I want to thank the minister and his staff for their long and sustained engagement that was conducted in good faith, and I echo the comments that the minister has made. I also want to take this opportunity to place on the record my thanks for my staff—in particular, Damien Lawson and Jay Tilley, as well as all my other staff—who have worked tirelessly around the clock to help deliver this important victory for the climate. As a result of this, for the first time ever, in law, pollution from coal and gas and other corporations that are covered by this sector will not be allowed to rise, and must go down. And that is historic. 15:37 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne This is rather a critical bit of legislation that is matching the old saying that bull can baffle brains. Surely we have just seen amendments come back from the Senate that will deliver absolute certainty to heavy industry in this country. It is certain that it won't grow—that manufacturing won't grow—because no-one will be able to afford to power manufacturing. There are also other sinister implications for agriculture, because these amendments are limiting over a five-year period. It's just like moving the deckchairs on the Titanic. Making them net over five years will still have the same outcome. Coalmines and gas facilities will all be producing CO2 and methane. That means all the gas and mining investments that were scheduled to happen will probably not happen. Now these people in the Greens think that is a great thing. But, unfortunately, the reality of life is: we need gas for fertilisers. We also have a lot of biological methane that will be captured under this mechanism. Bovines produce methane—everyone knows that, but that is a measure that is going to be undertaken—as well as nitrous oxide. So sayonara, fertilisers! There will be caps on dairy herds and beef herds. You name it—just about everything will be captured with these provisions. The certainty is that a lot of new investment that would have delivered much cleaner energy than a coal-fired power station—namely, in natural gas—won't happen. We will still require gas for all those industrial processes that require huge amounts of heat, like smelting et cetera. The member for Kennedy pointed out the bleeding obvious. We still require, for everyday life in the city and the suburbs, things like concrete, aluminium, copper and all those rare earth minerals. How do you think they are mined? They are mined using fossil fuels, diesel—all that sort of stuff. It means a lot of these endeavours won't happen in Australia. They will happen over in China, India or some other place that isn't shutting down what is essential for all manufacturing: abundance of energy. Even our cities will suffer. It's not just out in the mines that there will be decreased economies. All the food manufacturing and processing will be affected. With way cities run transport systems, all their costs will go up. The member for Fairfax has pointed out that, if the costs go up, eventually it's the consumer that pays. Trying to put it in the context of catastrophisation of climate change and thinking that Australia, by getting rid of dairy farming or capping herds of beef farms, will do anything when it's a normal biological process—but that is the intent of all this. Agriculture will suffer. Industry will suffer. Consumers and cities that need cement, tarmac for roads, aluminium, steel—all those industries will suffer. One of the perverse outcomes is that good farming land will be bought at exorbitant prices. The new safeguard mechanism units and Australian carbon credit units will mean good food-producing and fibre-producing land will be the target for all these industrial enterprises. That is the only way they will be able to survive. I encourage anyone who's got carbon credits not to sell them to the market, because you're going to need it on your beef farm, dairy farm or anything with bovines. You will need it because you will likely be captured by these mechanisms too. Rather than congratulating, I think the only certainty is that prices for energy will go up, land use will be perverted to unproductive food and fibre and a lot of industrial processes that happen in our country and we need for our own energy and industrial sovereignty and to protect manufacturing will go offshore. (Time expired) 15:42 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I'd like to thank the minister and his staff for their engagement with me and many from the crossbench in relation to our concerns around the original version of the bill. I do welcome the amendments that are coming back from the Senate. I'd like to thank the Leader of the Greens and, through him, the members of the Greens in the other place and the crossbench senators in the other place for working with you on improving this legislation. It is a sign of a mature parliament that you can have a government that is open to amendments that, in fact, improve legislation. I welcome the amendments, which include better reporting, in particular, on methane emissions, and the implementation of the Chubb review, which we saw this in this place. I also welcome the minister's commitment to a further review on methane to make sure that we address it, knowing that it is such a potent emission and gas when it comes to trapping heat. If we are really going to act upon climate change, we absolutely must be cognisant that methane is a very real and present danger. I welcome the government also accepting that gross emissions must be capped and must come down. It's a simple fact that we can't continue to have emissions, whilst being offset, continuing to grow indefinitely. We only recently had the latest report from the IPCC, telling us that staying to 1.5 degrees is going to be incredibly difficult and we need increased ambition. So, whilst I support the minister and the government and I congratulate them for this bill and certainly have supported it, I will continue to urge the government to get more ambitious and do more, because there is a race on around the world. We saw that the US has passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which is creating a huge drive of investment and development of technology. The United Kingdom and the European Union have responded to that drive with their own legislation. I know there has been much work done already in bringing the government to attention in relation to that Inflation Reduction Act, its consequences and what must be done in Australia—in particular, when it comes to electrifying households and green hydrogen. This is so important. Finally, I can't let this moment go past without acknowledging the comments of the member for Fairfax and others. If we talk about 'catastrophising' on consequences, there is no greater catastrophising than what is claimed the impacts of this legislation are going to be on our growth and economy and our prospects as a nation. The race is on to be leaders in a renewable energy world, a clean world. It is not by embracing past technologies, mature technologies—the fossils of the past—that we are going to provide a future for our children and a clean and livable world. When those comments were being made there were children in the gallery, and I'm appalled that they had to listen to that rant. When it comes to raising issues of a carbon tax, can I just say to the member for Fairfax: the previous member for Warringah found out the hard way that failing to accept the need to reduce emissions with urgency leads in only one direction, and that is out from this place. And I would say to the opposition: the message from the Australian public has been incredibly loud and clear. The science is settled. Climate change, global warming, is occurring. We must act with urgency. There are challenges ahead, but there are opportunities. I am confident that this bill will not only address some of the need to reduce emissions but also create opportunities, and that, coupled with sensible policy, we can in fact prepare Australia and build an economy that is fit for purpose for the future, to give these children a genuine chance of the kind of life they deserve. So, if we genuinely want to safeguard their future—and I say to the children of Australia in particular: we are incredibly committed to addressing this challenge that you will face, as are so many here on the crossbench and, I hope, many on the government benches, and it would be great to hear from more in the opposition as well—it is time to break ranks; it is time to speak up on this issue. 15:47 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I would like to thank the minister for the engagement around this debate. I particularly would like to thank the minister and the crossbench, both here and in the other place, for engaging constructively on this issue. I'd stepped out of question time for a little bit of time today to talk to some kids, and they asked me: 'What are you going to do about the environment?' and I said that I was going to come back here and vote for this bill. I am proud that my efforts and the efforts of the crossbench, here and in the other place, made a difference to the legislation—made it better for Australian businesses, for the environment movement and for our future. My message is to the coalition: if you would like my seat back, then you should vote for it. If you would like her seat back, or hers, or hers, or hers, or hers, or hers, then vote for it—and also elect some women—because the business community backs this, the environmental community backs this, the Australian community backs this and the Wentworth community backs this. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments be agreed to.  

The House divided. [15:52]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 89 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 50 NOES Andrews, K. L. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. 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. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 DOCUMENTS 73 DOCUMENTS Presentation 73 15:57 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BUSINESS 73 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 73 15:37 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum Joint Select Committee 74 Membership 74 15:57 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum. 15:57 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That Mr Conaghan and Mr Wolahan be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum. Question agreed to. 15:58 The SPEAKER 53517 I've received advice from the member of Calare nominating himself to be a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum. 15:58 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That Mr Gee be appointed a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum. Question agreed to. 15:58 The SPEAKER 53517 I've received messages from the Senate informing the House that, contingent on the establishment of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum, Senators Cox, Green, Stewart and White have been appointed as members of the committee. Appointment 74 15:59 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate concurs with the resolution relating to the appointment of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum. BILLS 74 BILLS Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023 74

Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023

Returned from Senate 74 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 74 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Standards 74 15:59 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Mr Speaker, I have a question for you, one that would ordinarily come immediately after question time but obviously normal proceedings were interrupted. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked you about the incident last Thursday afternoon at the doors at the back of the House. Today the member for Longman has written to you, advising that he witnessed the members for Rankin and Franklin push their way through after the attendant had begun closing the doors. I'm sure you'll agree that the rules must be applied impartially and equally to all members regardless of party affiliation. When will you update the House on the progress of your investigation into the incident last Thursday? 15:59 The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member for his question and, as I indicated to him earlier today, I will be responding to the Leader of the Opposition's question, and I indicated to the member for Longman, subsequent to his correspondence before he raised this issue, I'd be responding directly in the House today—which I'm about to do if the member the Fadden could just resume his seat. In response to the queries from the Leader of the Opposition and from the honourable member for Longman, I have undertaken to extend my deliberations in relation to the serious incident on Tuesday evening this week in the chamber and also to consider the circumstances at a division at approximately 12:30 pm on Thursday 23 March last week. Based on the routine reports produced at the time by the chamber and parliamentary security staff involved, the circumstances of last Thursday's division are these. After I'd ordered that the doors be locked, there was a delay in closing the main ceremonial doors of the chamber. During the delay, several members walked through the doors. One walked several steps into the chamber and two walked behind, pausing at the junction of the ceremonial doors and the door into the attendants' office, although they were intending to enter. I gave two further orders to lock the doors. The Serjeant-at-Arms on duty approached the members and indicated that the first member should leave, advising that the Speaker had ordered that the doors be locked prior to them entering. All three members then left immediately. The doors were locked. The members were not counted in the division. The reports from both the Sergeant's office and the Department of Parliamentary Services made at the time did not identify any physical contact between the staff and the members. Yesterday, a review of the video of last Thursday in the chamber confirmed the details provided in the contemporaneous staff report. As a final check, the staff involved were expressly queried about whether there might have been any physical contact between them and the members, and the staff confirmed there was none. I would like to distinguish this situation from what occurred on Tuesday this week. Members who were outside and without the ability to directly hear my voice attempted to enter an open door and left when asked to immediately. On Tuesday, members who were already in the chamber and were able to hear my call defied the chair and left the chamber. Further, when asked to return to the chamber they refused to do so. In the process of the departure, as we know, a staff member was injured. These situations are not the same. I would like to take this opportunity to remind all members of the requirements of standing order 129. When a division is taken and after the Speaker has ordered the doors to be locked, no member may enter or leave the chamber until after the division. It doesn't 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. STATEMENTS 75 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 75 16:03 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Does the member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ROBERT HWT I do, once again—with great regularity. There must be something happening in a few days, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 Please proceed. Mr ROBERT HWT I note the comments from the Minister for Government Services regarding seven years ago when I was on the backbench. I reject fully the imputation and the allegations that the minister has made regarding emails that I'm not included in, have no knowledge of and, clearly, whose alleged contents are absurd. The idea that someone could present to NSC is ridiculous. I also refer the House back again to the Watt report, received by the government on the 6th of this month—surprise, surprise, it was leaked on the weekend; there must be something coming up—which made it clear, after reviewing 95 procurements going back eight years, that there is zero, none, nil misconduct identified in any way, shape or form by Dr Watt. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 75 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost Of Living 75 16:04 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hume proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: Ever more expensive mortgages and the pressure on Australians' cost of living. 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— 16:04 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume It was only a short time ago in this chamber that we heard from the Prime Minister that it has been 'a good ten months'. As I get around my electorate and around Australia, that's not what I hear from Australians. I don't think Australians agree with the Prime Minister. Today we heard from the Leader of the House an answer to the very puzzling question: how could they possibly think that it was a good 10 months? He gave that answer very clearly. The answer is more laws. For Labor, that is the answer to everything. A law for every Australian. A law for every man, woman and child in this country. That's what we need. But what we have not seen in the last 10 months are promises being kept. Yesterday in question time we saw the Prime Minister use fairytale language in response to a serious question about the very real housing stress that Australians are feeling. In an answer to that question, he said that he would not promise absolute pixie dust. While I am sure the Prime Minister wants a happy ending to his fairytale, the real question here is: has he kept his promises, or did he indeed promise absolute pixie dust in the lead-up to the last election? It is worth holding him to account on this, because there were many promises before the last election. We all heard them. We had them many times over—in one particular case, 97 times over. The promise of cheaper mortgages—it turns out that was pixie dust. The promise of no changes to superannuation taxes—it turns out that was pixie dust. The promise of a $275 reduction in electricity prices, a promise made 97 times, no less—what was that promise? It was pixie dust. The promise of lower inflation—what was that promise? Nothing but pixie dust. The promise that we are not touching franking credits—'We're not touching franking credits'. Well, that was another piece of pixie dust. It is clear that the Prime Minister's word means absolutely nothing. It is quite right and understandable that right now Australians are sitting there thinking, 'How can I believe this government and this Prime Minister?' The reasonable question every Australian can be asking—and I know many are asking—is: 'What will be this government's next broken promise and their next piece of pixie dust?' Will it be stage 3 tax cuts? Will they go? Are they going? We heard them promise this, because we knew they did not want to go to an election like the one in 2019 where they were at least straight with the Australian people about what they intended to do, which was to raise taxes. They were clear. There was no ambiguity. Are stage 3 tax cuts going to go? Will it be changes to work expense deductions? Today I asked the Prime Minister whether there will be changes to work expense deductions. He got up in his usual sneering manner—at a time when Australians are worried about taxes and taxes have gone up almost 10 per cent in the last quarter; that's how much they've gone up in the CPI data— and in response to being asked whether he would rule out changes to work expense deductions he completely ignored the question. Will there be more changes to superannuation taxes? We know they have opened this Pandora's box. They're not worried at all, clearly, about keeping their promise that there would be no changes to superannuation taxes. So are we going to see more? The assistant minister is sitting here. He's the champion of changing superannuation taxes. He's the champion of going after unrealised capitalised gains. Is he going to go to the next level? Is he going to keep going on this? Will there be changes to capital gains tax? We know this Labor government believes firmly in taxing people before they have any cash—unrealised capital gains—so will we move from a realised capital gains tax to an unrealised capital gains tax? Will they move to an unrealised capital gains tax across the board? It is clear they're very happy to go in this direction. There's no ambiguity about that. If that forces farmers to sell their business and if that forces small business people to flog their businesses, they couldn't care less. It is of no concern to them. The reality is that farmers are a small business people. There's nowhere there for unions, is there? So, if they have to flog their business, if they have to get out, if they have to go through that cathartic processes of selling off their business—and from time to time we see farmers and small business people having to do this for other reasons in our electorates—if they have to do it because of government policy, the government couldn't care less. Before the election we saw a prime minister who said he would take responsibility. He said things like, 'I will act with integrity and lead with responsibility'—no mention of pixie dust there—'and treat you with respect.' Yet, when asked about the cost-of-living pressures Australians are facing right now, he simply walks away from it. On 4 May, the Prime Minister said, 'When leaders focus on conflict and blame shifting'—no blame shifting from him at the moment!—'they achieve little beyond protecting their own narrow political interests.' The truth of the matter is that he is looking for anyone to blame for his broken promises. The truth is that, on the ground, we are seeing extreme pain at the grocery checkout, when people fill up their cars and when they make their mortgage payments. The numbers are stunning. If you are a young family who has bought a house in south-western Sydney, you probably paid close to a million dollars with a mortgage of $750,000. In the time that those opposite have been in government, your mortgage payments have gone up by $1,700 a month. That is around $20,000 a year. At the same time as you're seeing rising electricity bills and rising grocery prices, you're up for in the order of $23,000 or $24,000 that you didn't have to find in the past. What gives? Someone has to take on an extra job. The grandparents have to do a couple of days of child care. You have to take one of the kids out of school because you can't afford the school fees. You can't put the same meals on the table that the family is used to. These are real strains and stresses being faced by Australians. We've heard many examples of this from those on this side of the chamber in recent days. The member for Petrie just yesterday brought us the stories of Georgina and Shenelle, who are struggling with the rising cost of living. We heard from the members for Menzies, Hughes, Herbert, McPherson who have all brought to the chamber devastating stories of the reality of what families and businesses are facing right now from the cost-of-living pressures that those opposite won't even answer questions about. They won't even answer the most basic of questions about these pressures. Last night on Channel 10, we heard even more stories from businesses in Western Sydney. We heard about a family run Turkish grocery shop in Auburn serving the community for more than 40 years, struggling to get the money to pay their staff, and all we hear from this out-of-touch Prime Minister is disdain for questions being asked about those pressures. We're seeing those pressures being felt at Lifeline. In my own electorate, the Revive Emergency Relief Program—a fantastic volunteer group supported by Karen and Lesley—is just seeing more and more people coming in off the street to get a meal and feed the family. This is the reality of inflation. This is the harsh on-the-ground reality of inflation that those opposite show absolutely no concern about. More than 800,000 Australian households are coming off fixed rate mortgages and going on to floating mortgages. This is a disaster in the making which those opposite are ignoring. This is a government that simply couldn't care less. 16:14 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner A year ago, the coalition lost nine seats in South Australia and lost government. Ten months ago, they lost 17 seats federally and lost government. Last weekend, they lost at least a dozen seats in New South Wales and lost government. The coalition now holds no mainland state or territory. The most senior Liberal governing leaders in Australia today are Brisbane Mayor Adrian Schrinner and Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff. You'd think that the loss of 40 seats and three elections would provoke some soul-searching, but the main lesson that the coalition seems to be taking from this is that they're too woke and they need to move to the right. The fact is that the coalition hasn't woken up. The Australian people aren't buying what you're selling. This is no better epitomised than by the shadow Treasurer, a man who brought us the current energy crisis—a man who is best known for hiding energy price increases from the Australian people, for his Cayman Islands company, for the Jam Land scandal and for making things up about Clover Moore and Naomi Wolf. As he might have put it, 'Well done, Angus.' He thinks he's the second coming of the Messiah, but most Australians just think he's like Mr Burns from The Simpsons—just with a slightly greater tendency to look straight down the barrel of the camera. The once-great Liberal Party has lost its way. At its founding in 1944, Robert Menzies said: We took the name "Liberal" because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary … Menzies never once used the word 'conservative' to describe his party. Like Deakin before him and Holt, Gorton and Fraser after him, Menzies was a liberal, not a conservative, yet under Howard, Abbott, Morrison and the current Leader of the Opposition, the Liberal Party has become what Sir Robert Menzies wished against. The Liberal Party of Australia has become a party of reaction. It isn't the Liberal Party; it's a conservative party. It is the party of no. It doesn't have to be this way. Oppositions don't have to oppose. Just look at the member for Grayndler, who, when he took on the job, said he wanted to be known as the Labor leader, not the opposition leader. Look at how he behaved and how we as a party behaved during the COVID pandemic—supporting the government on its health measures and supporting the government on its economic measures. In less than a year, what has the coalition said no to? They've said no to energy price relief and a temporary gas price cap. They've said no to the Housing Australia Future Fund, which would build 20,000 social housing properties and 10,000 affordable homes, with homes earmarked for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence. The coalition has said no to the National Reconstruction Fund. The coalition has said no to free TAFE. The coalition has said no to increasing the minimum wage. The coalition has said no to the secure jobs, better pay bill, which puts gender equity at the heart of wage setting, expands access to flexibility for carers and prohibits sexual harassment in the Fair Work Act. The coalition has said no to cheaper electric vehicles. The coalition has said no to Rewiring the Nation. The biggest sign that they have become the nattering nabobs of negativity is their break with business over climate policy. While the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia are celebrating the safeguard mechanism passing parliament, the coalition are in here voting against the safeguard mechanism—voting against a measure that is the largest single carbon abatement measure that the government is pursuing, voting against a measure that provides certainty to industry and voting against a measure designed by Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt. The coalition have become so much the party of 'no' that they are today saying no to their own measures. There is a thing called the useless box, whose only job, when you switch it on, is to switch itself off again— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Props are not allowed. Dr LEIGH BU8 and that is the very definition of the modern Liberal Party. They are the useless box of Australian politics. They have become the party that are Liberals in name only. They are the lino party. Now, lino was a great floor covering in the 1950s. That is the modern Liberal Party today—a party stuck in the past. A party mired in negativity. No wonder former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull spends so much time criticising them. And those on that side grumble about expelling Malcolm Turnbull from the Liberal Party. They say Malcolm Turnbull isn't a real Liberal. What they don't realise is that they are the ones who have ceased being true liberals. All political parties lose their way from time to time. Mine was once headed by Billy Hughes and once headed by Mark Latham! But when you're in a hole, the least you can do is stop digging. The 'Trumpification' of Robert Menzies's former party is truly sad. They think that their way back to the centre is by listening to the Sky After Dark crowd. I know some of those on my side of the House will be telling me that I shouldn't be giving helpful advice to our political opponents. I shouldn't be reminding them that the way to win elections is from the centre of Australian politics. But I'm not worried by that. This is a party which has lost federal seats once held by Julie Bishop, Peter Costello, Joe Hockey, Josh Frydenberg, Malcolm Turnbull and Robert Menzies, and still comes in here rejecting the need for climate action, voting against their very own safeguard mechanism. This is a party who, in Victoria, has just seen its leader rolled in his attempt to expel one of their MPs, who attended an anti-trans rally that included black-shirted members of the far right performing Nazi salutes on the steps of the Victorian parliament. In being rolled, the Victorian Liberal leader was being lobbied by members of the federal Liberal Party, urging him to keep that member in the party. The MPI is apparently about affordable housing, although the shadow Treasurer didn't seem to display much concern for the issue in his remarks earlier. Their concern over housing is as genuine as a fox crying tears for the wellbeing of the chickens. This is the party that cut social housing programs. This is a party that allowed the home ownership rate to fall to its lowest level in half a century. The coalition purport to be caring about inflation—a concern that's as genuine as a $3 note, because the single quarter of highest inflation this century was March 2022, when the coalition were in office. Interest rate rises began under the coalition and, indeed, the opposition leader said at the time: … nobody wants to see interest rates go up, but it's a reality of a world where there's inflation. Those opposite claim that they're the party of lower taxes. The Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments were the second-highest taxing governments since federation, behind only the Howard government. They came into office in 2013 promising that they would deliver a budget surplus each and every year. By the time their last Intergenerational report came down, it was projecting deficits all the way out until 2060. They're the party that say they are the safe custodians of taxpayer monies, and yet they gave $20 billion of JobKeeper to firms with rising revenue. We supported measures that saved jobs, but giving JobKeeper to Harvey Norman, AP Eagers and offshore billionaires did not save a single job. This weekend, the voters of Aston will cast their ballots. We know of course that no government has taken a seat from the opposition in a by-election since 1920. We know the seat of Aston has been held by the Liberal Party since 1990. But I have a simple message for the voters of Aston: the Liberal Party has abandoned you. It's time to abandon the Liberal Party. 16:24 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina There's a scene in the movie Troy where Brad Pitt, playing Achilles, says to a young kid who asked him why he wanted to go and fight this huge giant, 'No one will remember your name.' We do remember Billy Hughes' name, and I can't believe the member for Fenner has disparaged a former Labor luminary. But I'm going to stand here and stick up for Billy Hughes, because Billy Hughes, known as 'the little digger', stood up not only for those who were in the army in World War I but also for Australians at the Treaty of Versailles and for ex-servicemen. Mr McCORMACK 219646 To the member for Fenner, as much as I've got a lot of respect for you, you're probably like the kid in Troy: will they remember your name? They certainly remember Billy Hughes' name. And when you go on about the Liberal Party and having something that nobody wants to buy, I might recall the figures of the first preferences vote in the 2022 election and put them on the Hansard: ALP, 4,760,030; LNP, 5,233,334. First preference votes: ALP, 32.58 per cent; LNP 35.7 per cent. On both accounts—and we can make statistics what they are—they're pretty stark. Mr McCORMACK 219646 I wouldn't go on too much, because your Achilles heel sits right over there. While you might talk about the Teals and the Greens, it's the Greens who are going to take your seats, my friend. When you start doing dodgy deals and the Greens go out there and do press conferences about what they've achieved and the dirty deals that they've done—because what you're doing is sending all the emissions offshore, as the member for Fairfax quite correctly pointed out. I'd hate to be in the concrete industry because it is going to be so much more expensive to get concrete—and, indeed, farming. The cost of living is just going through the roof, but while the member for Fenner was on his feet I didn't hear him talk about the bread-and-butter issues too much in his matter of public importance contribution. He didn't talk about those issues which are affecting Mr and Mrs Average. They're out there and they're wondering how they're going to pay for things. But don't take my word for it: the Salvation Army's Doorways program coordinator in Wagga Wagga, Jen Cameron, said: … since January 2 this year, the number of people who have asked for help due to high financial expenses and inadequate income has increased by 25 per cent. "People are saying they've never received help before, they've never asked for it." She told the Daily Advertiser that comments from the people who they're trying to help are really concerning, and: "Unless we see a dire change to the cost of living in the future, it's going to rise." She talked about the phenomenal—her word—amount of calls asking about payment assistance vouchers. She's worried that electricity prices rising by 20 per cent in July is going to have a very harmful effect on those people whom the member for Fenner and his cohorts opposite should be talking about and doing something for every day of the week. Instead of coming in here and disparaging Billy Hughes, instead of coming in here and disparaging the modern Liberal Party, instead of coming in here and quoting Robert Menzies—perhaps out of tune or out of context—he should be looking after the forgotten people. And the forgotten people are those people outside this area, who probably aren't even listening to this debate—why would they? They are getting on with the job of picking their kids up from school, kids they probably now won't be able to take to sport or dancing or those sorts of things because they can't afford to. They're probably going to the grocery shops, but they're not going to have as big a hamper—they're not going to have as much at the checkout because they can't afford to. They're not going to have that meal out. They're going to be worried about how they're going to pay for their electricity prices. They're worried about how they're going to pay for their mortgages, which were once this high and now are this high. It's going to be so difficult—those rising mortgage interest rates, that rising amount of money that they have to find to pay for it and for everyday ordinary items that they shouldn't have to worry about. The excuses can't keep coming. Labor, you've been in government 10 years—sorry, 10 months—God help us if they are in government 10 years! They've been in government for 10 months. The time for excuses and the blame game is over. Do your job. Do the job that you were elected to do—by not that many Australians. Make sure that the cost of living comes down. ADJOURNMENT 79 ADJOURNMENT Rural And Regional Health Services 79 16:30 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I rise to call the chamber's attention to the issue of heart failure. Heart failure affects more than 400,000 Australians and contributes to 61,000 deaths per year. It accounts for 70,000 hospital admissions per year. Tragically those in rural areas and Indigenous Australians bear a disproportionate burden of heart failure. Data released from the Heart Foundation shows that death from heart disease is 60 per cent higher in rural and remote areas of Australia compared to metropolitan areas. Hospitalisations in regional areas due to heart attack are double metropolitan rates, and hospitalisations due to heart failure are 90 per cent higher. Any premature death is a tragedy but in regional communities the loss of a young heart failure victim is both tragic and shocking. On Australia Day in 2019, Scott Umback, the picture of health and fitness and father of two young boys, lost his life at 42 years of age to an undiagnosed and completely unexpected heart condition. He was a leader in the Mildura community and the husband of Katrina, who has devoted herself to promoting heart health and advocating for the establishment of a new cardiac service in Mildura where she lives. I have the utmost respect for Katrina, who is a shining example for her children and her community. Katrina is calling attention to the service gap in our region. Scott was never offered an angiogram, which could have diagnosed his condition and potentially saved his life. The reason? The service is available not in Mildura. It is still not available. His only option would have been to travel nearly 600km to Melbourne for a procedure he was unaware he needed. An angiogram could have diagnosed Scott's heart condition. Ensuring access to high-quality health care in regional and rural areas has always been and will continue to be a priority for me. It is something that I, as the shadow assistant minister for regional health, focus heavily on every day. The regions deserve equitable access to health care. This includes access to facilities such as a catheterisation laboratory, or cath lab, which would prevent so many needless deaths through procedures which have become less invasive over time. It should be a basic human right for those who live in regional communities to be able to access angiograms and lifesaving treatment like percutaneous insertion procedures such as coronary artery stenting, which, thanks to modern medicine, does not require open-heart surgery anymore. This is absolutely possible in Mildura and it ought to be funded. Local and timely access to this procedure will give access to more people to undergo preventative and acute angiograms. As I said in my maiden speech, your postcode should not determine your health status but right now in so many ways it still does, including when it comes to preventing heart failure. Increasing access to services is just one way to improve our health outcomes in the regions. I note that the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee has recommended the Australian government subsidise access to Jardiance. Jardiance is the first medicine indicated to treat patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction HFpEF to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalisation due to heart failure. It has been clinically proven and approved by the TGA and is a breakthrough for the 200,000 Australians currently living with HFpEF. I fully support the recommendations and manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim's bid to have Jardiance listed on the PBS for these patients. This has the potential to shift the dial for regional patients with this form of heart failure. The Labor government has done little to ease the cost-of-living pressures on Australian households. Here lies a simple way to make a difference through subsidised access to potential life-saving medicine. The coalition have always supported measures to tackle heart disease. Heart health checks were introduced to the MBS in 2019. Four years on, these checks are now under threat. Albanese Government 80 16:35 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Over the last 10 months, the contribution of those opposite to public debate has been more nutty than a Snickers bar. They've suddenly realised that the cost of living is important. They've realised this after nine years of failed government. They didn't care about the cost of living when the opposition leader proposed a GP tax when he was health minister. They didn't care about the cost of living when the opposition leader proposed charging Australians for visits to hospital emergency departments. They didn't care about the cost of living when they kept wages low for a decade as a deliberate part of their economic policy. They didn't care about the cost of living when they sailed penalty rates cuts through, slashing the incomes for young casual workers and shiftworkers. And they certainly didn't care about the cost of living when they created robodebt, a scheme that literally stole the money of vulnerable Australians whose only crime had been to seek a hand from the government in their time of need, but who were then ordered to pay back money regardless of their protests, regardless of their situation, leading, as we are learning, to some tragic outcomes and consequences. Compare that to the efforts of the Albanese government in the 10 months since we've been in office. One of the first things we did was back in a wage rise for low-paid workers, keeping true to our promise that we would back wage rises for workers. From 1 January this year, we backed in cheaper medicines. Since implementing that policy at the start of this year, people in my electorate of Lyons have been able to save a total of $95,000 on their prescription medications in January and February alone. That's an average saving of $11 per script. It's an immense saving that's here to stay, permanently, under the Albanese government. It's a policy that's putting money back in the pockets of everyday Australians and ensuring they keep more of their pay at the end of the day. There are other things that we've been doing. Just this week I had the great pleasure of joining with the Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health and Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, Emma McBride, and the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, to launch the new national framework that will help nurses in rural and remote communities. This framework ensures that we are able to address workforce factors and improve employment and employment retention in the regions for the benefits of those communities. Under the previous government our regional and rural communities were, frankly, ignored time and time again. This framework is the start of what we hope are many great policies and ambitions for our regional and remote communities. We care about regional and rural communities. I am here, and I note the member for Whitlam is at the dispatch box. He's another regional community representative on our side—there are a number on this side. We care about the regions on this side of the House. I can guarantee, people in regional Australia, that you are absolutely better off under this government. One of the things that's really facing us at the moment—and I note the Greens' housing spokesperson is in the chamber—is that our nation is enduring a housing crisis and more people than ever before are facing homelessness. As the Prime Minister has said—and I implore the Greens—stop arguing against supporting a $10 billion housing and homelessness package because you want more, because the alternative is to have nothing. You are getting in the way of women escaping domestic violence and of veterans and people in vulnerable situations accessing housing sooner. That's what you are getting in the way of. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Lyons will direct his comments through the chair. Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 I apologise, Speaker. I know you wouldn't want to be associated with that. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member will continue with his speech. Mr BRIAN 129164 Under this government's housing future fund, we will build more affordable and social housing to ensure that more people can live in safe and secure circumstances. The Australian government is also investing $67.5 million to boost homelessness services funding to states and territories over the next year. It's real policy that'll have real results. Another big thing coming through on 1 July is cheaper child care. We are making it cheaper for one million Australian families. Anyone with children knows that child care is essential, but it is expensive and the costs have been going up. Under the Liberals and the Nationals it went up by 49 per cent, and that's shameful. Under our plan, it will come down. You can put your kids in chid care for longer and it will cost you less. More women will be able to go to work as a result. Cost of Living 81 16:40 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I want to take the opportunity in this debate to talk about the experience of a family in my electorate. Their circumstances really reflect the pressures that are being felt by people all across this nation as the cost of living continues to rise under this government. Jason and his wife, Emma, have two small children. They purchased their home in Robina in 2021 and secured a fixed mortgage which will soon be coming to an end. Jason currently pays around $2,000 a month for their four-bedroom home, but the rise in interest rates will see their finances take a huge hit, with repayments expected to more than double. As interest rates continue to go up month after month under this government, everyday Australians like Jason are seriously stressed. Jason has already taken a second job and cancelled the children's swimming lessons in anticipation. He is determined to ensure that they don't lose the family home that they worked so hard to buy and renovate. As Jason said in a recent news article: It's a flow-on effect as interest rates go up and repayments go up but then you have day-to-day living costs—you have shopping, insurance, registration for vehicles, electricity, rates and water bills. Our repayments are going to double and you have the burden of everything else going up on the back of that … It does bring stress into the household, which is unfortunate, and it's difficult to work so much and be so tired from that and stressed from trying to pull everything together. Unfortunately, Jason is not alone in this experience. He is one of 800,000 mortgage holders in Australia who are facing a mortgage cliff as their lower fixed rate ends, and their budgets have already taken a hit in the past year. I do have to ask the question, as part of this debate, what the plan is from the Labor government to deal with these significant cost-of-living issues. Housing is one of the most significant issues for people in Australia at the moment, as I have just described with Jason's circumstances. The fact is that his circumstances are repeated in many, many households right across Australia. The question then becomes: what is the Labor government doing to support Jason? We know that interest rates are rising. We know that that will have a cost-of-living impact. But we also know with the housing crisis that many people are finding it very difficult to find a house to purchase in the first instance because the cost of houses has gone absolutely through the roof. We also know that vacancy rates on rentals are at all-time lows in many parts of Australia. In my electorate on the Gold Coast, I can assure the House that it is extraordinarily difficult to find a property to rent in the first instance. And, if you do find something, there are many other people also seeking to rent that property and the price of that rental is sky high. So we have an issue where people in Australia are really struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and that is quite separate to the issue of those people who have been impacted by domestic and family violence. We know—and there is significant evidence to show this—that people who have been affected by domestic and family violence are staying in violent situations simply because they cannot afford to leave. They cannot afford to leave because either they can't find somewhere to go or they can't afford the cost in the instance that they can find something. I would encourage people to have a look around them and see what is happening in the shops. You'll see that there is a decline in the number of people going to shopping centres. Certainly people are still going there for the supermarkets, but other stores that are part of the larger shopping complexes are really struggling to attract customers into their shops. If you look at the numbers of people who are visiting those shopping centres they're obviously in a state of decline. They've gone down particularly since Christmas but, quite frankly, many of us who were in shopping centres pre Christmas would have noticed that the number of people there had gone down significantly. Often, you see people walking around shopping centres and they haven't bought anything at all. They've certainly bought food, but they must have that. This has a serious impact on people in the retail sector. But, more importantly, the cost of living for people in Australia has to be dealt with, and the Labor government is missing in action. Climate Change 82 16:45 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Today is a momentous day. The community wanted action on climate change, the business community wanted action on climate change and the government wanted action on climate change. The community spoke at the federal election last year, and said that they wanted to see our country move to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and, for decades, the business community has said that they want business certainty. And today, this week, we've seen that the 47th Parliament of Australia also wants action on climate change. The safeguard mechanism bill is about today and tomorrow. I note that there are students here, and it's really important that they're here. It's important that the students are here and witness what it is that members of parliament are doing in this place. Many people know that I was born and bred in a mining town. I'm an engineer who has worked on the mines, and I spent the last 10 years working with companies to help them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The thing that I saw through the decade when I worked in that area is that the policy uncertainty was awful. There was so much chopping and changing; companies were trying to adjust to what they needed to do and it just wasn't there. What today signifies is that we're sending strong signals to businesses so that they know we expect them to pull their weight. I have a friend who works in HR at FMG, Fortescue Metals Group, which many people would know is one of Twiggy Forrest's companies. FMG has two arms: its iron ore business and also its hydrogen business. The thing that's really interesting when I speak to my friend is that she talks about how excited people are to work in the clean energy sector. If we think about what motivates people, it's autonomy, mastery and purpose. What people want is purpose in their vocation and purpose in clean energy jobs. This policy, along with the National Reconstruction Fund, will unlock clean energy jobs. John Howard knew that we needed action on climate change; that's why he introduced the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act. I'm shocked that today the coalition did not vote for climate action. Did they not get the memo? Did they not see the election results? Are they trying to be irrelevant? Have they not had a look at the crossbench? I'm wondering what their election strategy will be for the next election. I know that, historically, climate change has been quite political; it has blown up political leaders and parties. But the thing that I want to assure people of is that this policy is tight and the Labor Party is united. I also have to take my hat off to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy; I cannot imagine the complexity of balancing the input from different people, from the crossbench to the NGO community and to business. Somehow, we've done this. And I want the children of Australia to know that this parliament wants to make sure they inherit a liveable planet. I think that is critical, and it's something everyone deserves to be part of. I remember that when I was studying my university course there was a young woman who was quite brilliant—she ended up getting dux of the year. There was an oil and gas company which wanted to court the most brilliant students. This was the first time they had provided a job offer, but this young woman said, 'Actually, I'd like to work in a different area.' It was the first time they'd seen that. I imagine the thing we're going to see now is decarbonisation of the economy across the board. This is going to be really exciting. The truth is that now we'll see our large polluters reducing their emissions—and I'm glad there's also an absolute baseline associated with that. To Swan, it is such a privilege to be elected to this place and to work for you and deliver good policy. I remember knocking on doors in Swan and people wanted action on climate change, and I remember one day when three neighbours all in their own words explained that they wanted action on climate change. Please know I do not take one day for granted. To Lincoln and Felicity, know that this is one of the reasons why I've stood in this place, and I'm really looking forward to creating great policy and creating that positive future. Griffith Electorate 82 16:50 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith A few weeks ago a group of residents came to me with a simple question: what's more important for the community in Greenslopes—another McDonald's, or an established medical centre that currently serves over 3,000 residents? I think it's fair to say the community know what they'd prefer. The medical centre is deeply concerned this development will be the end of its practice. I don't want to be a buzzkill, but I don't think we really need another McDonald's right here. There are already five McDonald's locations within a seven-to-12 minute drive of the site. What the community does need is clinics like Greenslopes Family Practice. The Australian Medical Association has projected a shortage of more than 10,000 GPs by 2031. Every week in my office I hear of residents struggling to access medical care in Griffith, in particular access to GPs. It's yet another case where we've seen a planning framework which maximises profits for developers and big multinationals, rather than what the community actually needs. The thousands of residents of Griffith impacted by severe and harmful flight noise from Brisbane Airport have been stunned to be told the minister for infrastructure has refused to meet with them. Apparently the minister has plenty of time to meet with the aviation industry representatives and attend air shows to cosy up with the government's friends in big business but not to speak to representatives from the community crying out for action. People are calling for decisive action. They're asking for the basic measures Sydney Airport has: a night-time curfew and a cap on flight movements. In all the years of reports and reviews into the new runway debacle, nobody has been able to explain to me or them why the solutions good enough for Sydney are not good enough for Brisbane. Earlier this month at the National Press Club the minister told the community that if we want a curfew we're going to have to protest for it. Well, I've heard from a lot of furious residents who just may take her up on that. The Greens won't be backing down. We will be supporting the community to take action, as we have supported action on flight noise from the very beginning. Good luck to the government if they think they can ignore this community forever. The fight to save East Brisbane State School and Raymond Park from the disastrous plan to waste at least $2.7 billion demolishing and rebuilding the Gabba stadium is far from over. The Australian Olympic Committee CEO, Matt Carroll, just this week said the quiet part out loud about the Gabba when he said: The Olympics and Paralympics will use it for a month, if they could just give it a coat of paint. He's right; the Gabba does not need to be knocked down and rebuilt. The plan to bulldoze the only public primary school in one of the densest, fastest growing areas of inner-city Brisbane such a spectacular failure of one of the government's most basic responsibilities—that is, to ensure every community has a school. Meanwhile, Raymond Park is home to a children's playground, basketball court, football club, sports field and much-loved community garden, not to mention people's homes. Ask anyone living within three kilometres of that park what it's worth to them. The vast majority of people in Queensland and across Australia oppose this project. They know this money, $2.7 billion at least, should be used to build public housing, schools and hospitals in areas that need them, not used to demolish a school and public park, and we'll be fighting to make sure this project is stopped and we spend this money in this country where it's needed. We're told constantly by the political system that we can't hope for more. We're told there isn't enough money for public housing or raising the pension, DSP and JobSeeker payments so people aren't forced to live in poverty and tents in the park. But we're told there is $368 billion for nuclear attack submarines that will make us less safe—no questions asked about that money—there is $7 billion for sports stadiums for an Olympic Games that the people of Brisbane were never asked if they wanted and there are hundreds of billions of dollars to give the rich tax cuts they don't need or deserve. The people of Griffith sent me here to fight for them, to be a voice for ordinary people who are screwed over every day by governments who care more about their corporate donors, multinational corporations and billionaires getting richer than about people having safe and affordable homes or enough food to eat. To build movements that grow and grow in power until they force the government to act is what we need to do—to build the homes we need so no-one is left out in the cold; to ensure every single person in this country has what they need to do live a good life—and we won't stop fighting until we get there. Polish Independent Carpathian Brigade, Fraser Electorate: Social Enterprises 83 16:55 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser On Sunday I attended the 30th anniversary of the Polish Museum and Archives in Australia and heard a remarkable migration story about the Rats of Tobruk—not the legendary World War II Australian soldiers but the Polish Rats, the Polish Independent Carpathian Brigade, who reinforced the Allied garrison to hold the Libyan port of Tobruk. For eight months in 1941 the garrison withstood daily bombings, searing heat and bitterly cold nights. After the war, the soldiers were transported to Britain. While Churchill had assured the troops they'd be welcome, a campaign soon turned public sentiment, and soldiers were told that they would not be able to remain on UK soil. Thus started Polish migration to Australia, despite the longstanding preference for British migrants. Following furious lobbying of Arthur Calwell by Australian Rats of Tobruk Association and others, 1,500 Polish soldiers were accepted. As one digger stated, 'These men are not Poles; these men are our brothers.' This migrant scheme of 1947 to 1948, the first coordinated intake of non-British migrants, was also a catalyst for the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948. But it wasn't a free ride. The soldiers had to work for two years on hydroelectric projects in Tasmania—projects that, like the Polish community, continue to this day to benefit the Australian community. Mr Speaker, my electorate has a number of thriving social enterprises. Just around the corner from my electorate office is SalamaTea, a cafe serving Persian food. Its founder, Hamed Allahyari, who has called Melbourne home since migrating to Australia from Iran in 2012, went above and beyond to feed people during COVID. Hamed's first paid employment was running cooking classes with the social enterprise Free to Feed. His experience inspired him to open a similar social enterprise to provide opportunities to refugees, asylum seekers and migrants who faced the same problems that he did when he arrived in this country. Another thriving social enterprise is Green Collect, which was co-founded 15 years ago by Sally Quinn. It keeps office items out of landfill by reusing, repurposing and dismantling the items. It is a remarkable example of what can be achieved in a true circular economy. Sally, a social worker, knew that a job with meaning was the key to rebuilding lives for those experiencing difficulties, whether they were refugees, people experiencing homelessness or survivors of family violence. With a female-dominated workforce, not only is Green Collect transforming the waste sector and transforming lives; it is also transforming the workplace. The organisation 100 Story Building has another amazing story to tell. They use the arts, creativity and imagination to build critical literacy skills, confidence and a sense of belonging. Its work focuses on young people, aged five to 18, from the most disadvantaged communities economically, culturally and socially. Many migrant and refugee families take advantage of this remarkable social enterprise. They have worked with more than 45,000 young people and 2,000 teachers since 2013. These social enterprises in my electorate are replicated right across the state of Victoria and nationally. They are organisations with a purpose. They produce employment for people from a disadvantaged background and they undertake their activities with many other important social objectives in mind, such as protecting the environment. The social enterprise sector has grown dramatically in Australia over recent decades, and it is important that government play its role in helping the sector to grow further. This could include accreditation and, where appropriate, social procurement. I look forward to working with the social enterprises in my electorate and more broadly. House adjourned at 17:00 NOTICES 84 NOTICES Presentation 84

Thursday, 30 March 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Ananda-Rajah ) took the chair at 09:28.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 85 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Budget 85 09:28 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan 'Restraint is the name of the game in this budget'—the words of Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer. Is it restraint to spend $368 billion on nuclear submarines? Is it restraint to spend $12 billion a year every year for 30 years to buy eight submarines that will only make us more likely to follow the US into another war? Is it restraint to spend $254 billion on $9,000 tax cuts for billionaires and the very wealthy? Is it restraint to spend $40 billion on subsidies for fossil fuel companies? It seems that, when the Treasurer preaches restraint, that applies only to everyday people. In reality, this government is on a reckless spending binge of over $600 billion for the very wealthy, for big coal and gas corporations, and for massive weapons manufacturers. This government has $600 billion for the big corporations and billionaires but only $500 million a year for affordable housing, which will see the housing crisis get worse. There's $600 billion for the big corporations and billionaires but not a cent more for our woefully underfunded public schools. There's $600 billion for the big corporations and billionaires but not a cent to bring dental into Medicare. There's $600 billion for the big corporations and billionaires but not a cent more for raising the pension so older Australians don't live in poverty. The government is spending $368 billion on nuclear submarines. This is truly staggering in its economic irrationality, recklessness and cowardice. These submarines aren't for defending Australia. They're supporting the US's attempt to dominate the Pacific to secure its strategic interests, which, mind you, just happen to be the interests of its biggest multinational corporations. These submarines draw us ever further into an alliance with the US, who—if we aren't all suffering from major collective memory loss—led us into a war in Afghanistan that, 20 years later, simply saw the return of the Taliban; a war in Iraq that left hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead and further destabilised the entire region; and, not to mention, further back—and I'm old enough to remember this too—the disastrous Vietnam War. These submarines don't bring us closer to peace. They bring us closer to war. I'll end with this: there's a large community of military veterans in my electorate of Ryan, and my office is regularly contacted by veterans struggling to access the support they deserve through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Many of them have contacted me, concerned about the increasingly bellicose language of this government. They want peace, and they want the government to put money into supporting the veteran community and into mental health. But the government has restraint for veterans and spending sprees for warmongering. Hurst, Ms Catherine 85 09:31 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I rise today to pay tribute to Catherine Hurst, a truly remarkable woman from Bingie on the New South Wales South Coast who has recently passed away. Cathie first came to many people's attention for her deeply courageous and dignified public testimony as a local cancer patient at the 2022 parliamentary inquiry into rural and regional health. And her contributions as a member of the ONE New L4 Eurobodalla Regional Hospital Advocates group were confronting and effective. Cathie bravely told her story as a local witness under oath, and it could only be described as heroic and searingly uncompromising. It took courage to do what Cathie did. Those listening understood precisely what it meant to be in her shoes when she was told she would need to make long, uncomfortable journeys to access radiotherapy. But it wasn't just about her; Cathie told her story for other cancer patients who live in regional and remote areas. She was a tireless and passionate advocate for health and community. Cathie's impactful contributions, speaking at large rallies, petition presentations—including two to me—and media interviews brought her into contact with all manner of community and with federal and state representatives. She established a productive relationship and friendship with many of them, including myself, Dr Michael Holland, and the new New South Wales health minister Ryan Park. Cathie was a modest but genuine local hero, and we were all honoured to know her. She had a fierce spirit and a kind heart. Cathie will always be remembered for her tireless work as an advocate for a radiation therapy centre at Moruya. However, Cathie's life was more than that. She was a retired member of DFAT and had a wide circle of longstanding friendships in and outside government circles and from her many international postings, and I know she will be fondly remembered by all as a valued colleague and a wonderful friend. I'm happy to know that just this weekend she would have been thrilled to watch her advocate, friend and local member, Dr Michael Holland, get re-elected. More importantly, it brings me immense joy to know that in her final days Cathie was able to watch one of her daughters get married. I know that Cathie's passing is a great loss to her partner, Grahame, and her parents, siblings and children. I offer my deepest condolences to all of them. Cathie was a beautiful and loving family member and a pillar of the community, and her legacy will live on through the memories she created with all those who knew her. She was an inspiration to us all with her resilience, courage and unwavering commitment to improving health care for rural and regional communities. We will miss her warmth, her intelligence and her generous spirit. Vale, Cathie. Your legacy lives on. Grafton District Services Club Easts Cricket Club, Santin, Jaiden 86 09:34 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Celebrations were high recently when local cricket club the Grafton District Services Club Easts finally broke their drought and won the Clarence River Cricket Association premier league title. This is their first premiership in 27 years. Two players in the premier league side, local young talents Theo Lobsey and Pat Brophy, also played in the under-17s side for the club. Pat played alongside his father, Chris, in the premier league grand final. The skipper of the side, Shannon Connor, had an exceptional season, scoring in excess of 400 runs, including 94 in the grand final, and taking over 40 wickets throughout the season. Shannon was also named Player of the Match. Aaron MacFayden had a stellar season, making in excess of 400 runs and taking over 40 wickets. Jimmy Watters made his mark on the grand final, coming up from the second grade to play, and scored 47 runs. Team members included Luke Hayman, Tom Gerrard, Chris Chamberlain, Aiden Tredinnick and David Bruxton-Duroux, who is also the vice president of the club. Club President Bret Loveday was over the moon with the win. He's been the club president for 18 years and now has a premiership as part of his tenure. Other members of the executive were Treasurer, Adam Brown, and Secretary, Sarah Loveday. Congratulations to the GDSC Easts Cricket Club on a well-deserved win. I'd like to congratulate a young local car driver, Jaiden Santin. On 25 March at the Whyalla Speedway, Jaiden, who is 16 years old, won the 2023 SSA Junior Sedan South Australian State Title. He took the lead in the 25-lap main event after 10 laps. He and his sister travelled with their family over 2,000 kilometres to get to the event. Jaiden races in the junior sedan category alongside his youger sister, Sophie. He has been racing since he was 10 years of age. Congratulations, Jaiden, and I look forward to seeing you race soon at the Lismore Speedway. Blair Electorate: Infrastructure 86 09:36 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I'm pleased to update the parliament on the progress of a number of election commitments and budget measures in my electorate of Blair. During the election campaign, I announced a multimillion dollar package of initiatives for our region, and the Albanese Labor government's first budget is carrying those out. To that end, the federal budget contained tens of million of dollars for infrastructure, flood resilience projects, health and veterans services, and community and sporting facilities. First, there was the support for the high priority transport infrastructure projects for our growing city, including $12.5 million for planning for the next stage of the Ipswich Motorway between Oxley and Darra. Last month, the federal and Queensland governments called for expressions of interest to update the Ipswich Motorway masterplan and develop the business case to upgrade the Oxley interchange, and the plan is expected to be completed by mid-2024. The budget also secured $3.4 million to complete the detailed business case for the Ipswich to Springfield public transport corridor, which is our region's highest-priority project and is part of the South East Queensland City Deal. Last week I hosted a delegation of Ipswich city councillors and business and community leaders who came to raise awareness among parliamentarians of the urgent need for a rail link between the Ipswich CBD and Springfield—the fastest-growing city in Queensland—to the east. The Queensland and federal governments and Ipswich City Council are all working together, and I expect the business case to be finalised within this term of government, so that we can get the project shovel ready after a decade of delays and delivery failures from those opposite. Planning for the two major road projects in Blair—the Cunningham Highway-Amberley interchange upgrade and the Warrego Highway-Mount Crosby Road interchange upgrade—is well underway and should have been completed by the end of last year. I'm urging Main Roads Queensland to do that. They've told me that the business case for the Mount Crosby interchange upgrade will be finished very shortly and the preferred design option for the Amberley interchange also will be done very shortly. Just as importantly, the budget includes immediate support for disaster-ready projects, including $4 million to upgrade the Ipswich Showgrounds so they can be used as our premier emergency centre for residents forced from their homes during natural disasters. The Ipswich Show Society and the Ipswich Show are celebrating their 150th birthday this year: an auspicious occasion! I congratulate them for all they do for Ipswich. I particularly acknowledge Darren Zanow, who has done a mighty job. The National Emergency Management Agency is liaising with the show society on these upgrades, and I expect an update to coincide with the show in May. There's also $3 million for Ipswich City Council projects along the Bremer river and its tributaries under the Urban Rivers and Catchments Program to improve flood recovery resilience, water quality and environmental values for urban waterways. I know that the Ipswich City Council and the department are working to that end, and I commend them for the work that they're doing. Thank you very much to all those organisations who are involved in these projects and their delivery. Peel Health Campus 87 09:39 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning It's deja vu because here I am again exposing Labor's shocking mismanagement of the Peel Health Campus in Western Australia. My constituents are frustrated and running out of patience. Our local Labor members have been silent on this issue for two years, until this week. Yesterday, in an out-of-touch op-ed in our local paper, the Mandurah Coastal Times, the state member for Dawesville, Lisa Munday, claimed that 'no patient is ever ramped in the back of an ambulance'. This is false. When the member for Dawesville was elected in March 2021, patients were ramped at Peel Health Campus for a total of 172 hours that month. By December last year, that number had grown to 647 hours. But, according to the member, these figures are not true because—she claims—there were no patients in those ambulances. I would love to know what definition WA Labor uses for ambulance ramping, because here is the Australian Medical Association's definition: When an emergency department is at capacity, patients are unable to be transferred from the ambulance to the emergency department in timely manner, commonly referred to as ambulance ramping. Labor's claim that, yes, there is ramping but, no, it doesn't involve patients is tricky politics; it is not being upfront. The member for Dawesville is not listening to our community, who are desperate for Labor to fix the Peel Health Campus. Almost 90 per cent of people who responded to my community survey said the Peel Health Campus is their top concern. Thousands of people have signed my petition urging Labor to fix our hospital and have shared their stories with me. Not long ago, I heard from a grandmother, Lyn, from Dawesville, who sat in the back of an ambulance for eight hours with no food or water. This is despite our local member's claim that 'never ever are they ramped in the back of an ambulance'. She went on to say that patients 'may even be given a sandwich and a cuppa while they wait'. Is the state member for Dawesville really saying this never happened? Is Lyn really making this up? Because this did happen, and this story is not the only one. We have many stories just like it. But there is one point on which the member for Dawesville and I agree. She states that our brilliant nurses and doctors at the Peel Health Campus 'work hard to care for any patient that comes through the door'. I absolutely know that's true from personal experience with my infant daughter and also my father, who were treated at the Peel Health Campus. But I also know that our frontline health workers need support from the Labor state government. They are crying out for Premier Mark McGowan to do what he promised, but our three state Labor MPs have been silent. Then this week we see the member for Dawesville attempt to defend the indefensible. She should be advocating for her community; instead, she's telling them they've got it all wrong. The weight of evidence is against her and WA Labor. We want action and we wanted it yesterday. People's lives depend on it. Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health and Community Services 87 09:42 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra Recently, I visited the Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health and Community Services here in the ACT and met with CEO Julie Tongs to discuss the challenges and opportunities facing Aboriginal health and community services in the ACT. Julie has run Winnunga for 25 years and is a pillar of our community. Winnunga is a vital service based in Narrabundah, a short distance from this place, that supports First Nations people not just from the ACT but from surrounding New South Wales. Established in 1988 by local Aboriginal people, Winnunga offers a range of health services, including medical, dental, counselling, outreach and preventative health programs. It brings together doctors, dentists, midwives and counsellors with art teachers, boxing instructors and mechanics. Julie believes there is no point treating a person for a single ailment without looking at other aspects of their life. So, in addition to the health programs provided by Aboriginal health workers, Julie has established and expanded life-skills options, such as a youth diversion program, a boxing club and a home maintenance program. When I arrived, Winnunga's reception area was absolutely full of people, and Julie told me that demand for their services has been outstripping the capacity of her dedicated staff to meet those demands. As a result, patient outcomes are suffering. For example, there is a need for a paediatrician on staff, but Commonwealth funding doesn't currently stretch to this. Winnunga also runs a health clinic inside Canberra's prison, the Alexander Maconochie Centre, where their services are in high demand. Julie believes Winnunga is critical in helping to prevent Indigenous people going to jail, by treating alcohol and drug dependencies. In our chat Julie outlined the challenges and opportunities facing Winnunga. A number of recent reports, including from the Productivity Commission and the ABS, showed that First Nations Canberrans experience some of the worst outcomes of any Aboriginal community anywhere in Australia. For example, Indigenous people make up less than two per cent of the national capital's population but make up more than one quarter of the prison population at the Alexander Maconochie Centre. In fact, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are 20 times more likely than non-Indigenous people to be in prison in the ACT. This is the worst rate in the country. Sadly, other areas tell a similar story, including homelessness and Aboriginal children in contact with the care and protection system and in out-of-home care. Julie and the Winnunga team are doing an incredible job, but they are absolutely stretched. They desperately need the fair proportion of Commonwealth funding and assistance to be directed to ACT Aboriginal community controlled health services. As Julie explained to me, Winnunga serves not only the ACT community but a huge proportion of New South Wales, as Canberra is a meeting place not just for politicians but for people from all around the country as well. I will be working with the federal government to ensure that Winnunga receive the support they need to support those that they support. Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 88

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

09:45 Mr JOYCE e5d New England A bill for a constitutional alteration has now been brought into the parliament. It is a bill for a section of Australian society and gives a racial preference to that section. It is something that, by reason of that, I find to be wrong. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states quite clearly, 'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.' This bill shows a differentiation in rights, and people are not equal. In the bill, in proposed chapter IX, section 129, it says: (ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament … What is the Voice? These are details we need before the referendum, not after the referendum. Of course, any legislation that goes through the parliament will go through on the numbers, and the numbers are currently controlled by the Labor Party in the House of Representatives and by the Labor Party, the Greens and the teals in the Senate. In section 129, it also says: (iii) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws … 'Subject to this Constitution' means that the Constitution has a primacy in what it can do. It may make subsection (iii) completely irrelevant because it's subject to the Constitution, and the Constitution has been changed, and the preceding subsection (ii) has given the power for the Voice. In his second reading speech, the Attorney-General says: It is a form of constitutional recognition that is practical and substantive … It certainly is substantive. It's substantive in his own words. He also says: It creates an independent institution that speaks to the parliament and the executive government, but does not replace, direct or impede the actions of either. At this point in time, that is an interpretation of the High Court as to what it does. We need to see the Solicitor-General's advice as to what they believe. The government tabled the Solicitor-General's advice with regard to the ministries of the previous Prime Minister. They made it a warrant of their virtue. But they won't give us the Solicitor-General's advice on this. The Attorney-General also says: We know outcomes are better when we partner with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The evidence is there: the Indigenous Ranger programs; the many Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations; and justice reinvestment That is an endorsement that we actually can do things that work. We do it through a legislative process. Those things were brought in without a constitutional change. People cannot get their vote back after this referendum. It is a major change to our Constitution. Because it creates a difference on the premise of race, I think it is a very noxious concept, and I urge Australians to vote no. Economic Pathways to Refugee Integration Grants to Social Enterprises 88 09:48 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I rise this morning to speak about a very memorable meal that I recently enjoyed with the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs at Parliament on King, in Newtown. Parliament on King is a terrific cafe on King Street, Newtown. I really urge people who are visiting Sydney to drop in and have a look, because it's got a very warm, welcoming atmosphere and some of the best food around. What makes the restaurant even more special is that the food is prepared by asylum seekers and refugees who are getting their first start in the hospitality industry. For the past seven years, Parliament on King has been training recent asylum seeker arrivals in hospitality skills like food preparation, coffee making and customer service. So far they have trained 350 people, welcomed them in, helped them get ready for work in a new country and allowed these, mostly, women to find a supportive network here in Australia as well. The owners, Ravi and Della Prasad are incredible people. Ravi was working in advertising and had an epiphany. He decided that he wanted to do something with a bit more meaning in his life. They have got huge hearts, and they're making a huge difference in our community. We could all learn something from their philosophy, which is 'open hearts, open doors'. As you would expect, they were very gracious hosts. The minister and I got to meet some recent graduates of the program: Bebe Baker, Asma Khan and Hani Abdilie. They cooked the most amazing meal for us. It was really terrific. I got some to take home with me as well. I couldn't have enjoyed it more. The minister for immigration and I were absolutely delighted to tell Ravi and his team that his restaurant had received a federal grant as part of the Economic Pathways to Refugee Integration Grants program. The grant, worth $557,000, is to support the First Shift Ready program. That will support 30 newly arrived female refugees by helping them learn English and helping remove barriers to employment. It's a wonderful program and very worthy of government assistance. For anyone listening, you can also help Parliament on King directly. You can drop in and eat and support it that way, or you can support them financially. It's worth knowing that Parliament on King also donates food they cook to homeless Australians. It's a wonderful cause and you can find out how to support them on their website. Congratulations to all of the graduates who have been through this fantastic course. We all know what a difference getting a job makes to people's life chances and to their feelings of integration in Australia. Mining Industry 89 09:51 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My electorate of Capricornia holds the title of having the most coalmines in Australia. This industry employs thousands of my constituents in the resources sector alone and continues to support the nation by returning over $9 billion to the Australian economy. These mines in the regional towns that are the hubs for the resource sector are the engine room of Australia. With new technologies being established to support the push for renewable energy and climate change targets, the need for the mining of natural resources is growing. Australia has an abundance of the critical minerals that are required for creating the technologies that are the way of the future. Investing in and developing Australia's world-leading mining industry is at a critical juncture. We must ensure that we keep pace with other countries, while mining resources to supply the growth of the technology industry. Australia is on the verge of another mining boom for these critical minerals. By 2030, to meet demand for electricity storage alone, the world will require 50 new lithium mines, 60 new nickel mines and 17 new cobalt mines. The economic value of this demand places Australia in prime position to take advantage of this boom. To support net zero emission by 2050, further investment will be needed not only for developing the required mining projects but also for providing a skilled and competent workforce. The coalition government recognises the importance of ensuring that our region is ready with proficient and highly trained people. CQ University saw the need to invest in developing courses to produce highly skilled and qualified workers to meet the needs of the resource sector. I was proud to deliver $30 million for CQ University's School of Mining and Manufacturing at the Rockhampton and Gladstone campuses. On 15 March, this incredible new facility was officially opened. The purpose-built, state-of-the-art school of mining in Rockhampton will support training, education, research and workforce development to ensure the needs of the mining and resource sectors are met. In the first year alone, the school of mining will see 200 highly skilled graduates enter the resource industry. Central Queenslanders will now be able to train locally and learn the cutting-edge skills required for emerging markets. There is no doubt the new school of mining will also attract people to the Rockhampton region to study and gain employment in the minefields to the west, further driving the economic growth of Central Queensland. Professor Nick Klomp, CQ University's vice-chancellor, has been championing the importance of studying in the regions to support the needs of regional Australia. CQ University continues to take the lead in delivering training and higher education for regional Australians, and I commend Professor Klomp and his team for the work they do in skilling people to meet the needs of industries across Australia. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 89 09:54 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I rise to speak about the Voice to Parliament. This morning, the government introduced the first legislative steps towards achieving recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in our Constitution. I want to share with you a letter from a constituent of mine in the electorate of Pearce who wrote to me to explain her support for the Voice. I will now read that letter. I have just hit my seventh decade, and it is time! I did not see my first Aboriginal person until I was thirteen years old as there were none attending my primary school or high school during those years. Looking back at my education I am incredibly angry that my schoolbooks and the "Australian" history being taught in schools was completely whitewashed. I learnt absolutely nothing about Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander history—nothing—it is like they did not exist. It is a national disgrace that we did not properly recognise our First Nations people until the 1967 Referendum that sought to change the Constitution, to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were recognised as part of the Australian population. 90.77 per cent of Australian voters voted Yes to these changes and we can do so again. We all now know the history of dispossession, control, and oppression over the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders including the sorry history of States that enacted Aboriginal Protection Acts giving them the legal right to remove children from their families. I have worked up north in Queensland as a young woman and in latter years in the northwest of WA. During that period, I've been privileged to meet some amazing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are trying extremely hard to create better education, training, and work opportunities for their children, sometimes against all odds. I have seen both the best and worst of policies and attitudes. The truth is we can do better and must by working together! Anyone with any common sense must know, it is time for change. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a simple document that does not seek much in the scheme of things. It is about recognition, respect, consultation, and the ability to have a voice on matters that impact on our First Nations people. It is about truth telling and in time, Treaty. I welcome the opportunity to have my say in a Referendum, as I genuinely want to embrace 65,000 years of continuous culture and what I have come to understand is the oldest known civilisation on Earth. The Referendum and Constitutional change to me represent a chance to truly embrace our history, the good and the bad, but importantly, a chance to change our future by taking this journey hand in hand with our First Nations people, towards true reconciliation. Sincerely—a constituent of Pearce. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 90 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Commonwealth Year of Youth 90 09:57 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay It's a pleasure to speak on Australia's youth in the Commonwealth's Year of Youth. I want to begin my remarks by congratulating my friend the shadow minister for youth and member for Moncrieff for her impassioned speech yesterday in the House on this topic, and I thank her for sharing her story with the parliament again. It is an inspiration to the many young people who were watching on from the galleries yesterday. Of course, I also want to thank the Minister for Youth, the honourable member for Cowan, for her words in the House, for the dedication she has to the youth of our country and for her work within the government in this key policy space. Throughout the toughest times of COVID, particularly the lengthy lockdowns faced by Western Sydney and Melbourne, there was a big focus on businesses and economic recovery—rightly so, given that, without this adequate support, more livelihoods, and lives, could have been lost. But I thought, this year being the Commonwealth Year of Youth, it gives the King's realms and the Commonwealth of nations a chance to reflect on how COVID has impacted our young people and on the additional support they still need to fully recover. In my role as the shadow assistant minister for mental health and suicide prevention, I speak with many young people when I attend headspaces and I speak to many youth mental health organisations, and I want to make a special mention of Youth Insearch for the incredible work that they do to support young people across our country. Youth Insearch has a terrific peer-worker model which assists many young people who find that the usual mental health system does not fit their needs. I've had young people from Youth Insearch come to my office a couple of times now, and I'm so impressed with their passion and the work they do for other young people when it comes to mental health. Many young people who attend Youth Insearch are referred to the program by their school as an avenue to speak with other kids and youths about similar struggles and issues they may have gone through or continue to go through. This may include trauma or difficulties with mental health. I met with Youth Insearch here in parliament and I was so pleased to speak at a breakfast held here in Parliament House, where we heard some amazing stories of resilience and recovery. The peer workers have lived experience, and sometimes this can impact them. However, Youth Insearch has protocols in place to ensure they are supported when they need additional assistance. I've asked how young people who have gone through their own issues have resilience when they speak to other young people, and I'm really impressed with the model that Youth Insearch has to ensure that young people are protected in the space. I want to give a big shout-out to Courtney, Kate, Marlie, Nelani and Telly, who have all signed my End Youth Suicide T-shirt that proudly hangs in the foyer of my parliament office. We must end the stigma that comes with mental health to ensure that those who feel embarrassed, particularly young men, feel supported to come forward and speak with their general practitioner or school counsellor, and get the help they need from a psychologist or a psychiatrist or be referred to a program like Youth Insearch. I emphasise that young people went through so much during COVID. I hear stories. I know this from personal experience; my son was in year 12 during the lockdowns. Kids are still going through the after-effects of those lockdowns, with the lack of connection they had with their peers during that time. A few days ago the Minister for Youth released the net round of youth advisory panels. There is a mental health and suicide prevention youth advisory panel. I want to thank Arsh, Ipshita, Isabelle, Jessica, Katherine, Sankara, Saul and Troy for putting up their hands to be members of this very important body. I want to let you know that your work really matters. Keep fighting for what you believe in and what you think needs to happen in the mental health space across our country. I extend an open invitation to the government, to the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the assistant minister for mental health, to meet with myself and the shadow minister for health and this youth advisory group, to work on bipartisan solutions to reduce suicide in young people across Australia. As we always say, mental health should not be political; we should all be in there together trying to achieve the same outcomes. In parliament I recently met with members of the Australian Youth Affairs Coalition, who shared with me that the cost of living is a top issue for young people; this is what is most on their minds. They're getting smashed by rising power bills and the cost of rent. I met with Luke, who is a peer worker from Lindsay's headspace at Penrith, who told me that he is speaking with those as young as 16 who are being faced with a choice between putting food on the table and accessing psychology sessions. MindFlare, a psychology practice in Glenmore Park in Lindsay, has told me that, due to the cost-of-living crisis hitting Western Sydney, people are now making the decision not to have psychology sessions. They are experiencing mass cancellations of psychology sessions. This comes at a time when Suicide Prevention Australia has just released its latest quarterly Community Tracker, which found that half of those surveyed, including young people, experienced elevated cost of living and personal debt distress. The figure rose by five per cent this quarter. I raise this because many young people are supported by their parents or carers. These cost-of-living pressures are impacting younger youth as their parents struggle to pay for the mental health sessions they need after the government cut them in half. Young people are still struggling from COVID, with social anxiety figures very high amongst those who are in later high school or their early years of university. These young people missed out on key milestones like attending a formal, going out in their first year of university and TAFE interactions, which we all know are so important. Recently I met with Hayley, who has started a petition asking the government to return the psychology sessions that were cut from 20 to 10 this year. She has 42½ thousand signatures on her petition. Hayley is from Western Sydney. She's 19 years old, and her peers are telling her that they really need the psychology sessions back. I want to congratulate Hayley for her tenacity, for her passion and for her drive to keep going. I want to see more action in this space from the government. After all, recommendation 12 of the Better Access evaluation report said the additional 10 sessions should continue. They should have continued until the government had a plan to replace them with a service it deemed more worthy, not just cut them away without anything to improve the system and access to psychology sessions across this country. Instead, with the cost of living slamming young people right now, and it being their No. 1 concern, they are now faced with not having access to these sessions. This is a disgrace. I join with Hayley and the thousands of other people across our country who are pleading with this government to return those sessions. I want to see more jobs in Western Sydney for local young people, to keep our youth local and ensure that they don't have to leave our beautiful community for work. They can stay, they can live and they can work in Western Sydney. This includes advanced manufacturing jobs. I thank the previous federal and New South Wales coalition governments for getting on with Western Sydney airport, which will allow more locals to live and work in Western Sydney. This amazing piece of infrastructure will unlock so much potential for jobs and investment in Lindsay and our region. I cannot wait to see the new jobs that will happen in and around the airport and that will ensure jobs for young people in Western Sydney for many years to come. I think of the superexcited faces of those young schoolchildren when they come to parliament in years 5 and 6, and I think, 'When you're finishing high school, the airport will be built and you'll have all these wonderful opportunities.' I have to say that I do ask if any of them want to be a politician; not many raise their hands. But so many raise their hands when I say, 'Who wants to work in the space industry?' That is what is coming to Western Sydney, with the international airport, brand-new industries and jobs in areas that we haven't even thought of yet. The future is so bright for young people in Western Sydney if we keep going along the trajectory of making this investment happen. To conclude, I want to thank the work done by amazing teachers across every school in Lindsay; there are too many to name. I also want to thank Western Sydney University campuses at Kingswood and Werrington and the TAFE campus at Kingswood for their work with young people, providing quality tertiary education to Lindsay students and those across Western Sydney. Australia is known as the lucky country. I believe in our youth and their aspirations for themselves and for our nation. Education and adequate mental health support is vital for our young people right now. They should have the best start for the future. I wish them all the best for the year ahead. 10:08 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo It would be remiss of me to not talk about the minister's statement, given that prior to coming to this place I worked in the youth sector—and we have the member for Riverina here. In fact, I met the member for Riverina many years ago when I was hosting a youth forum in his electorate. I think it was in the township of Griffith, from memory. I was really pleased to see the member for Riverina there. That's because all of us here should be really engaged with the young people in our community. We should, I think, as a first focus, very much think about the needs of young people in our decision-making. First of all, I'd like to congratulate the government for having a youth minister. One of my first questions when I came into this place was to ask then Prime Minister Turnbull why we didn't have a youth minister. He had a little bit of a cheeky response. He said that he and his cabinet felt very youthful. He then mentioned that many of the members of his cabinet were parents of young people or indeed, I think, grandparents of young people. The previous government did appoint a minister for youth—a minister for youth and aged care, from memory. That was a senator who I think was also probably a grandfather of a young person—not that there's anything wrong with that. What I'm trying to say here is that it's really important that we have a minister for youth, and I think that that minister should sit within cabinet, because the decisions we make today that affect young people will have ramifications for generations to come. There are a couple of issues I'd like to talk about. Prior to coming in this place I had a role as the national executive officer for a program called Youth Connections. We haven't, in this place, since that program was cut in 2014, had a program that was there to support young people to re-engage with education. We do have Transition to Work, which is a very good program, but that's about connecting young people into employment, many for the first time. But we don't have a program that scoops up those young people who are falling out of the education system in year 7 or year 8. We don't have a federal government program anymore that scoops them up and helps them to get back and, hopefully, finish year 11, year 12 or equivalent. We know that the best tool that you can have in order to live a good life, a life of fulfilment, is a good education. I would urge the government to go back in time and look at the program called Youth Connections that you had when you were last in government. From the 1970s through to 2014, there was always a federal government program that invested in young people who were outside of the school gate to get them back inside the school gate and worked with their families to do so. I'd also like to touch upon youth unemployment. While you could say that nationally our unemployment figures are very healthy, youth unemployment is always stubbornly higher than the national unemployment rate. I think it normally sits at around double. Where I'd like to go with this is for us to look at what is happening overseas. For many years the EU has had a youth jobs guarantee—that is, where there are no jobs in the market for a young person and where market programs run by various employment services are failing young people, it provides a youth guarantee. I've got to also commend a previous government. When we had Tony Abbott as Prime Minister, one thing he did do for youth—even though there were many things that he cut from young people and didn't do for youth—was the Green Army. I would really urge the government to look at that again. That was a fantastic program. In my electorate I met a young man who was of refugee background. He had travelled—many people don't know South Australia—from the northern suburbs by train, then on another train way down to the end of the train line at Seaford Meadows, where he then got picked up by a car to get down to Mount Compass and be part of the program that was rehabilitating the grasslands and swampland there. There are some particularly important frogs and birds that live in that grassland. I would really urge the government to reconsider that program. Not only was it good for the environment; it allowed a lot of young people who had not had experience in the workplace to build those soft skills, get up early in the morning and connect with other people outside of their family and friends. It was an excellent program, and I think all of the young people in that program from my electorate went on to roles, largely, in the environment sector, which they were pleased to hold. It was a great loss when we had a change in prime ministership that then resulted in the ending of that program. I'd also like to talk about the fact that when I was a young person— Honourable members interjecting— Ms SHARKIE 265980 It was a while ago!—government was actually the largest employer of apprentices. They were the ones who employed more apprentices than anyone else, and now we rely on the private sector to employ apprentices. But, if you are a small business, it is very challenging to take on an apprentice. A lot of small businesses feel they don't have the confidence and supports to be able to take on an apprentice. In particular, that's because in the first couple of years the apprentice is generally costing the business money, and with tight margins that's very challenging. So I would urge the government to have a little bit of a look at that whole program and how so many young people are not finishing their apprenticeships. The last thing I would like to raise is Youth Allowance. Youth allowance is pitiful. We think JobSeeker is a very low amount, but you can't live on youth allowance. You just can't. There are many young people who are 20 or 21 who are independent. They are outside of home. They can't physically be in the home either because they've got to study and that's far away from home, or because home is just not a safe place to be. We hear people talk about the rate of JobSeeker and how for years there's been a call to lift the rate. I acknowledge that the previous government did lift the rate a small amount, but youth allowance was left untouched. Quite frankly, I don't think you could keep a dog or a cat alive on youth allowance, let alone a young person. So I would urge the government, in this budget, to look at Youth Allowance and make sure it is sustainable so that young people have a bright future in our nation. 10:15 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I have great pleasure in joining the debate this morning and I'd like to associate myself with the thoughtful contribution from the member for Mayo. I think she raised many interesting points and valid points, particularly about young people in regional areas and their experiences in our country today. It's that good, common sense that the member for Mayo brings to this place, which I think the government would be well advised to listen to because I think the government needs to realise, sooner rather than later, that it is a very urban focused government. It is a very urban focused government by virtue of the fact that the overwhelming majority of members of the government do live in an urban environment. Opposition members interjecting— Mr CHESTER IPZ I acknowledge the members opposite who claim a little bit of regionality. I'll give you Lyons. It's a big stretch to see Blair, on the outskirts of Brisbane, with the City of Ipswich, as being particularly regional. Mr CHESTER IPZ I hear the member for Blair, and I always listen to him because he used to be my shadow minister—so I often heard from the member for Blair. It's not a criticism I'm trying to direct at you in any way whatsoever. It's just an indication of what we have seen in recent election results. The Labor Party has dominated right across mainland Australia—and congratulations to the Labor Party in that regard—but there is a great divide now between where the Labor Party is drawing its electoral strength and where people like me and the member for Riverina live and work on a daily basis. I've offered in all good faith to be available to the Prime Minister to provide feedback for communities that are more than a couple of hours away from a capital city. The Nationals' communities are all more than a couple of hours away from capital cities, and the challenges we face in those regional areas are particularly felt by young people. The regional youth experience is very different from the metropolitan youth experience, and as members who live in those rural and regional communities we bring a certain level of expertise and understanding of those communities that we can offer the government in good faith. This is not about the member for Gippsland standing up and trying to bash the government. It's more about saying that we live in those communities, we work in those communities, our families are there, and we understand that some of the policies that come out of Canberra, and Sydney and Melbourne, really don't play that well in a regional location. They simply don't work on the ground. We had that same experience from time to time with our Liberal cousins as well; don't get me wrong. It's a never-ending challenge for those of us in the Nationals to try and make sure that regional perspectives are understood. My role as the member for Gippsland—and my good friend the member for Riverina would share this passion. We want to see young people in regional communities have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. I think that's a shared vision across the parliament: we want to see young people growing up in Australia having the opportunity to achieve their full potential. But in the regions there are often other barriers that get in the way of that occurring, and I've spent my whole political career in this place working to try and address some of those barriers. I want to refer specifically to the challenges we have around increasing participation in university by kids from a regional background. There is no-one on this planet—certainly no-one in Australia, I would hope—that would think that country kids aren't as smart as city kids, but our participation rate in tertiary studies is vastly below that of students from an urban environment. In my electorate of Gippsland we have the second worst tertiary participation rate in the state of Victoria. The only region that's worse is Mallee, and Mallee is probably worse because it's more regional, rural and remote than even my electorate. Now, some of these challenges are challenges we have to address ourselves, as leaders in our own communities. As leaders in our own communities we have to explain to young people in our community—and help instil in them confidence, hope, optimism and aspiration—that, just because no-one in their family has finished year 12, they can't finish year 12. Just because no-one in your family has been to university, there's no reason why you can't be the first person in your family to go to university. They're aspirational challenges I think we, as local members, have to work with our communities on, in partnership with the education sector. The aspirational barrier is one that is our problem, but the economic barrier, the affordability barrier, the accessibility barrier, are government problems. They're the Group of Eight's problems as well. They have to work with our communities to make it more accessible for people from regional communities, and, as governments, we have to try and address the affordability issue better. The previous government, to its credit, started down that pathway with the tertiary access payment improvements and independent youth allowance improvements, but we didn't finish the job. I implore the new government to have another look at this issue and understand from a regional perspective how that accessibility and affordability piece is actually working against some of our young people achieving their full potential. I say in all genuineness that there are still challenges out there for regional students to go on and attend university. Of course, as the member for Mayo indicated a few moments ago, it's not all about university. You can have great careers in regional towns doing an apprenticeship, doing a trade or starting your own small business. Again, we have to make sure that is accessible to our students in our communities and they can see that pathway for themselves. Let's not kid ourselves: it's been a pretty tough time for young people in regional Australia. I look at my community, who came out of a drought into a bushfire, then into a COVID situation and lockdowns. Whatever you want to point to, there has been trauma in our regional communities. So making sure people are well supported and they can see a pathway for themselves is, again, a challenge for us as leaders in our communities. We need to instil that hope and that confidence and optimism. We need to be sharing positive stories with young people in regional areas so they can see a future for themselves in those communities. COVID has really made it difficult for communities to get together. As we emerge from the pandemic and as we start getting together more often, our challenge in our communities is to share that story of positivity and hope and to invest in their education and in them achieving their full potential. The pathways are not always, as I said, about university. There are pathways into trades, into vocational skills and also into the Defence Force. As a former minister for defence personnel, I know the diversity of opportunities that exist for young people in the Defence Force. I want to take one last point in the moment I have left and refer to the comments of the member for Mayo in relation to the Green Army. I believe that is another huge opportunity for us as a nation—to invest in the skills and the training of young people who are very passionate about the environment and quite rightly so. If I have one criticism about the current debate in Australia when it comes to the environment, it is that it has become very singularly focused on emissions and only on emissions. I'm someone who believes that we do have to do our share to reduce emissions, but, at 1.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent of total global emissions, Australia doesn't have the solution to emissions by itself. We do have the solution to some of the natural resource management issues in our communities—issues around biodiversity, pest animal control and pest plant control. We have those solutions in our own country. It's up to us as Australians to address those broader environmental issues, beyond the global challenge of reducing our emissions. The member for Mayo talked about the Green Army and the role it can play. What we're seeing right now in Victoria is deliberate public policies to cut down jobs in a whole range of industries where regional people have often sought to be employed, whether that be in the timber sector, the energy sector or paper manufacturing. We in Gippsland are the custodians of a vast natural estate. We have huge areas of public land—state forests and national parks—but very few jobs associated with that. There are very few jobs that are actually boots on the ground doing practical environmental work. There is a huge opportunity in my electorate for training and skill development in areas like the Green Army, leading into careers in the service of the natural environment. We want more people trained in bushfire hazard reduction, critical asset protection around our towns and pest plant and animal control—real biodiversity measures that I think young people in regional Australia will be very attracted to because they can see tangibly the work they're doing to improve the environment in regional Australia. When we talk about young people in our regional communities, it's blatantly obvious they are the future. We need to invest in their education, invest in the opportunities for them to achieve their full potential and work with them to ensure they see a future for themselves outside the capital cities. I thank the House. 10:24 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I want to address a few of the points the member for Gippsland raised in that contribution. I take it that he said them in good faith, and I know he often extends a hand of friendship. I just want to put on the record that, upon coming to government, the Albanese government has actually funded 20,000 new university places highly geared towards students from regional areas and Indigenous youth. We knew, coming into government, that there was a vast gap in terms of tertiary education for young people from the regions, and we sought to address that gap. That's a gap that built up over nine years of coalition government, in which the member opposite was a senior member of the government—and I'm sure he was a voice in the cabinet from time to time, as was the member for Riverina, speaking up for the regions. Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 I'll take that interjection, Member for Gippsland! It's in the Hansard now! But, of course, they had their colleagues in the Morrison Liberal Party to contend with. So, upon coming to government, we recognised that young people in the regions have just as much of a right, and the ability and proficiency, to go to university as young people from right across the country. Tertiary education is not for everybody, but, if those kids—whether they're in Dubbo or in a capital city; it doesn't matter where they are—show the aptitude for university education, and that's the path they want to go down and they have the ability, we want to make sure that that pathway is open to them. That's it for us. We don't believe that a university education should be the preserve of a privileged few, based on income. It should certainly not be based on income and certainly not on distance from a university or location. So we are absolutely 100 per cent dedicated to supporting students from regional areas who show the aptitude and have the proficiency to go to university and get that education. It's also worth noting that this government has brought in 180,000 fee-free TAFE places, because we know there are areas of critical skills shortages in this country. Again, they built up over nine years of a coalition government that actually defunded TAFEs across the country, including in regional areas, closing down the pathways for young people to get qualifications in a trade and to enter into traineeships. There were fewer young people coming out of traineeships in 2022 than there were in 2013, when the coalition came to office, despite a population increase in Australia over that time and despite ongoing economic growth. Explain the maths of that to me! How can you have a certain number of young people doing traineeships in 2013, and then, nine years later, have fewer, yet there has been economic growth. That doesn't make sense to me. Five out of six jobs created by our Powering Australia plan will be in the regions. We are absolutely committed to that, and, of course, a lot of those will be for young people. That's a great pathway for young people. Before I go, I want to give a quick shout-out to Rural Youth, a fantastic group of young people in my state. Every year in Tasmania, Rural Youth put on Agfest, which is a three-day festival of everything country. It is one of the best ag shows in the country. I invite the member for Riverina and the member for Gippsland to come down to Tasmania for Agfest. It's on in May. I know the member for Braddon will join me in saying that Agfest is an absolutely stellar show. It's put on by volunteers and by youth—they're all under 30, from memory, which is youthful in my eyes! It's all volunteer run and it's an absolutely first-class show, so I give a really big shout-out to Rural Youth. One last thing: tomorrow the current round of applications closes for the Local Sporting Champions grants. I'm sure I'm joined by members across the chamber in encouraging all young people and their families to apply. If they're going off to compete in championships of state, national or international significance, they can apply for a Local Sporting Champions grant and get some of those costs reimbursed if their application is successful. There are a lot of programs that support young people. Frankly, there were under the former government, but there also are under this government. We have 20,000 extra regional university places, 180,000 fee-free TAFE places and, very importantly, five out of six jobs being created under Powering Australia will go to regional areas, with many of them to be filled by young people. This government is absolutely on the side of youth. I thank the member for Gippsland for his contribution. He was right on some things and not right on others. We are absolutely committed to young people, including young people in the regions. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 95 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Resources Sector 95 10:30 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina During COVID, when the nation largely shut down, there were two sectors in particular that kept the lights on, kept exports going and kept our nation's economy afloat. They were agriculture and resources. All too often in this place—and elsewhere, for that matter—the resources sector is demonised, particularly by those opposite. Whilst I appreciate that the Minister for Resources, the member for Brand, made a statement on resources, which was an important speech, and whilst she talks up the resources sector in question time—and good on her for that—there's not a lot of solidarity amongst those opposite who talk out of one side of their mouth about the resources sector in this place and talk out the other side of their mouth whenever they are talking about it to constituents in their electorates. I do not earnestly believe that those opposite understand what role digging things up out of the ground truly plays in our country. But don't just take my word for it. Tania Constable, Chief Executive Officer of the Minerals Council, said on 9 February this year: Mining continues to support jobs, the economy and government spending on essential services during difficult times for Australian families. Trade data for 2022 reveals record export revenue which will generate substantial tax and royalty returns, higher wages and strong regional communities. She talked about the country areas that would, but for the resources sector, be largely ghost towns. Kanowna—a little place in Western Australia not far from a major Western Australian resource capital, which the member for O'Connor proudly represents—is indeed now a ghost town. A hundred years ago it was a thriving place. Once the resources were exhausted in Kanowna, the people went away and the town became a place with nothing more than tumbleweeds rolling down the once-paved streets. What we don't want to see under those opposite is policies that are going to lead to many more once-vibrant resource towns become nothing but places for tumbleweeds blowing down what were once busy main streets. We want to see our resources sector continue to employ hundreds of thousands of people. Indeed, the resources sector directly employs more than 270,000 Australians. Its indirect employment is more than 700,000, over and above those numbers of full-time equivalents. The sector paid more than $37.2 billion in wages and salaries last year. That's straight into Australian households. That's straight into the pockets of hardworking Australians. Even those in capital cities enjoy the benefits of having a strong resources sector. You can often find many of them at protests against the resources sector. You can often find many of them outside the confines of this place on any given sitting day protesting about coal and gas, protesting about the very industry that keeps their lights on and keeps their coffee percolator boiling of a morning. Mr Chester IPZ Who would do that? Mr McCORMACK 219646 Well, the Greens would do that. The member for Brisbane and his colleagues would do that, Member for Gippsland. I don't want to single him out—I just did! But the Greens want to completely destroy our mining sector, and yet the mining sector has done great things for our nation. The mining sector has been demonised and criticised so unfairly by the Greens and others, including almost all of those opposite. The mining sector is set to deliver $459 billion in export earnings over 2022-23, strengthening our budget and delivering funding for roads, schools and hospitals right across the country. Our nation could not do without the mining sector, and yet the mining sector cops so much unfair criticism. It's a sector which makes up over 13 per cent of our GDP and pays over $68.6 billion in company tax. We so often hear those jealous beings who go on and on about how mining companies don't pay enough tax and mining magnates don't contribute. And yet the mining companies, and the people who put on hi-vis and helmets with torches on top—and not only them but those who work in administration, in white-collar jobs associated with the mining industry—do so much for our nation. But for them, we couldn't keep the lights on and we wouldn't be able to pay for all the state schools and public hospitals. The mining sector helps to underpin those things. Speaking of underpinning, it was the mining sector which helped this nation continue to have a good books balance during COVID-19, when just about every other industry shut, when just about every other industry closed its doors, and everybody, Greens included, pulled the doona up and thought, 'Let's just ride this out.' It was those people who donned the high-vis vests—and those who went into the shearing sheds—and worked like they always do who helped this country out of the mire that we were in. Tania Constable, in her February speech, mentioned the statistics. In financial year 2022, coal contributed $141 billion. It was up 123 per cent. Iron ore contributed $123 billion, and gold contributed $23 billion—and a shout-out to the goldmining efforts at Lake Cowal, near West Wyalong in my electorate, and also Northparkes mine. Aluminium—alumina and bauxite—also contributed significantly, with $15 billion, up 14 per cent, and copper contributed $12 billion. These are big numbers. These are big employers. They should absolutely be lauded by those opposite, but the government come here and they have two faces. They'll take the money and use it on their programs—and good on them. They're the government now. They're in government shore to shore on mainland Australia. I look with great anticipation to see if the government will continue to do such things as paving the Outback Way. The Outback Way is Australia's Route 66, Australia's longest shortcut—2,719 kilometres, linking up Laverton in WA and Winton in Queensland. Winton, of course, is famous for being where Banjo Paterson wrote 'Waltzing Matilda', is famous for Qantas and is famous as an outback Queensland community. That Outback Way is going to help our mining community. We had a pathway to fully seal that road. I hope that those opposite recognise and acknowledge important roads—not just the Outback Way, but roads in the Beetaloo basin, the Bowen Basin, the Galilee Basin and in all of those rich mining areas that are going to prove so beneficial in the future. Whether it's Kalgoorlie—and I mentioned Kanowna earlier—or any of those other amazing and remarkable mining communities in Western Australia and right across this country, certainly in Queensland, they have led the way. They have helped pay for the significant debt that we incurred during COVID. But what did that significant debt do? I hear those opposite so often say: 'What did we get for the money? What did we get for the debt?' They talk about a trillion dollars worth of Liberal Party debt. It's nowhere near a trillion dollars, but I'll tell you what the debt enabled us to do. It enabled us to keep 55,000 Australians alive, and, if ever there was a good investment to make during COVID, it was in keeping Australians alive. When we were confronted with the possibility that up to 55,000 Australians were going to die in the first few months of COVID, they were worrying times. We put in place the policies to keep Australians alive and safe, and to make sure we kept industries such as agriculture and mining going. It was mining and agriculture, and the regions, and country Australia, and rural and regional and particularly remote Australians, that kept this nation safe and kept the lights on—and good on them for doing it! Thank you to the mining industry. 10:40 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to make a few brief comments about Australia's resources sector. You should never forget—and I don't just mean you, Madam Deputy Speaker Ananda-Rajah; I mean all those listening—just what happened during COVID, as the previous speaker, the member for Riverina, pointed out. The forecast around the world was that economies were collapsing, jobs were unavailable and people were being locked up. Australia's own resources sector had a forecast of under $240 billion GDP. Currently that forecast is almost $460 billion. There is no other industry in this country that can make that type of contribution, that type of increase, in that short period of time. It employs over 1.2 million Australians directly and indirectly—not 10,000, not 20,000, not 100,000 but over one million. We should be supporting this sector because this sector is how we pay our bills. It is this sector that contributes significantly to the tax intake. It is this sector through which royalties are provided to the states. It is this sector that is allowing for roads, schools, hospitals and our education system to be funded. Commitments have to be paid for, and the way you do that is you grow your economy and you grow opportunities. But what we've seen this week, in the dirty deal struck in the Greens-Labor government, will directly impact the resources sector. We have seen the Leader of the Greens walk out and say this will shut $90 billion worth of projects. I say to all those individuals who might be listening to the Federation Chamber today: think about the last time you saw a $5 billion, $10 billion or $15 billion project anywhere near where you live. They are very few and far between, and generally they come from the resources sector. Imagine Queensland without the gas industry. Imagine Western Australia without the North West Shelf. This country has successfully utilised offshore resources for more than five decades. Victoria's manufacturing success almost singly owes a debt to the Bass Strait. The Bass Strait gasfields are depleted. There is less gas and less availability, and that means less gas for manufacturing. We've seen Premier Dan Andrews out there squealing and howling at the moon about how they need more gas in Victoria, yet there has been a moratorium in Victoria for 10 years. If you don't develop gas resources you run out of gas; that is what happens. We have now seen Premier Andrews call for Queensland's export gas to be sent to Victoria to maintain Victoria's manufacturing. It is not physically possible. There is not enough infrastructure. It would need to be built, and it cannot be delivered for the same price as that very cheap gas out of the Bass Strait. It has been an enormous advantage for this country. But the deal that we have seen done, in my view, puts at risk some of the biggest projects which have taken a FID, final investment decision, in this country. Scarborough, in the North West Shelf, is worth roughly $15 billion. Dorado is the biggest oil find in the last three decades. In a country where our fuel reliability is decreasing and where we need more assets, and when we are living in a world which, in my view, is much more dangerous than it was 20 years ago, we need to secure Australia's energy future and we need to make sure that we have those assets available in this country. We hear those opposite constantly harping on about manufacturing in Australia. You don't make a lot in this country if you don't have cheap gas and you don't have cheap electricity. Gas is a feedstock for so many products, including fertiliser. You only have to look at the price of urea around the world right now to know what happens. When Australian coal wasn't going to China, they converted to gas for their electricity supply and it shorted their market and drove up the price of urea—and that drives up the cost of food, that fundamental thing that Australians need. This dirty deal, in my view, puts at risk Barossa. Barossa is halfway through and is currently stopped because of a court direction after it had all the approvals done. This is a $5 billion project, bringing 600 jobs to Darwin and a 20-year life extension for Darwin LNG. In those three projects alone, you have tens of billions of dollars worth of investment. That is without the 18 onshore mining projects that were recalled by the Minister for the Environment and Water. They already had approvals and are now being reassessed. Can you imagine that, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were on the board of a multibillion dollar company looking to determine where you should invest next? Australia's reputation throughout COVID was not only maintained but enhanced. It was enhanced because of the hardworking men and women in the resources sector who made sure our reputation for reliability, for supply, for delivery and for meeting contracts was kept. We now see countries like Japan out there in the press, and for a country like Japan to be making any of those statements publicly is appalling. They have relied on this country successfully for their energy supply for decades, and the fact that they are even concerned about this should worry every Australian, because it does damage our reputation. Why would people invest here if they get halfway through a project, as we've seen with Santos's Barossa project, and have it removed because the Environmental Defenders Office went off to the court and found a reason to stop it? It is just really easy. This sector delivers jobs. It strengthens our economy. It provides more opportunities. It's how we train our kids. We actually saw a massive increase—thousands—of apprentices and trainees put through the resources sector during the COVID period, because it was the right thing to do. That gives those kids an opportunity to learn a trade, to take up traineeships and to have an opportunity for their future. But to have jobs you have to keep maintaining what is a depleting field somewhere else. You simply cannot shift gas around this country and be cost competitive. It is an enormous country. It's a very, very long distance. It is incredibly difficult to maintain. Look at what's happening in the Beetaloo. We keep seeing the Greens howling at the moon. It is the biggest gas play in the world. It will give jobs to people that live in the Northern Territory. It will add to their GDP. It would allow them to pay for roads and hospitals that they desperately need. We need to continue developing Australia's resources sector because it's the right thing to do for our economy, it's the right thing to do for our kids and it's the right thing to do for our governments. We can't play both sides of the deck on this—we simply cannot—because confidence is everything to business. If you are making multibillion dollar investments in this country, you have to have absolute confidence that incoming governments, regardless of their stripe, won't simply stop your projects because of their ideology. But that is what we are seeing. We are seeing people like the Leader of the Greens publicly saying there is a pipeline of almost $100 billion in projects that will be stopped because of the deal that has been done. How is that in Australia's interest? It is not in our national interest. It hurts our reputation and it hurts the people who have been out there for many decades working hard and contributing to our economy. It is the wrong decision to make. In the October budget last year we saw Labor cuts across the board. We saw $2.4 billion taken out of the state hospital funding, which sank like a stone—I didn't see it on the front page of the paper—but it's there, and if you go and have a look at the AMA's press release it says exactly what has been taken out. We saw cuts to what we put in to support development of gas basins across this country because they need to be developed. It's how we build our economy, particularly in the regions. If you want to see something which impacts one area and not others, it is the resources sector, because those jobs are in regional Australia and regional towns. Regardless of whether you're at Tieri or at Moranbah, at Lithgow or even in Newcastle—a big major centre on the coast—a lot of their economy and jobs rely on the resources sector. Some of them are one-mine towns, and without that employer there is no hairdresser or baker or shopping centre down the road, because there is no-one to buy anything. So the impact on regional Australia is much higher than it is anywhere else. For those in the city, who might have more available cash than others, I say: knock yourself out. Good luck to you. It's okay for you to pay more for power. It's okay for you to pay more for cars. It's okay to buy an electric vehicle. If that suits your lifestyle, knock yourself out. But where we come from, we need vehicles that go very long distances, are incredibly reliable and can manage in all sorts of conditions, because that's where we live. Ms Watson-Brown 300127 We also need the environment! Mr PITT 148150 We hear interjections about the environment. I've got to say the guarantees that are held by state governments for miners are extraordinary, yet, when they come to end of life, they go back and rehab it and you can't tell the difference. I've been to any number of these locations, whether it's McArthur River in the north or whether it's any of the ones in inland New South Wales. They have sold a high-quality product right around the world because people need it. It is why they come to Australia. It's why our economy has been so strong. Here, we see a Green-Labor deal that will damage our reputation, damage our economy and result in fewer jobs and fewer opportunities for Australians into the future. That is why I oppose it, and so do the coalition, and we will continue to do that. Our decisions will be based on the national interest, not the ideology of the Greens, not a dirty Green-Labor deal and not those individuals out there howling at the moon. We make practical decisions because it is necessary. These are jobs that matter in regional Australia, and that's why we fight for them. 10:50 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I have great pleasure in joining the debate on the statement by the Minister for Resources, and I congratulate the former minister for his very thoughtful contribution on the social and economic value to our nation of the resources sector. I must say it surprises me that, when I look at the speaking list for this particular statement, I can't find anyone here from the Labor Party or the Greens willing to talk in relation to the resources sector. That surprises me. It is such a critical industry to the future of our nation. The former minister explained in very good detail how, when we faced the challenges of the pandemic, there was one industry, the resources sector, which kept operating, kept cash flowing into our nation, kept people employed and kept our nation moving during some of the darkest times. It's now an industry worth in the order of $460 billion per year. It's an industry which is actually paying for our primary schools, our secondary schools and the roads and hospitals we want, but it's an industry which, I find, in this place, is often maligned by those opposite. When the current minister speaks in question time, the silence on the other side is deafening. The way members opposite are suddenly very interested in their iPhones or iPads, and can't even bring themselves to murmur, 'Hear, hear!' when the minister talks in support of the industry, is quite interesting to watch from our side of the chamber. She has more support on the coalition side of the chamber than she does amongst her own backbench colleagues. I think she's a very good minister. I think she does her best in a portfolio which has no love whatsoever amongst the Labor-Greens alliance. The minerals resources sector is such a critical part of our nation's past but also our nation's future. I speak with some level of authority in this regard, representing the Latrobe Valley energy sector. Keep in mind, 100 years ago Sir John Monash helped form the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. It is the reliable, affordable base load energy out of the Latrobe Valley, over that past 100 years, which has provided the extraordinary wealth of much of the south-east of Australia and certainly of the manufacturing sector of Victoria. Without that reliable, affordable energy coming from the Latrobe Valley, Victoria would look nothing like it does today. I am deeply worried when I look at those who represent the Labor Party, who used to represent blue-collar workers. Their silence on the issues around transition and the way power station workers are being treated in the Latrobe Valley right now is extraordinary for me to witness, as a local member of parliament. I cannot find a Labor Party member of parliament willing to stand up for blue-collar workers in the Latrobe Valley. It's no wonder that the seat the Labor Party held with great distinction for 40 years, the seat of Morwell, they now haven't held for more than 20 years, because they have gone missing when it comes to blue-collar workers in the mining and resources sector. The previous speaker also mentioned the joint venture partners in Bass Strait. If you want to see an example of where the resources sector has made an incredible contribution to a small regional town, you need to go no further than the city of Sale. In the mid-sixties, joint venture partners in the Bass Strait, Esso and BHP, started realising the oil and gas deposits were world class and were able to be secured and supplied throughout south-east Australia. That industry has given generations of young Gippslanders the capacity to invest in our town, to invest in their family's future, to secure their family's future in the Gippsland and Latrobe Valley area. It has been an extraordinary contribution to the wealth of the Gippsland region. Without it, we would not have seen the training and trade opportunities, the helicopter pilots, the maintenance crews working on the helicopters, and the people working at the gas plant in Longford. If you're wondering whether that industry's important, let's think back to that terrible day when lives were lost at the Longford gas plant, and Melbourne didn't have gas and how Melbourne reacted to that interruption in supply—think back to that tragic day when lives were lost at Longford, and how that was received in Melbourne when they could no longer have hot showers. These are the things that people need to understand. While the mining and resources sector is critical to, provides jobs to and underpins the economic future of our regional areas, it's also critical to our cities as well, and that's often misunderstood in this place. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Pilbara. I was invited to go and check out the mining operations of FMG at the Cloudbreak mine. We flew in from Perth. It's quite a sight to see when you turn up at the airport in Perth at five o'clock in the morning and you're wearing casual clothes and you are well and truly the odd one out because everyone else is wearing hi-vis. We flew a couple of hours from Perth to the mine site, and we saw that operation up close and the incredible investment in our nation's future which is occurring there. The operations at FMG really do need to be seen to be believed—the scale of those operations and the way the ore is extracted, processed on site, put into trains and transferred to Port Hedland and then into ships, off to earn the wealth for our nation. The most impressive part of that experience, though, was to talk to the workers who are out there and to understand why they're there. They are often enduring—on the day we were there, it was 44 degrees—tough conditions: the heat, the flies and the dust. But they're securing their own family's future by doing shifts, sometimes four days off and three days on—flying in and flying out, or living closer at Port Hedland. They appreciate the support they received in this place from the previous government, and they're worried about whether the new government is going to offer the same level of support for the resources sector. So I call on those opposite to take the time to appreciate and understand the importance of the resources sector and to understand that it plays such a critical role in the social and economic future of regional communities. 10:57 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker For some time I've been considering, wondering and pondering whether only one of the major participants in our national democracy is prepared to back resources in, and this debate is proving to be evidence of that fact. We have a speaker's list this morning that is jam-packed with coalition members—members from the Liberal Party and from their coalition partners, the National Party—who are, one after another, standing to their pins and speaking about the importance of the resources sector to Australia, our national interest and our fiscal position. Not one member opposite is prepared to stand and speak to this statement. Australians need no further evidence about who's on the side of Australian resources and who's on the side of Australian resource workers. It's evident here in the chamber. Members opposite can stand and talk about the importance of this sector; the opportunity is there. Mr PASIN 240756 I'm pleased the member for Hawke has found his voice! I thought the member for Moncrieff had taken it from him! But the reality is that, often, complex issues can be distilled down to very simple questions. My simple question for those opposite is this—and I want to take an earlier interjection: 'What about emissions reduction?' Okay, what about emissions reduction? Those opposite, I think, would agree that, if we are to move towards an energy mix that has a greater dependence on renewable energy, then a large component of that will be resources like—let's pick aluminium. There'll be greater demand, not less, for aluminium into the future. What does this safeguard mechanism do with respect to aluminium production in Australia? The answer is quite simple: it will ultimately move the refining effort offshore. This isn't a safeguard mechanism; it’s a straightjacket for Australian manufacturers, particularly in the mining and resource sector. Let me explain. What we have at the moment is an aluminium sector in our country which sees the ore extracted. It's then refined and utilised. Those opposite want a situation where the ore is extracted and shipped overseas; there's the first additional footprint. It'll be processed in jurisdictions overseas—jurisdictions which, I'm prepared to bet, don't have the kind of regulatory frameworks and environment that you see here in Australia, jurisdictions where there isn't the kind of preoccupation around carbon emission reduction. The first thing we've done is extracted the ore and shipped it overseas and created a greater footprint. Then we've put it in a manufacturing facility overseas, which creates a bigger footprint. Then, of course, we create a yet larger footprint by bringing it back to Australia. This is where the ideological chest beating comes into direct conflict with the business reality. Those opposite want to be able to beat their chests and say, 'Look at us'. We see the peacock feathers unfurled every day in question time as the minister walks to the dispatch box, but he's not thinking about the real world consequences. The real world consequences of this measure will result in—as it relates, in my respectful submission, to aluminium production—a greater level of emissions, not a reduction. I remember back when we used to talk about emissions intensive import-exposed industries. There's been no discussion about that in this debate. There has been some suggestion that there will be a fund available for the large polluters, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate is asking question after question, seeking the detail—doesn't that sound familiar—but getting no answers; that exercise will be guillotined today. This isn't just a building in the hill; it's a place where Australians get to know. Australians want to know. They want to know what's going to happen to the aluminium sector in Australia. Not far from my electorate is the smelter at Portland, in the member for Wannon's electorate. The people who work in that facility want to know. They want to know if they're going to be sacrificed on the altar of environmental utopia. The reality is that it may well be, following the science, that the most appropriate thing to do is to increase aluminium production in Australia. But that's not the kind of nuance that this safeguard measure works towards. This safeguard measure is just about creating a box that those opposite can tick so that the minister, who walks into the chamber question time after question time, thrusts his chest out and unfurls the peacock feathers, can feel satisfied about what he has done. It's not just aluminium; I think we all have to accept that copper is going to play a more and more significant role in relation to renewables. There is four times the amount of copper in an electric vehicle than there is in an internal combustion engine. If we want a future that relies on a greater mix of renewable energies then we're going to need to back the resources sector. That copper will be extracted. It'll be refined. It'll be produced. But the question for those opposite is: will it be produced in Australia, or are we going to import it from overseas? The minister talks about being, I think his phrase is, 'an Australia that makes stuff again'. Well, I've got a message for the minister. My electorate makes stuff every day. We've been doing it since before Federation and we want to keep doing it. We don't want laws that prevent us from doing it for no reasonable or sensible objective. Nobody here wants to take an approach relative to the environment that causes harm, but the point is that there's very little point putting a straitjacket on an Australian aluminium producer only to see that effort exported overseas in an environment where we see greater levels of carbon emissions. That's crazy. That's not in the national interest and it's not in the interest of those communities where the majority of these manufacturing facilities and mining resources exist. In the last 90 seconds I have the attention of the chamber I want to say: if those opposite were genuine, if those opposite had the kind of conviction that members of the Greens have—and I'm not lauding them; I'm just saying that if they had that conviction which seems to be so important to those opposite—then they would do us a favour and not rely on resource revenue in the upcoming May budget. It's one thing to say: 'We're going to end with coal and gas no longer being mined in this country. That's our long-term objective.' You can't do that on the one hand and then on the other hand gleefully accept the rivers of revenue that arrive prebudget for our nation to expend. Those on this side of the chamber are academically honest about this. We support the mining and resources sector. We thank them for the work they do. We acknowledge the very significant contribution that they make to the national interest but also to the lifestyles of every Australian. We owe a great debt to our mining sector. We owe a great debt to our miners. We owe a great debt to those who have established the industry. I am one who is prepared to stand up for them. 11:07 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey As the member for Grey it gives me great pleasure to talk on anything to do with resources. As I've told this place before—and I don't want to bore people—the electorate of Grey does cover 92.4 per cent of South Australia, an area substantially bigger than New South Wales, and consequently it has at least 92.4 per cent of South Australia's resources. In fact, every major mine in the state sits within my jurisdiction, so I have a great association with that industry. To pick up the member for Barker's comments, there is some considerable concern in the industry at the moment, particularly about the impact of the safeguard mechanism on the refining and value-adding of our ores here in Australia. We have a few stand-out facilities—and I'll come back to BHP and the Olympic Dam operation in a moment. Production of copperplate, uranium yellowcake, gold and silver happens in what we used to call the MetPlant at Olympic Dam. It has now got a different name. It's a very real and complete operation. Of course, like most of these operations, at this stage it does require at least an amount of carbon emissions to operate, as does the mine. In Port Pirie we have the Nyrstar smelter. It's now 100 per cent owned by Trafigura. That has been a very good takeover. Nyrstar was in trouble financially and Trafigura was a bigger company that had a substantial interest. You will understand this very well, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, because you have the other half of the equation sitting in your electorate. In fact, it's worth remarking that, until sometime in the late 1980s, the slag, the waste from the facility in your electorate, was dumped at sea. When those tighter restrictions came in something had to be done with that. It found its way to the Port Pirie smelter, where they were allowed to extract enough out of the slag to pay for the processing, and they ended up with a much more benign product. You understand as well as I do that these are interdependent facilities. I welcome the investment that has come to Port Pirie. But to think that the standard regulations do not provide a real challenge now for Nyrstar and Trafigura would be to pull the wool over one's eyes. I'm hoping the government will listen carefully to what they have to say—I know they've been doing some lobbying around the building—and take account of the speed at which they will be able to adapt. I don't think we have to stretch the imagination to know that things are already tough enough in Australia, to compete in that world market, without having to pay firstly a $75 fine for purchasing carbon credits and then, in the almost certain event that the carbon credit market will be short, being hit with a $275 fine per tonne of carbon emissions. If that occurs I have great concerns for some of these facilities that sit within my electorate, and I think all of Australia would be concerned if it led to offshoring, to exporting our carbon emissions. In Whyalla we have Sanjeev Gupta's GFG Alliance, in steel manufacturing. I know Mr Gupta; I've met him a lot of times. He is very keen to convert his operations to green steel and has made some announcements in the past, and I think we have some coming in the near future. But to think that this is an easy pathway in the time line of 2030—with an almost five per cent reduction a year, it is going to be very challenging indeed. As with all these investment decisions, we all think the announcement leads to almost immediate construction but of course it doesn't; there will be a million hurdles to get through before that happens, and very few of these projects are able to proceed on time. To come back to the resources industry in Grey and Roxby Downs: Olympic Dam is a standout. It is the fourth-largest deposit of copper in the world, but, interestingly, it is the largest single deposit of uranium. But the body is substantially copper, so uranium is a by-product. It needs to be extracted and processed here in Australia, otherwise we would not be able to export it; under our regulations on nuclear nonproliferation, we would not be able to export that copper concentrate. So it needs to be extracted here. They also extract gold and silver—a bit over 150,000 ounces of gold a year—so it's not an insubstantial goldmine either. It's an absolute ripper. There are almost 5,000 people who live in Roxby Downs; it's a jewel in the middle of the desert, if you like. I congratulate BHP for their commitment there. They are also proving up the deposits at a place called Oak Dam, and the story is that it could be a deposit of equal size to Roxby Downs—and there are likely to be more in that part of the Gawler craton. I look forward to that, but once again I need to make the point that we cannot allow obstacles to be put in their path that would not allow for this to go forward. In the same general area we have OZ Minerals with two wonderful mines—one at Prominent Hill and one at Carrapateena. I visited Carrapateena quite recently. Carrapateena employs around 800 people—a very slick and tidy operation. It is another underground operation just like Roxby Downs. The uranium levels in the ore do not mean they need to process it here in Australia; it is concentrated and exported in that form. At the moment BHP has a takeover bid on the table for Carrapateena; we'll have to wait and see how that goes. OZ Minerals have been a wonderful success, and I congratulate them, as I have done in this place many times, on their Indigenous employment program, which I think as is as good as I have seen in the mining industry. Out west of Ceduna we have the Jacinth-Ambrose mine, which primarily produces zircon. That is quite a large operation as well—and we see those quad road trains coming into Ceduna 24 hours a day—and exports out of Thevenard. Some 50 kilometres west of Thevenard is a gypsum mine. It's at a place called Kevin. That produces, to my knowledge, about 80 per cent of the material Australia needs to produce gyprock or plasterboard or whatever you want to call it. There are some issues in the coastal shipping act, which is a challenge for them, but, having said that, the gypsum, the Cheetham Salt production platform in the same area, the Jacinth-Ambrosia mine and the grain industry on western Eyre Peninsula actually make Thevenard the biggest port in South Australia. It's a fairly shallow water port, but we are hoping for a deep dredge there to get bigger vessels in in the near future. I want to move along quickly and cover off on some of the other deposits that sit within Grey and are being mined. The Middleback Range, of course, is the first place that iron ore was mined in Australia. Iron Knob was the birthplace of the iron ore industry and the birthplace of the Australian steel industry. I may be wrong on that last one. I think maybe the eastern seaboard was operating first, but, anyway, we're still mining there and still producing eight to 10 million tonnes a year. The majority of that is for export, but the rest is going directly into the steel plant. It is a very important mine. We also have some very good prospects coming on in the Grey electorate. We have the Great White Kaolin Project. Kaolin is a very fine clay for the manufacture of pots, and that project will have a very good export focus. That will happen up around the Poochera area, or Streaky Bay for those who are not quite so familiar with the topography. We are looking at underground gasification at Leigh Creek to produce syngas for the production of urea. That might sound like it's a little bit experimental, but I tell you what: if they can land it, it will have an enormous benefit in terms of Australia's emissions, and it will produce an onshore production platform for urea, which, as we know, is one of the sovereign challenges for Australia. Only in the last couple of years we were worried about not having the additive for our fuel trucks, for instance. I could go on. There are many things happening in Grey and more projects in the pipeline. It's a very important area for industry indeed. 11:17 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I too rise today to speak about the resources statement to parliament. I'm very proud of the record of the Parkes electorate for being a powerhouse in mining and resources for a long, long time. If we start at the western part of my electorate, at Broken Hill—the home of BHP and still an incredibly active mining town—apart from the traditional silver, lead and zinc, we now have the start of new industries. We've got Cobalt Blue's Broken Hill Cobalt Project at Thackaringa, which will supply cobalt for modern needs, like battery production, electronics and the like. Close to Broken Hill, we've also got the Hawsons Iron project. Magnetite is the raw material that is to be used for what's known as green steel—steel that's produced with lower carbon emissions. To the west of Broken Hill is the mining of gold as well. Moving further east, around the Cobar and Nyngan area, there are quite a few very active mines in the copper industry. The demand for copper is growing exponentially, with the explosion of electric vehicles, and there are more projects being developed. There is a wonderful story of a local farmer purchasing a very basic metal detector and finding quite a large deposit that will be developed into a large mine. We also have huge deposits of lithium in a little village area called Fifield, which is down towards Condobolin. Once again, lithium is a very, very important raw material for battery production. It is hoped that we may even develop into producing the batteries close to site, because one of the issues with lithium is that it is formed on site as a slurry. If it has to be dried out for transportation and then turned back into a slurry for manufacture, that's not a particularly effective way of doing it. So there's a lot of work going on down there now, securing water for the mining production and the like. There are also massive gold deposits around the Dubbo area and down at Tomingley. The goldmine there has been a wonderful investment and produced large quantities of gold. Indeed, the expansion of that Tomingley goldmine will probably lead to the relocation of the Newell Highway some five kilometres to the west because, as fate would have it, the new gold seam is actually directly underneath the Newell Highway. So there's a lot of excitement about those prospects. There have also been large gold deposits located to the east of Dubbo very recently. One of the most exciting projects, though, is the rare earth project at Toongi, which is about 30 kays east of Dubbo. It has a lot of the minerals that are essential not only for the manufacture of electric vehicles but also in defence and in aircraft manufacture. I won't pretend to name them all, because they've got names that I'm not particularly familiar with, but I know one of them when mixed with aluminium considerably strengthens the product, and you can significantly lighten the weight of, for instance, an aircraft without reducing its strength. If we're going to be serious about having a cleaner environment and reducing our emissions, we have to look at all of these things. In country areas it's not just a matter of paying farmers to plant trees. That is the laziest, most ineffective and ultimately most unproductive way of treating this issue. It is through our efficiency and our technology that we will become a more effective, cleaner and wealthier economy. Up in the eastern part of my electorate, in the Gunnedah Basin, around Narrabri and Gunnedah, we have a coal industry that goes back over 100 years. They have been mining coal at Gunnedah since the 1800s. More recently, we've seen some developments with some larger mines at Maules Creek and the Idemitsu mine at Boggabri. There is potential for another mine just to the south of there, which is in the process of being developed at the moment. I get very frustrated when people rail against coal in this place. Our colleagues in the Greens love to rail against coal. The irony of it is that the Maules Creek coal—low in sulphur, low in ash—is largely exported to Japan, because when Japan lost their nuclear generators through the tsunami they didn't replace them with nuclear; they replaced them with efficient, low-emissions coal-fired power stations. They're getting emissions from the Narrabri coal similar to those from gas in Japan. The irony of all that is that when you buy your Prius, to show how much you care for the environment, it may have been made from energy created by coal from my electorate. We don't live in a mythical place where we can just wish things without understanding their practical nature. It's a bit like people who want to eat the sausage but just don't want to see how it's made. Energy is the same, and mining is the same. The member for Melbourne, who leads the charge against mining coal and gas, lives in an electorate that is completely altered. How does he think those high-rise buildings were constructed? Where did the raw materials come from for that? His river is in concrete—he doesn't even have a natural river—and yet he wants to change things so that, in my electorate, industries that have been underpinning this economy, this country, for over 100 years will be wiped out. He wants to see them wiped out. He has no regard for the jobs of the people in my electorate. The hypocrisy rolls out to our colleagues the teals. The member for North Sydney and the member for Mackellar were so incensed about the possibility of a coal seam gas operation in the Pilliga forest that they had to go and see for themselves. Did they take the Tesla? No, no. They hired a big helicopter—not just a normal old Robinson but a big one with two motors—to go to the wilds of the Parkes electorate to see the concern about what a gas industry would mean. The irony of that is that that gas is destined to go to a power station in the Hunter to help with the fluctuations that renewables bring in and balance them out. It will ultimately keep the lights on in their electorates. The frustration in this place is that we end up having to fight to save people from themselves. Mining and agriculture are two industries that not only drive my electorate but kept this country afloat during the pandemic. They are the reason that Australia is as strong as it is. Australia has two things. Australia can produce food for itself and other nations around the world and it has the resources and cheap energy to make things. We're having a battle now, where we have members from the leafy suburbs trying to close down the very things that create the wealth that generated the environments where they live. I stand up for the resources sector, and I was pleased to speak on this statement. 11:27 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to contribute to the debate on the motion to take note of the ministerial statement by the Minister for Resources. I follow the member for Parkes, and I note that my father was born in his electorate, in Broken Hill. His father, my grandfather, worked as a mining engineer his whole career. He was educated in Adelaide and moved, soon after he married my grandmother, to Broken Hill, and my father and his three siblings were all born in Broken Hill and grew up there. My grandfather joined the Royal Engineers for the period of the Second World War, then returned to Broken Hill and continued to work at North Broken Hill mine until the mid-fifties, when he went to Mount Isa to work at MIM, Mount Isa Mines, which briefly, I think—after my grandfather finished there—was the largest company in Australia, by market capitalisation on the share market. That was during a period at the beginning of the 1980s. It is still an extremely significant mine, for a variety of resources—copper, lead, nickel, zinc and gold—much like the Broken Hill deposit that my grandfather worked at. He was general manager of capital works at both of those mines. And my father's first job out of university in Queensland was also with Mount Isa Mines, driving underground locomotives, which is probably done by remote control now, or some kind of robotic technology. But in the early 1970s his first job was driving locomotives underground. When my grandfather passed away, I remember finding in his garage, amongst a whole variety of hoarded things, an enormous chest of keys with tags on them. They were keys for every individual mineshaft, gate and locking mechanism throughout old MIM. I think Dad ended up donating them to the company, with some other collectables. So my family has a connection to the mining industry, much like our nation has a connection to the mining industry. Adelaide, my home city, is very much in existence thanks to, firstly, the agricultural sector and, secondly, the mining sector. The member for Grey talked about the enormous contribution that mining is currently making in his electorate, which is 90 per cent of the state of South Australia, as it has contributed in the past. I mentioned Broken Hill. Without being too controversial, Broken Hill really is a satellite of South Australia, despite being in New South Wales. Adelaide is the nearest major metropolitan centre to Broken Hill, and I'd be more than happy for Broken Hill to be relocated to South Australia, particularly for the historical value of the mining royalties commensurately paid across to us from the government of New South Wales! But I concede that's (a) not up for debate here and (b) not very likely to happen. I pay tribute to the mining industry and what it's doing in my home state of South Australia. But I also look at it as an opportunity. Mining and resources are going to make an enormous contribution as we have an energy transition and decarbonise our economy. The sorts of things that are going to be vital for that transition are the minerals that are required to fire the manufacturing and the technology that will achieve that transition—none more so than copper. Copper is the most fundamental metal for anything regarding electricity and electrification, as we all know. In South Australia we've got an enormous copper mine, the Olympic Dam deposit. It's sometimes identified as being a uranium mine because, of course, it is. It's the largest uranium deposit in the world. But the copper that's mined there, from a value point of view, is just as, if not more, significant to the operations of BHP there at Olympic Dam. That mine was a controversial development at the time. The Labor Party were very split on allowing that mine to proceed in the seventies. A former member for Sturt, Mr Norman Foster, won the seat in 1969 and lost the seat at the next election, in 1972, to another Liberal predecessor of mine, Ian Wilson. It was the only seat won from the Labor Party in that election—an impressive feat. Norman Foster went on to serve in the South Australian upper house as a Labor member but was expelled from the Labor Party for supporting the Tonkin Liberal government's bill to allow the Olympic Dam mine to proceed. The Labor Party didn't support uranium mining then. The Olympic Dam mine is the most significant business in my home state of South Australia now. It underpins the resources sector. It underpins all of the major regional towns that provide services to Olympic Dam. It has provided an opportunity for other significant deposits, like Carrapateena, the OZ Minerals mine, to proceed. It is now one of the biggest copper mines in the world. It is a very significant part of BHP's portfolio. It is earning hundreds of millions of dollars—billions of dollars, actually—in exports for our economy. As the member for Grey pointed out, while Olympic Dam is the most significant deposit in the nation, there are probably a number of commensurate deposits co-located in the general vicinity. There's the Oak Dam exploration that is being undertaken right now. Most of the geologists, and BHP themselves, have to be very careful about what they say publicly from a market point of view and a stock market point of view. They are very cautiously foreshadowing that the Oak Dam deposit potentially could be commensurate with the Olympic Dam deposit. That would be absolutely transformational—if that confirmation occurs through the exploration activity that they're doing up there. Of course, that again is going to be copper, and copper is a mineral of the future. We know that we've got an enormous amount of copper already. It is exciting to think that there is more copper to be discovered, as demand for copper continues to increase at such a dramatic rate into the future and as we transition to clean energy and decarbonise our economy. Copper will be absolutely central to that. We also know that other minerals that we have in abundance, like lithium and cobalt, are equally vitally significant. We know that there are huge industry opportunities in this country through the green transition. If we're producing green steel, that means the steelmaking will be co-locating itself with those iron ore deposits. You won't produce green steel by digging up iron ore and transporting it somewhere else. Why would you add that level of cost and/or challenge around the carbon footprint? You'll see a situation where, as technologically we discover the chemical industrial processes to allow for the production of things like green steel, that's going to happen right there where the iron ore deposits are. That's where the investment will be into steel manufacturing. That is an exciting prospect for this country as well. That's tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs, if steel production around the planet relocates from where the customers are to where the raw material, being the iron ore, is. The biggest deposits for iron ore production are, of course, in our Pilbara region of Western Australia. The future for mining and resources in this country is very exciting. We've got to embrace and understand how significant the contribution of the mining sector has been to our economy and the development of our nation in the past. Its future is even brighter going forward. When you look at the regular monthly statistics published by the ABS around exports, we are a lion's-share mining and minerals-exporting nation. If we didn't have things like iron ore, coal, copper, gold, silver, nickel, lead, zinc et cetera, and if we weren't exporting them, we would have a spectacular trade deficit. We would not have the wealth as a nation that we have now. Thank you to the pioneers in the industry and those who are working in it currently, who are contributing so much to our economy. It's a bright future. I encourage all of us, as a parliament, to make sure that we're in unison in supporting this industry that's going to underpin our economy well into the future. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 105 ADJOURNMENT Migration 105 11:37 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane The current immigration system is frustrating, complex and inaccessible. I regularly hear from community members who have been separated from their loved ones for years at a time due to delays and rejections of their visitor and partner visa applications. This means many miss crucial events in close family members' lives, like anniversaries, weddings and birthdays. They are left without seeing their partner, and their relationships suffer, or they aren't able to receive the help and care they need if they fall sick and need critical health care. Visitor visa rejections, in particular, seem to be only increasing. Almost every day my office is contacted by a constituent whose loved one's visa application has been repeatedly denied on the basis of seemingly unfounded departmental suspicion that they would illegally overstay their visa. There is no evidence that this would occur, and their loved ones have always duly followed the rules when they have visited in the past. I'd like to share some of their stories. One community member contacted my office almost nine months ago. At this point, he had been married to his wife, a senior nurse in India, for eight months. While they waited for the processing times for her partner visa application, which grew to over 32 months, the newlyweds hoped to be reunited, at least for a short visit. His wife has now had her visitor visa rejected three times, at immense financial and emotional cost. The department provides no further explanation for these rejections, other than their belief that there is insufficient evidence that she plans to return to India, despite her going to considerable effort to provide more and more evidence on each application. It is disgraceful to see the department continually separate young couples such as this one. It is unfounded to believe that these individuals would break the law and illegally overstay their visa when they have demonstrated nothing but compliance and are simply trying to navigate a long-distance relationship. This story is far from unique. Another constituent of mine, who works as a paediatrician, and whose wife is an ophthalmologist, wants his brother to receive a visitor visa so that he can travel alongside his elderly parents to visit, after years apart. However, his brother's visa was also rejected by the department, on the basis that his brother might not return to India. They've spent years apart from his brother, who is also a medical professional and who has no intention of leaving his home, but the broken immigration system will not even allow him to spend a few weeks here to reunite with his family. Another community member contacted my office, desperately seeking approval for a visitor visa for her 68-year-old sister so that she could attend her niece's wedding. Her sister is a retired professor of physics and lives in Lebanon and has visited Australia twice before, complying with all of her visa requirements. She had two visitor visa applications rejected due to insufficient evidence and spent six months anxiously wondering if she could reunite with her sister and attend her niece's wedding. It was only through my office's advocacy that she was actually able to secure a visa, just weeks before the marriage. These are just a few examples of people who have been let down by a completely broken immigration system. There are countless other examples: people who have been unable to see their families while undergoing surgery, or to meet their grandchildren; people going years without seeing loved ones; and distressed families who have been forced to pay multiple excessive application fees, only to have them rejected and with no chance of appeal. The extraordinary delays in processing impact the physical, emotional and mental health of these families, and they are forced to navigate an overly-complex system. The department has an extensive backlog of applications and appears under-resourced. Though we are 10 months into this new government—and I appreciate that, every time he has met with me, the minister has assured me that they are doing work to handle this—the department seems to refuse to handle the gravity of the situation that is before us. The way that the Labor and LNP governments have managed immigration matters is shameful. The Greens are fighting for systemic change to these processes. Again I call on Minister Giles to ensure that our immigration system treats citizens and noncitizens alike with the respect, timeliness and compassion that they deserve. Blair Electorate: Sport 106 11:42 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Ipswich is on the cusp of being able to play football at the elite level of every major code played in our nation. The new home of the Brisbane Lions, the Brighton Homes Arena in Springfield, with an 8,000 seat capacity, was opened at the end of last year in time for the AFLW Grand Final. The Springfield venue saw contributions from many sources and from all levels of government, including $15 million from the federal government. The Lions' administration is located there, and the Lions' women's team will play there permanently for home games. With the Brisbane Olympics 2032 on the horizon, I support the temporary relocation of the Lions' men's team to Springfield for home games. This would entail the need for greater seating capacity in Springfield while the Gabba is being redeveloped for Olympic Games purposes. I'm urging all interested parties to assist, including the federal government, the state government and the Ipswich City Council. The people of Ipswich were bitterly disappointed by the decision of the Australian Rugby League Commission to admit the Redcliffe Dolphins as the 17th team in the NRL. The Jets' bid for the licence was Ipswich based, and the Brisbane based Firehawks' bid was Ipswich-connected through the Brisbane Tigers' association with the Swifts Rugby League club from the Ipswich competition. Either of these bids would have been preferable to the Dolphins. Ipswich has a long history of Rugby League tradition and achievement. It's in the city's DNA. Ipswich once proudly boasted the entire Australian Rugby League test front row, including Dud Beattie, Noel Kelly and Gary Parcell, and the likes of Allan Langer and the Walters brothers. Sydney Roosters players Sam Walker and Luke Keary were born in Ipswich, along with NRLW legend Ali Brigginshaw, the Broncos' Queensland and Australian captain. With a booming population, a vibrant junior nursery of players and a strong seniors' competition, Ipswich is perfect for an NRL licence. With the NRL mooted to go to 20 teams within a decade, an Ipswich team, a Cairns based Pasifika team and a Western Australia based team—possibly in collaboration with the North Sydney Bears—would be just the thing for a conference based, 20-team NRL competition. The North Ipswich Reserve, the spiritual and actual home of Ipswich rugby league, is getting a much-needed $20 million redevelopment from the Albanese Labor government. The Ipswich City Council has put aside $10 million to invest in the reserve facility. This is an Ipswich council based facility, and I'm asking the Ipswich mayor and the councillors to bring forward the $10 million. The council officers are confident that a $30 million stage 1 redevelopment will go a long way towards field configuration, new floodlights, a large digital screen for the viewing public, NRL-compliant men's and women's change rooms, a new grandstand and a high-performance fitness centre open to the public and run by the council. The Ipswich City Council should further commit to this asset—the council own it—and then they should be seeking further state government and federal government funding to complete the project. The council considers that the entire cost of the project could be up to $80 million, which is not much less than the total cost of the Brighton Homes Arena in Springfield. Then the North Ipswich Reserve would be Olympics ready and capable of hosting rugby league, rugby union and football—as in soccer—at the highest level. The people of Ipswich deserve nothing less. I'm urging the Ipswich City Council to have a bit of vision and support pathways for achievement and excellence for our football codes for men and women, and boys and girls. The redevelopment of the North Ipswich Reserve is needed by the people of Ipswich and surrounds, and it would prepare us not just for another bid for an NRL licence but for another bid for an A-League licence in the future. I say to Peter V'landys, the ARLC chair: listen to the people of Ipswich, back Ipswich and admit Ipswich into the NRL. Then you'll have a great future competition, with Ipswich wearing the green and white colours and playing the Brisbane Broncos in their reprise of the Bulimba Cup tradition. What a game that would be at Suncorp Stadium! Tasmania: Water 106 11:47 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon You'll be pleased to know that I rise today to update the House on how Tasmania is continuing to lead the nation and the world in harnessing and value-adding to our most precious of renewable resources. That is, of course, our water—the elixir of life in agriculture and a resource which is driving Tasmanian agriculture forward. Tasmania has less than one per cent of Australia's landmass, yet we receive 9½ per cent of Australia's rainfall. A point to note is that in Granville Harbour the average annual rainfall is just a little over two metres. That is something to be envied across the nation. We have 26½ per cent of this fresh water in storage across our 54 hydro dams. These dams are turning the turbines of 30 power stations, many of which are more than 100 years old, to produce hydroelectric energy, which powers our state. That's enough power to cover the requirements of more than 900,000 homes and small businesses. The water flowing through those turbines isn't wasted either. It is then used for Tasmania's 18 operational irrigation schemes, which, in turn, are delivering 133,000 million litres of high-surety irrigation water to up to 985 Tasmanian landowners and irrigating around 678,000 hectares at a surety rate of 98 per cent. It's incredible. But we're not done yet as a state. Over the next five years and with the support of the federal government and the state government working together, additional projects will be delivered. Valued at more than $1.5 billion, it is estimated that these additional schemes will deliver more than 3,500 jobs, particularly in our agricultural sector; more than $450 million in on-farm investment and development; and over 130,000 megalitres of additional, highly reliable irrigation water for our great state. Construction on the Don-Barrington irrigation scheme is progressing, with the Don River pipework and network finished and progress being made on the Sheffield-Barrington component. Work is also progressing on the pump stations at Lake Barringtonand the River Forth. The business case for the Sassafras-Wesley Vale irrigation scheme augmentation is being reviewed by the Tasmanian government. Construction has also started on another project—the Energy on Farms Solar Project—which has seen solar arrays installed on up to 12 irrigation pump stations around our state of Tasmania. I congratulate the Tasmanian government, under the leadership of Premier Jeremy Rockliff, for this renewable energy investment. Construction is due to be completed by the end of the year. Pumping station sites include Smithton, South Riana, Stoneycroft and Sprent in the electorate of Braddon. These sites where solar arrays are installed will contribute to reducing annual on-farm costs and offer more economic water for irrigation. These arrays will offset electricity usage and generate surplus power that will be fed back into the Tasmanian grid. Each site will be individually monitored. Revenue generated from this surplus power will be relayed to the revenue base for the irrigation scheme itself. The Energy on Farms Solar Project will generate sufficient energy to partially power the pumping station over the heaviest demand period in summer. Each array will be connected to the existing electricity grid and will feed surplus energy back into the grid at other times of the year. This will strengthen the sustainability credentials of the Tasmanian farming sector, who are already world-leading in their uptake of technologies that will reduce their carbon footprint. World-leading irrigation schemes are built on an unwavering focus of providing sustainable, reliable and cost-effective irrigation water that will support and grow Tasmania's economy. I will now close with a prophetic—prophetic, not pathetic—quote from Tasmanian Irrigation's CEO Andrew Kneebone. He said that there is no doubt in his mind that the unique funding partnership between the Tasmanian government, the Australian government and our state's farmers continues to grow the wealth of the great state of Tasmania. Patterson River Secondary College, Dunkley Electorate: Health Care 107 11:52 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley Before last year's federal election I was at one of the excellent public secondary schools in my electorate of Dunkley—Patterson River Secondary College. It's in Seaford. It has some terrific teachers and students. They talked to me about their band and their program of having students engage with the band from year 7, even if they don't have a history of being musical or playing instruments, because of the value it adds to your life to have some involvement in music. They had an issue with being able to afford enough instruments for all of their students, particularly those who come from families that can't afford to buy them. I was pleased that during the election we made a commitment to fund an upgrade to instruments and music equipment for the school. It's a great school with a great program, and it deserves support. I'm told that this is also where AC/DC played their first Victorian concert. It makes sense that a school in the broader Frankston area and in Dunkley would host the first AC/DC concert. The school is now inspiring the next generation of musicians with a bunch of new music equipment and instruments, thanks to the Albanese Labor government and the delivery of that election commitment. It's going to help support the large growth in students that this school sees who are not just participating in instrumental music lessons but continuing with their music lessons because they've discovered that they love it. I'm going out there very soon. I can't wait to hear what they've learnt to play on their new instruments. We are very proud in Dunkley that we have the Monash University's peninsula campus, Chisholm TAFE and Peninsula Health with Frankston Hospital. Those institutions provide training and education, world-leading research and health care that is second to none. It's really important to me, as the member for Dunkley, to be involved in supporting the work of all of those institutions. It's the same with Paul Edbrooke, the state member for Frankston; Sonya Kilkenny, the state member for Carrum; and Paul Mercurio, the recently elected new state member for Hastings. We are all so excited that the $1.1 billion redevelopment of Frankston Hospital is underway. It is going to be life-changing for many people in my community who need, unfortunately, the services of the hospital. It is also going to be life- and career-changing for the professionals who work in the health system and work at Frankston Hospital. We're getting a new 12-storey clinical services tower and main entrance; 130 more beds; and new maternity, obstetrics and paediatric wards, which are so important in my community. I'm pretty excited that, for the first time, there is going to be a women's clinic and a special care nursery; facilities for paediatric emergency services; and new, fit-for-purpose spaces for mental health and oncology. As I said, it is going to be life-changing, for patients and for people that work there alike. Watching that starting to come up from the ground is incredibly exciting. We've also, as the Albanese Labor government, delivered on a really important commitment to the First Peoples Health and Wellbeing clinic. We have, in the Bayside area, one of the fastest-growing Indigenous communities in Victoria. That is little known. But we hadn't had, until First Peoples Health and Wellbeing came and set up their Frankston hub, any, let alone enough, Aboriginal health services. Some of the most amazing people I have ever met work at First Peoples Health and Wellbeing, and Karinda, the CEO, is the most dynamic and powerful woman I have ever met. They support the growing population of Aboriginal people, young and old, and I'm so pleased that we are supporting them with a grant that is enabling them to purchase their own building, to provide services and to continue down the road of self-determination that they have set themselves on. Labor Governments: Rural and Regional Australia 108 11:57 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker The Labor government are showing nothing but contempt for rural, regional and remote communities. As they rip water from productive use in the Murray-Darling Basin, it means there is less water to grow food. They cancelled funding for community-led projects in the basin that would improve environmental outcomes. They committed to funding new and improved mobile phone towers, but only in Labor-held or peri-urban seats, while real rural communities like Maaoupe and Sherwood miss out. They scrapped the Building Better Regions Fund, meaning vitally important regional infrastructure projects are stranded, without funding, as building costs continue to rise. While the October budget did include some funding for programs to assist rural and regional Australians, the Albanese government is deliberately delaying their rollout, to avoid spending any new funding in the current financial year. Communities across Barker have shovel-ready projects like the Mount Gambier saleyards project, Murray Bridge Regional Sports Stadium, Calperum Station and Loxton childcare centre, just to name a few. Applications for these projects were made to round 6 of the coalition government's Building Better Regions Fund and were awaiting outcomes, until the Labor government came to office and scrapped the program, leaving these proponents stranded and in the dark. Minister King came to Mount Gambier a fortnight ago to cut the ribbon on a $62 million recreation centre in Mount Gambier. That was an important regional infrastructure project that the coalition government supported. We funded it. But she refused to meet with the community to talk about the upgrade of the saleyards that they're waiting for federal funding for. Our regional roads are also falling into disrepair, while Labor slashes funding from infrastructure investment programs and delays other funding promised to local councils. Nine point six billion dollars—that's billion, with a 'b'—was cut from regional infrastructure programs in the October budget, with $4.7 billion cut from the infrastructure programs over the forward estimates, including $1.2 billion cut from regional infrastructure programs, in addition to $7 billion cut from major water storage infrastructure projects. I fear there's more to come in May. Let's call a spade a spade. This government has an ideological bias against rural and regional Australians. I don't know why they hate us so much. As I've said, Labor governments aren't generally considered to govern well for rural and regional Australians. While I don't often stand up in the federal parliament to call out state governments, I really have to on this occasion. The Lucindale Area School is a small regional school located in the south-east of South Australia, in my electorate of Barker. As a state school it's under the operational management of the South Australian Department for Education. The school offers education from reception to year 12 for students from across the region. I take this opportunity to read an email I received from a student. It states: I am writing on behalf of myself and my class here at Lucindale area school, about the lack of a dedicated science and math teacher. Because of the lack of a math and science teacher I have fallen behind in my education and am fearful that if we as a class continue on this path, it could affect the future employability of myself and my peers. This was sent to me by a year 10 student. After speaking to a teacher at the school I was reliably informed that the education department's idea of solving this crisis is to send a different substitute teacher from Adelaide every 19 days to teach maths and science to these children. Why 19 days? I'm told that if it's any more than 19 days then that person would have to be offered a permanent contract. In between these substitute teachers there's often a period when there is no maths or science teacher at the school, which is affecting the education of students in years 8 through to 10, who go without. This is 2023. STEM is widely acknowledged as imperative for our future workforce, and I have a year 10 student from an area school writing to their local federal member of parliament and pleading for a maths and science teacher. Are we kidding? This is a complete and utter disgrace. It wouldn't be acceptable in the suburbs of Adelaide, and it's not acceptable at Lucindale. These students are being let down; they're being left behind. I'm so proud of those students who've written to me on this subject, but I wish they didn't have to. Imagine a world where you didn't have year 10 students pleading for a teacher. AUKUS 109 12:02 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to speak about the significant AUKUS announcement and about Australia's acquisition of nuclear-powered but conventionally-armed submarines. It is the single-biggest investment in our defence capability in the history of our Commonwealth. It represents a transformational moment for our nation, for our Defence Force and for our entire economy. The agreement will strengthen Australia's national security and contribute to regional stability and prosperity in response to unprecedented strategic challenges and economic transformation. It will build a future made in Australia, which is a key component of what we took to the Australian public in last year's federal election. Coming out of this agreement there will be record investments in defence, skills, jobs and infrastructure. It will deliver superior capability and ensure that there is no capability gap after a decade of inaction and mismanagement, particularly in relation to submarines, from those opposite. The Japanese submarine deal and the French submarine deal were both quashed—wasting not only a decade but also much taxpayer funds. The AUKUS agreement is broken up into three stages. Firstly, we'll see increased visits of US submarines, commencing in 2023, and UK submarines from 2026 and, beginning in 2027, rotations of both UK and US submarines to Australia. Secondly, from as early as the 2030s, Australia will take delivery of three US Virginia class nuclear-powered but conventionally-armed submarines, ensuring that there is no capability gap. Thirdly, Australia and the UK will deliver the SSN-AUKUS, a new, conventionally armed, nuclear powered submarine, based on a UK design and incorporating cutting edge Australian, UK and US technologies. The UK will deliver its own first SSN-AUKUS in the late 2030s, with the first SSN-AUKUS built in Australia delivered in the early 2040s. It's the single biggest defence capability acquisition in our history and, given the strategic circumstances, it is not wise for us not to go down this path. Out to 2055, we currently estimate spending on this program to amount to around 0.15 percentage points of GDP per year averaged out over the life of the program. This will contribute to the government's commitment to lift defence spending to over two per cent of GDP per year. What you will see in the May budget is the initial estimate of $9 billion over the forward estimates to begin implementation of the pathway that I've just described. Over the forward estimates, we estimate $6 billion will be invested in Australian industry and workforce. We will invest at least $2 billion in South Australia and a billion in infrastructure in Western Australia. An estimated $30 billion will be invested in Australia's industrial base alone, out to 2055, and that will reverberate through other industries, bringing enormous benefits. Nuclear powered submarines will be an Australian sovereign capability commanded by the Royal Australian Navy and sustained by Australians in Australian shipyards. AUKUS will create around 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years, across industry, the ADF and the APS. While many of those will be in South Australia and Western Australia, for the construction of the SSN AUKUS, many other jobs will be created for Australians across a range of sectors of our economy, including in advanced technologies. It is understandable that much of the media attention on AUKUS to date has focused on the nuclear submarine element, but the technology and innovation dividend that will come from the second pillar, pillar 2, should not be underestimated—especially for the jobs that it'll drive in my electorate. The NT economy is already gearing up to reap the benefits of AUKUS and of pillar 2 in particular. Last year, for example, the Northern Territory government, Charles Darwin University, RMIT and the federal government worked together to establish the first defence and aerospace digital Industry 4.0 Testlab at CDU. There is lots more to come for the Territory in both pillar 1 and pillar 2. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:07